<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_28_2317254</id>
	<title>80\% of Cell Phone Encryption Solutions Insecure</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264677660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Mobile Magazine writes about a blogger named Notrax who has tested <a href="http://infosecurityguard.com/?p=26">15 methods of secure encryption for mobile phones</a>; out of those he found <a href="http://www.mobilemag.com/2010/01/27/voice-encryption-for-mobile-phones-cracked-12-out-of-15-methods-deemed-insecure/">only 3 could not be cracked at some level</a>. '12 of them were "worthless." It's easy to take the software at face value when it "tells you" that the call is secured. But how does someone actually go about being sure that it is secured? Notrax did some digging and discovered he could break in to almost all of them in under 30 minutes.'"</i> (Above link is to a slightly older description of  Notrax's approach; then, it was 9 out of 10 products that were worthless, instead of 12 out of 15.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Mobile Magazine writes about a blogger named Notrax who has tested 15 methods of secure encryption for mobile phones ; out of those he found only 3 could not be cracked at some level .
'12 of them were " worthless .
" It 's easy to take the software at face value when it " tells you " that the call is secured .
But how does someone actually go about being sure that it is secured ?
Notrax did some digging and discovered he could break in to almost all of them in under 30 minutes .
' " ( Above link is to a slightly older description of Notrax 's approach ; then , it was 9 out of 10 products that were worthless , instead of 12 out of 15 .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Mobile Magazine writes about a blogger named Notrax who has tested 15 methods of secure encryption for mobile phones; out of those he found only 3 could not be cracked at some level.
'12 of them were "worthless.
" It's easy to take the software at face value when it "tells you" that the call is secured.
But how does someone actually go about being sure that it is secured?
Notrax did some digging and discovered he could break in to almost all of them in under 30 minutes.
'" (Above link is to a slightly older description of  Notrax's approach; then, it was 9 out of 10 products that were worthless, instead of 12 out of 15.
)</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944300</id>
	<title>Re:I speak in code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sounds like you should try a career at xkcd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sounds like you should try a career at xkcd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sounds like you should try a career at xkcd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943482</id>
	<title>I speak in code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264682100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's so efficient, not even my recipient can make out what I mean.</p><p><i>The Missile from France went down my pants, so I need you to dance and prance</i><br>"Are you breaking up with me?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's so efficient , not even my recipient can make out what I mean.The Missile from France went down my pants , so I need you to dance and prance " Are you breaking up with me ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's so efficient, not even my recipient can make out what I mean.The Missile from France went down my pants, so I need you to dance and prance"Are you breaking up with me?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944808</id>
	<title>They can't know!</title>
	<author>nate nice</author>
	<datestamp>1264691100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If anyone knows what I'm putting on my pizza, I'm FUCKED.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone knows what I 'm putting on my pizza , I 'm FUCKED .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone knows what I'm putting on my pizza, I'm FUCKED.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943754</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Trust Wireless In General</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1264683660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You think that's bad? Wait until you hear about Van Eck phreaking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You think that 's bad ?
Wait until you hear about Van Eck phreaking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think that's bad?
Wait until you hear about Van Eck phreaking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947376</id>
	<title>Re:WORST. ARTICLE. EVER</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1264762260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, are you really that naive, or you have financial interests in some phone<b>^Hy</b> crypto technology?</p></div><p>More likely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , are you really that naive , or you have financial interests in some phone ^ Hy crypto technology ? More likely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, are you really that naive, or you have financial interests in some phone^Hy crypto technology?More likely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30948542</id>
	<title>You know you're old...</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1264776120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...when you think phone encryption and recall devices approximately the size of an ATM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...when you think phone encryption and recall devices approximately the size of an ATM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...when you think phone encryption and recall devices approximately the size of an ATM.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943744</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Trust Wireless In General</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1264683600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the moment, if you have needs that WPA2 doesn't meet, you probably need to worry about Van Eck phreaking too.</p><p>The most important question is not whether you are being paranoid, it is whether you are being paranoid enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the moment , if you have needs that WPA2 does n't meet , you probably need to worry about Van Eck phreaking too.The most important question is not whether you are being paranoid , it is whether you are being paranoid enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the moment, if you have needs that WPA2 doesn't meet, you probably need to worry about Van Eck phreaking too.The most important question is not whether you are being paranoid, it is whether you are being paranoid enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944356</id>
	<title>oh noes!</title>
	<author>stokessd</author>
	<datestamp>1264687740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So somebody could go to a lot of trouble to listen to me talk with one of my geek friends about the iPad or brazing bicycle frames, or audio design or some other totally boring topic that if it was at all interesting would show up on the net somewhere already.  Lord help them if they want to listen in to a conversation with my or my wife's parents.  I'd be bummed if I went to that much trouble for so little return.</p><p>Sheldon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So somebody could go to a lot of trouble to listen to me talk with one of my geek friends about the iPad or brazing bicycle frames , or audio design or some other totally boring topic that if it was at all interesting would show up on the net somewhere already .
Lord help them if they want to listen in to a conversation with my or my wife 's parents .
I 'd be bummed if I went to that much trouble for so little return.Sheldon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So somebody could go to a lot of trouble to listen to me talk with one of my geek friends about the iPad or brazing bicycle frames, or audio design or some other totally boring topic that if it was at all interesting would show up on the net somewhere already.
Lord help them if they want to listen in to a conversation with my or my wife's parents.
I'd be bummed if I went to that much trouble for so little return.Sheldon</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944556</id>
	<title>more feasible to break encryption?</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1264689000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure how much faith I have in this guy as a "security expert" when this is the second paragraph in TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>Well I knew I would not likely be able to break any encryption algorithms such as 256-bit AES which seemed to be the standard among the vendors. Although based on some research studies, distributed computing is making it more feasible to break encryption.</p></div></blockquote><p>He comes within a whisker of implying that AES-256 will be breakable by distributed computing at some point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure how much faith I have in this guy as a " security expert " when this is the second paragraph in TFA : Well I knew I would not likely be able to break any encryption algorithms such as 256-bit AES which seemed to be the standard among the vendors .
Although based on some research studies , distributed computing is making it more feasible to break encryption.He comes within a whisker of implying that AES-256 will be breakable by distributed computing at some point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure how much faith I have in this guy as a "security expert" when this is the second paragraph in TFA:Well I knew I would not likely be able to break any encryption algorithms such as 256-bit AES which seemed to be the standard among the vendors.
Although based on some research studies, distributed computing is making it more feasible to break encryption.He comes within a whisker of implying that AES-256 will be breakable by distributed computing at some point.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30948522</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Trust Wireless In General</title>
	<author>horza</author>
	<datestamp>1264776000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or maybe you aren't special, BitZtream, and nobody cares about you? Just because you are a loser, don't judge the rest of us.</p><p>Phillip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe you are n't special , BitZtream , and nobody cares about you ?
Just because you are a loser , do n't judge the rest of us.Phillip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe you aren't special, BitZtream, and nobody cares about you?
Just because you are a loser, don't judge the rest of us.Phillip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944296</id>
	<title>why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Such a lame article. Wow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Such a lame article .
Wow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such a lame article.
Wow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943874</id>
	<title>Nice try, Notrax...</title>
	<author>zullnero</author>
	<datestamp>1264684440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He might be able to trick someone into throwing a huge amount of money his direction because he proved something everyone knew already, using techniques that really don't prove all that much more than you can get a trojan on a phone, but most folks aren't buying it.  The majority of software solutions for mobile devices tend towards being focused on blocking the "casual" hacker, for example, the friend who picks up your phone when you leave it out somewhere, or the phone you left in the coffee shop that the stranger who finds it might have something interesting on it (or might be good for some calls).  That takes into account the typical use-case scenarios for a mobile device.  Of course that stuff isn't going to block a trojan, because that comes down to the OS running on that phone having enough built in security to make it difficult for it to gain root access, or a virus scanner that runs on that phone (which is painfully hard on your battery life, and most people avoid that solution altogether) that keeps itself properly updated at all times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He might be able to trick someone into throwing a huge amount of money his direction because he proved something everyone knew already , using techniques that really do n't prove all that much more than you can get a trojan on a phone , but most folks are n't buying it .
The majority of software solutions for mobile devices tend towards being focused on blocking the " casual " hacker , for example , the friend who picks up your phone when you leave it out somewhere , or the phone you left in the coffee shop that the stranger who finds it might have something interesting on it ( or might be good for some calls ) .
That takes into account the typical use-case scenarios for a mobile device .
Of course that stuff is n't going to block a trojan , because that comes down to the OS running on that phone having enough built in security to make it difficult for it to gain root access , or a virus scanner that runs on that phone ( which is painfully hard on your battery life , and most people avoid that solution altogether ) that keeps itself properly updated at all times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He might be able to trick someone into throwing a huge amount of money his direction because he proved something everyone knew already, using techniques that really don't prove all that much more than you can get a trojan on a phone, but most folks aren't buying it.
The majority of software solutions for mobile devices tend towards being focused on blocking the "casual" hacker, for example, the friend who picks up your phone when you leave it out somewhere, or the phone you left in the coffee shop that the stranger who finds it might have something interesting on it (or might be good for some calls).
That takes into account the typical use-case scenarios for a mobile device.
Of course that stuff isn't going to block a trojan, because that comes down to the OS running on that phone having enough built in security to make it difficult for it to gain root access, or a virus scanner that runs on that phone (which is painfully hard on your battery life, and most people avoid that solution altogether) that keeps itself properly updated at all times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945594</id>
	<title>Re:Just 80\%?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time\_pad</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time \ _pad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time\_pad</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944834</id>
	<title>Yep...</title>
	<author>msauve</author>
	<datestamp>1264691280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>and if it weren't for the summary here, you'd have no way of knowing that WTF he was reviewing. His article references "Voice Encryption," but nowhere does it mention that he's talking about software interception of cellular or mobile phones. From his description of Flexispy - "simply tap the microphone and it can be used in a wiretap mode to listen in to an active phone conversation or simply as a remote electronic bug for proximity eavesdropping" one might think that it's a hardware solution which wiretaps into the microphone. It's not. There is no "wiretap."</htmltext>
<tokenext>and if it were n't for the summary here , you 'd have no way of knowing that WTF he was reviewing .
His article references " Voice Encryption , " but nowhere does it mention that he 's talking about software interception of cellular or mobile phones .
From his description of Flexispy - " simply tap the microphone and it can be used in a wiretap mode to listen in to an active phone conversation or simply as a remote electronic bug for proximity eavesdropping " one might think that it 's a hardware solution which wiretaps into the microphone .
It 's not .
There is no " wiretap .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and if it weren't for the summary here, you'd have no way of knowing that WTF he was reviewing.
His article references "Voice Encryption," but nowhere does it mention that he's talking about software interception of cellular or mobile phones.
From his description of Flexispy - "simply tap the microphone and it can be used in a wiretap mode to listen in to an active phone conversation or simply as a remote electronic bug for proximity eavesdropping" one might think that it's a hardware solution which wiretaps into the microphone.
It's not.
There is no "wiretap.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944312</id>
	<title>80\% is actually pretty good!</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1264687440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a full 10\% better than Sturgen's Law predicts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a full 10 \ % better than Sturgen 's Law predicts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a full 10\% better than Sturgen's Law predicts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943412</id>
	<title>What's that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264681680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, a lock just keeps an honest man honest?<br> <br>What else is new?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , a lock just keeps an honest man honest ?
What else is new ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, a lock just keeps an honest man honest?
What else is new?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943920</id>
	<title>Selling point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264684620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; then, it was 9 out of 10 products that were worthless, instead of 12 out of 15.)</p><p>So it's an improvement, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; then , it was 9 out of 10 products that were worthless , instead of 12 out of 15 .
) So it 's an improvement , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; then, it was 9 out of 10 products that were worthless, instead of 12 out of 15.
)So it's an improvement, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944040</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Trust Wireless In General</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1264685460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't have any security at all on my wireless network but any traffic I want to protect goes through ssh on all the networks I want to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have any security at all on my wireless network but any traffic I want to protect goes through ssh on all the networks I want to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have any security at all on my wireless network but any traffic I want to protect goes through ssh on all the networks I want to use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944340</id>
	<title>Re:I speak in code</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1264687680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's you?  Well, what do you expect when your cellphone doesn't even broadcast on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers\_station" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">right frequencies</a> [wikipedia.org]...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's you ?
Well , what do you expect when your cellphone does n't even broadcast on the right frequencies [ wikipedia.org ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's you?
Well, what do you expect when your cellphone doesn't even broadcast on the right frequencies [wikipedia.org]...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944686</id>
	<title>Re:Just 80\%?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264689960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>100\% of public encryption (including AES) is insecure, not because you may throw tonnes of resources at it, but because they all have built in back-doors.
<br> <br>
Agh, I know it sounds so completely laughably paranoid and retarded, but its fracking true. Just ask anyone with a TS PV clearance at DSD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>100 \ % of public encryption ( including AES ) is insecure , not because you may throw tonnes of resources at it , but because they all have built in back-doors .
Agh , I know it sounds so completely laughably paranoid and retarded , but its fracking true .
Just ask anyone with a TS PV clearance at DSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100\% of public encryption (including AES) is insecure, not because you may throw tonnes of resources at it, but because they all have built in back-doors.
Agh, I know it sounds so completely laughably paranoid and retarded, but its fracking true.
Just ask anyone with a TS PV clearance at DSD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943372</id>
	<title>Pointless</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1264681500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The way people shout into their phones, you can hear what they say a mile away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The way people shout into their phones , you can hear what they say a mile away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way people shout into their phones, you can hear what they say a mile away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943914</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading article</title>
	<author>PybusJ</author>
	<datestamp>1264684620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my opinion this whole this is a marketing scam for one of the products mentioned.  The things that make me suspicious:</p><p>- "Blogger, hacker and IT security expert Notrax" 's infosecurityguard blog was started in Dec 2009, just before he started his ambitious series of security reviews.</p><p>- There are no details of who he is "for his own safety"</p><p>- He calls the systems he's failed to break "secure" and highlights them in reassuring green to attract you attention (only admitting in the small print that he means he hasn't broken them yet).  This is not the kind of language security researchers use.</p><p>- Most of the the products are "details to be published", including respected software such as Zphone/ZRTP.  Just one shines out as both "secure" and "review available".  That miracle product is PhoneCrypt.  Oooh, I must click on that review now -- oh look at that glowing prose.</p><p>"SecurStar is the company behind PhoneCrypt."  Now I wonder what relation our mysterious, benevolent friend Notrax has to SecurStar.</p><p>To me all the smells lead to a fake marketing blog.  Nice story<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my opinion this whole this is a marketing scam for one of the products mentioned .
The things that make me suspicious : - " Blogger , hacker and IT security expert Notrax " 's infosecurityguard blog was started in Dec 2009 , just before he started his ambitious series of security reviews.- There are no details of who he is " for his own safety " - He calls the systems he 's failed to break " secure " and highlights them in reassuring green to attract you attention ( only admitting in the small print that he means he has n't broken them yet ) .
This is not the kind of language security researchers use.- Most of the the products are " details to be published " , including respected software such as Zphone/ZRTP .
Just one shines out as both " secure " and " review available " .
That miracle product is PhoneCrypt .
Oooh , I must click on that review now -- oh look at that glowing prose .
" SecurStar is the company behind PhoneCrypt .
" Now I wonder what relation our mysterious , benevolent friend Notrax has to SecurStar.To me all the smells lead to a fake marketing blog .
Nice story / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my opinion this whole this is a marketing scam for one of the products mentioned.
The things that make me suspicious:- "Blogger, hacker and IT security expert Notrax" 's infosecurityguard blog was started in Dec 2009, just before he started his ambitious series of security reviews.- There are no details of who he is "for his own safety"- He calls the systems he's failed to break "secure" and highlights them in reassuring green to attract you attention (only admitting in the small print that he means he hasn't broken them yet).
This is not the kind of language security researchers use.- Most of the the products are "details to be published", including respected software such as Zphone/ZRTP.
Just one shines out as both "secure" and "review available".
That miracle product is PhoneCrypt.
Oooh, I must click on that review now -- oh look at that glowing prose.
"SecurStar is the company behind PhoneCrypt.
"  Now I wonder what relation our mysterious, benevolent friend Notrax has to SecurStar.To me all the smells lead to a fake marketing blog.
Nice story /.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944354</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move along</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't let people install trojans on your phone.</p></div><p>If you <i>know</i> it's a Trojan, then by definition it isn't a Trojan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't let people install trojans on your phone.If you know it 's a Trojan , then by definition it is n't a Trojan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't let people install trojans on your phone.If you know it's a Trojan, then by definition it isn't a Trojan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943444</id>
	<title>30 minutes</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1264681860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of my cell calls are less the 10 minutes long.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of my cell calls are less the 10 minutes long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of my cell calls are less the 10 minutes long.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943776</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Trust Wireless In General</title>
	<author>Third Position</author>
	<datestamp>1264683840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why trust any electronic medium? I felt the same way about POTS at least as far back as 1972. Wire-tapping was probably invented the day after the telephone was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why trust any electronic medium ?
I felt the same way about POTS at least as far back as 1972 .
Wire-tapping was probably invented the day after the telephone was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why trust any electronic medium?
I felt the same way about POTS at least as far back as 1972.
Wire-tapping was probably invented the day after the telephone was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944096</id>
	<title>Re:I speak in code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264685880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like a good, one-time encrypting hash function.</p><p>btv tpw rmm nbs fep amy zyb qcp epp lpn lrs qhy nnt hvs nhr mzr lxj rwf rgb rfi fav hgv irc oub exg mcv qmc ltp rwz mhh alv xdz whz ovx rfx tre ith hif vci egq ghl ywg qdt rcy tcr pdu tmp rnr rmn kci jst qie vfp cay ese ynu quf jik gew ljw kbt fup xeu hfb lis nbc vtb mdy zph vkp jee hgr lyy dsj zyu mmn xgm pqp mpi uks gwa fjq hbx qyn lic zjw isb oqb vbh quj eaa fpm smn ndq zdr vhe nmw hwy rmh lty</p><p>The meaning is dubious, but there is an advantage in ambiguity.</p><p>And plausible deniability is built right in... Who the fuck knows?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like a good , one-time encrypting hash function.btv tpw rmm nbs fep amy zyb qcp epp lpn lrs qhy nnt hvs nhr mzr lxj rwf rgb rfi fav hgv irc oub exg mcv qmc ltp rwz mhh alv xdz whz ovx rfx tre ith hif vci egq ghl ywg qdt rcy tcr pdu tmp rnr rmn kci jst qie vfp cay ese ynu quf jik gew ljw kbt fup xeu hfb lis nbc vtb mdy zph vkp jee hgr lyy dsj zyu mmn xgm pqp mpi uks gwa fjq hbx qyn lic zjw isb oqb vbh quj eaa fpm smn ndq zdr vhe nmw hwy rmh ltyThe meaning is dubious , but there is an advantage in ambiguity.And plausible deniability is built right in... Who the fuck knows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like a good, one-time encrypting hash function.btv tpw rmm nbs fep amy zyb qcp epp lpn lrs qhy nnt hvs nhr mzr lxj rwf rgb rfi fav hgv irc oub exg mcv qmc ltp rwz mhh alv xdz whz ovx rfx tre ith hif vci egq ghl ywg qdt rcy tcr pdu tmp rnr rmn kci jst qie vfp cay ese ynu quf jik gew ljw kbt fup xeu hfb lis nbc vtb mdy zph vkp jee hgr lyy dsj zyu mmn xgm pqp mpi uks gwa fjq hbx qyn lic zjw isb oqb vbh quj eaa fpm smn ndq zdr vhe nmw hwy rmh ltyThe meaning is dubious, but there is an advantage in ambiguity.And plausible deniability is built right in... Who the fuck knows?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30949386</id>
	<title>Now where did i ...</title>
	<author>s0litaire</author>
	<datestamp>1264780680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>put that old source code for PGP-Phone...</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>put that old source code for PGP-Phone.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>put that old source code for PGP-Phone...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944288</id>
	<title>WORST. ARTICLE. EVER</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just posted the following comment on this asshole's website:</p><p>Your article is totally misleading.</p><p>You say that you managed to prove those products insecure.</p><p>Well, YOU DIDN'T. The intention of all the products you mentioned is to provide encryption<br>to protect you from someone intercepting your phone call. You didn't test any of this.<br>You just directly accessed the mic on the cellphone. Well, off course you'll get the audio!!</p><p>A little analogous situation to better explain what you did:</p><p>I will prove that this high security reinforced door is totally insecure. I'll get in the house through<br>the window. Oh No! It worked, I'm inside the house and I didn't even touch the door! Those doors<br>are Insecure!</p><p>That's exactly what you did. Those systems encrypt your voice. Your call is secure from interception.<br>If you knew anything about security, you would know this: Physical access is total access.</p><p>You had PHYSICAL access to the phone. Well, off course you where able to "crack" it. Guess what?<br>You could have manually connected the mic cables to an mp3 recorder for all I cared.</p><p>It's like saying "I am going to prove that this OpenBSD-based firewall is insecure, but connecting<br>to the machines behind the firewall with this directly with this ethernet crossover cable".</p><p>So, are you really that naive, or you have financial interests in some phone crypto technology?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just posted the following comment on this asshole 's website : Your article is totally misleading.You say that you managed to prove those products insecure.Well , YOU DID N'T .
The intention of all the products you mentioned is to provide encryptionto protect you from someone intercepting your phone call .
You did n't test any of this.You just directly accessed the mic on the cellphone .
Well , off course you 'll get the audio !
! A little analogous situation to better explain what you did : I will prove that this high security reinforced door is totally insecure .
I 'll get in the house throughthe window .
Oh No !
It worked , I 'm inside the house and I did n't even touch the door !
Those doorsare Insecure ! That 's exactly what you did .
Those systems encrypt your voice .
Your call is secure from interception.If you knew anything about security , you would know this : Physical access is total access.You had PHYSICAL access to the phone .
Well , off course you where able to " crack " it .
Guess what ? You could have manually connected the mic cables to an mp3 recorder for all I cared.It 's like saying " I am going to prove that this OpenBSD-based firewall is insecure , but connectingto the machines behind the firewall with this directly with this ethernet crossover cable " .So , are you really that naive , or you have financial interests in some phone crypto technology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just posted the following comment on this asshole's website:Your article is totally misleading.You say that you managed to prove those products insecure.Well, YOU DIDN'T.
The intention of all the products you mentioned is to provide encryptionto protect you from someone intercepting your phone call.
You didn't test any of this.You just directly accessed the mic on the cellphone.
Well, off course you'll get the audio!
!A little analogous situation to better explain what you did:I will prove that this high security reinforced door is totally insecure.
I'll get in the house throughthe window.
Oh No!
It worked, I'm inside the house and I didn't even touch the door!
Those doorsare Insecure!That's exactly what you did.
Those systems encrypt your voice.
Your call is secure from interception.If you knew anything about security, you would know this: Physical access is total access.You had PHYSICAL access to the phone.
Well, off course you where able to "crack" it.
Guess what?You could have manually connected the mic cables to an mp3 recorder for all I cared.It's like saying "I am going to prove that this OpenBSD-based firewall is insecure, but connectingto the machines behind the firewall with this directly with this ethernet crossover cable".So, are you really that naive, or you have financial interests in some phone crypto technology?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944386</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move along</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while.</p><p>Now that my antivirus found a trojan, it's no longer a trojan?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the stupidest thing I 've heard in a while.Now that my antivirus found a trojan , it 's no longer a trojan ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while.Now that my antivirus found a trojan, it's no longer a trojan?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943360</id>
	<title>yeah, i can hear you now.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264681440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>yeah, i can hear you now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , i can hear you now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, i can hear you now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947950</id>
	<title>Re:I speak in code</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264771020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&lsquo;If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him&rsquo; &mdash; Cardinal Richelieu</p><p>Good luck with that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>   If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men , I will find something in them which will hang him       Cardinal RichelieuGood luck with that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>‘If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him’ — Cardinal RichelieuGood luck with that!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943624</id>
	<title>mo3 *up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264683000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have their moments O*UT\%ER SPACE THE</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have their moments O * UT \ % ER SPACE THE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have their moments O*UT\%ER SPACE THE</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943464</id>
	<title>The solution</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1264681980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Earlyclay itway isway upway otay ethay userway otay useway omesay otherway ormfay ofway obfuscationway</htmltext>
<tokenext>Earlyclay itway isway upway otay ethay userway otay useway omesay otherway ormfay ofway obfuscationway</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Earlyclay itway isway upway otay ethay userway otay useway omesay otherway ormfay ofway obfuscationway</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943810</id>
	<title>100\% of linux fagboys are insecure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264684020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>don't worry linux fags. you're still not as bad as that dick smokers over at the apple camp.</htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't worry linux fags .
you 're still not as bad as that dick smokers over at the apple camp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>don't worry linux fags.
you're still not as bad as that dick smokers over at the apple camp.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943788</id>
	<title>Use one-time pads, with text messages . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264683840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One\_time\_pad
</p><p>One-time pad encoded messages look like total gibberish.
</p><p>People eavesdropping on you, will think that you are just sending Twitter messages . . . total gibberish . . .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One \ _time \ _pad One-time pad encoded messages look like total gibberish .
People eavesdropping on you , will think that you are just sending Twitter messages .
. .
total gibberish .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One\_time\_pad
One-time pad encoded messages look like total gibberish.
People eavesdropping on you, will think that you are just sending Twitter messages .
. .
total gibberish .
. .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944070</id>
	<title>Highly fishy story...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264685640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So we have a hacker that noone has heard from before, who uses a very obvious method (installing a local trojan by having physical access to a phone) and magically, the only product who detects that trojan happens to be made by someone who has been trying to sell a "cellphone trojan remover" before. The guy is named Winfried Hafner. And his company happens to have a nice PR agency lined up to point all the tech journals to that freshly set up blog of this cool hacker who is so much in love with his product. Google Winfried Hafner and Trojans, the whole thing smells of rotten fish...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So we have a hacker that noone has heard from before , who uses a very obvious method ( installing a local trojan by having physical access to a phone ) and magically , the only product who detects that trojan happens to be made by someone who has been trying to sell a " cellphone trojan remover " before .
The guy is named Winfried Hafner .
And his company happens to have a nice PR agency lined up to point all the tech journals to that freshly set up blog of this cool hacker who is so much in love with his product .
Google Winfried Hafner and Trojans , the whole thing smells of rotten fish.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we have a hacker that noone has heard from before, who uses a very obvious method (installing a local trojan by having physical access to a phone) and magically, the only product who detects that trojan happens to be made by someone who has been trying to sell a "cellphone trojan remover" before.
The guy is named Winfried Hafner.
And his company happens to have a nice PR agency lined up to point all the tech journals to that freshly set up blog of this cool hacker who is so much in love with his product.
Google Winfried Hafner and Trojans, the whole thing smells of rotten fish...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945400</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264696980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, so with the right technology in the hands of the hacker, my cell phone has the same security as the old POTS line running into my house.</p><p>Pardon me if I don't freak out about it.  For years all I've needed was a handset and a knife and I could listen in on peoples phone calls.  This is still harder than that.</p><p>Sorry if I'm not concerned about something thats not ever been a problem for me or anyone I've ever known even though it has been trivial to do.</p><p>Yes yes, its wireless and its easier to hide, but guess what, once again I have to point out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT WHAT YOU DO, YOU AREN'T THAT SPECIAL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so with the right technology in the hands of the hacker , my cell phone has the same security as the old POTS line running into my house.Pardon me if I do n't freak out about it .
For years all I 've needed was a handset and a knife and I could listen in on peoples phone calls .
This is still harder than that.Sorry if I 'm not concerned about something thats not ever been a problem for me or anyone I 've ever known even though it has been trivial to do.Yes yes , its wireless and its easier to hide , but guess what , once again I have to point out ... NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT WHAT YOU DO , YOU ARE N'T THAT SPECIAL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so with the right technology in the hands of the hacker, my cell phone has the same security as the old POTS line running into my house.Pardon me if I don't freak out about it.
For years all I've needed was a handset and a knife and I could listen in on peoples phone calls.
This is still harder than that.Sorry if I'm not concerned about something thats not ever been a problem for me or anyone I've ever known even though it has been trivial to do.Yes yes, its wireless and its easier to hide, but guess what, once again I have to point out ... NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT WHAT YOU DO, YOU AREN'T THAT SPECIAL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30963100</id>
	<title>Why it's marketing and why it's wrong by security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264873680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi all,</p><p>i don't know how many of you have read "deeply" about the analysis done on http://infosecurityguard.com .</p><p>I have made a detailed analysis of their initiative and the result is that:</p><p>- it's most probably a camouflage marketing initiative and not a independent security research<br>- they consider *only* a security context where local device has been compromised (no software can be secured in that case)<br>- they do not consider cryptographic security arguments</p><p>Below my analysis on this (read it carefully):</p><p>http://infosecurity.ch/20100130/about-the-voice-encryption-analysis-phonecrypt-can-be-intercepted-serious-security-evaluation-criteria/</p><p>Maybe it's interesting, maybe not, but for sure some facts are very relevant!</p><p>Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi all,i do n't know how many of you have read " deeply " about the analysis done on http : //infosecurityguard.com .I have made a detailed analysis of their initiative and the result is that : - it 's most probably a camouflage marketing initiative and not a independent security research- they consider * only * a security context where local device has been compromised ( no software can be secured in that case ) - they do not consider cryptographic security argumentsBelow my analysis on this ( read it carefully ) : http : //infosecurity.ch/20100130/about-the-voice-encryption-analysis-phonecrypt-can-be-intercepted-serious-security-evaluation-criteria/Maybe it 's interesting , maybe not , but for sure some facts are very relevant ! Fabio Pietrosanti ( naif )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi all,i don't know how many of you have read "deeply" about the analysis done on http://infosecurityguard.com .I have made a detailed analysis of their initiative and the result is that:- it's most probably a camouflage marketing initiative and not a independent security research- they consider *only* a security context where local device has been compromised (no software can be secured in that case)- they do not consider cryptographic security argumentsBelow my analysis on this (read it carefully):http://infosecurity.ch/20100130/about-the-voice-encryption-analysis-phonecrypt-can-be-intercepted-serious-security-evaluation-criteria/Maybe it's interesting, maybe not, but for sure some facts are very relevant!Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943816</id>
	<title>Pfft, call that a hack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264684080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMHO people should use malware / potentially unwanted program PoP and anti-virus software on their phones, problem solved.</p><p>I can't help but wonder which of the 3 remaining vendors Notrax was paid by to 'hack' the other ones...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHO people should use malware / potentially unwanted program PoP and anti-virus software on their phones , problem solved.I ca n't help but wonder which of the 3 remaining vendors Notrax was paid by to 'hack ' the other ones.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHO people should use malware / potentially unwanted program PoP and anti-virus software on their phones, problem solved.I can't help but wonder which of the 3 remaining vendors Notrax was paid by to 'hack' the other ones...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943978</id>
	<title>What good would 'security' be anyway</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1264684980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what if some geek listens in on my phone calls as they're recorded by big brother.  I'm not dumb enough to say anything I want to keep private over a cel phone anyway.  And I'm not even a drug dealer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what if some geek listens in on my phone calls as they 're recorded by big brother .
I 'm not dumb enough to say anything I want to keep private over a cel phone anyway .
And I 'm not even a drug dealer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what if some geek listens in on my phone calls as they're recorded by big brother.
I'm not dumb enough to say anything I want to keep private over a cel phone anyway.
And I'm not even a drug dealer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945466</id>
	<title>Don't let people install trojans??</title>
	<author>hAckz0r</author>
	<datestamp>1264697760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>When dealing with somebody that knows what they are doing, and any major brand smart phone, it takes less than 15 seconds to r00t your phone and start to upload custom software. No 'trojan' required. All that is needed is to know your phones IP address at any point that you are online transferring data (e.g email, web, photo transfers, etc). It only takes 15 seconds, just once, and your phone no longer belongs to you. Security on the current cell phone hardware and OS's are just an after thought. <p>

Even a novice with a little cash can purchase software, and if given physical access for 10 minutes, will own your phone. They will have access to all the data stored on it, your photos, your CC numbers, email, phone logs, and possibly even know where you are if you have a built in GPS on the phone. I have seen where the contents of the phone are compressed into an alternate stream of data in an MPEG4 video file and off loaded across the carrier network. If you think someone around you might be untrustworthy you might want to check your itemized billing records if you can get your hands on them. You may see data network usage you don't remember using. You may also notice your battery running low fairly quickly, or your phone getting warm when not in use. All these can be a clue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When dealing with somebody that knows what they are doing , and any major brand smart phone , it takes less than 15 seconds to r00t your phone and start to upload custom software .
No 'trojan ' required .
All that is needed is to know your phones IP address at any point that you are online transferring data ( e.g email , web , photo transfers , etc ) .
It only takes 15 seconds , just once , and your phone no longer belongs to you .
Security on the current cell phone hardware and OS 's are just an after thought .
Even a novice with a little cash can purchase software , and if given physical access for 10 minutes , will own your phone .
They will have access to all the data stored on it , your photos , your CC numbers , email , phone logs , and possibly even know where you are if you have a built in GPS on the phone .
I have seen where the contents of the phone are compressed into an alternate stream of data in an MPEG4 video file and off loaded across the carrier network .
If you think someone around you might be untrustworthy you might want to check your itemized billing records if you can get your hands on them .
You may see data network usage you do n't remember using .
You may also notice your battery running low fairly quickly , or your phone getting warm when not in use .
All these can be a clue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When dealing with somebody that knows what they are doing, and any major brand smart phone, it takes less than 15 seconds to r00t your phone and start to upload custom software.
No 'trojan' required.
All that is needed is to know your phones IP address at any point that you are online transferring data (e.g email, web, photo transfers, etc).
It only takes 15 seconds, just once, and your phone no longer belongs to you.
Security on the current cell phone hardware and OS's are just an after thought.
Even a novice with a little cash can purchase software, and if given physical access for 10 minutes, will own your phone.
They will have access to all the data stored on it, your photos, your CC numbers, email, phone logs, and possibly even know where you are if you have a built in GPS on the phone.
I have seen where the contents of the phone are compressed into an alternate stream of data in an MPEG4 video file and off loaded across the carrier network.
If you think someone around you might be untrustworthy you might want to check your itemized billing records if you can get your hands on them.
You may see data network usage you don't remember using.
You may also notice your battery running low fairly quickly, or your phone getting warm when not in use.
All these can be a clue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943440</id>
	<title>Nothing to see here, move along</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264681860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>News flash: if someone installs a trojan on your phone, then encrypting your call is insecure.</p><p>No sh*t.  Don't let people install trojans on your phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>News flash : if someone installs a trojan on your phone , then encrypting your call is insecure.No sh * t. Do n't let people install trojans on your phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News flash: if someone installs a trojan on your phone, then encrypting your call is insecure.No sh*t.  Don't let people install trojans on your phone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944318</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move along</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1264687500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No sh*t. Don't let people install trojans on your phone.</p></div><p>You do realize that the cell phone is a slave to the network it connects to, right? Most phones will auto-update their firmware or settings if the network tells it to, and there is usually no way to disable this behavior.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No sh * t. Do n't let people install trojans on your phone.You do realize that the cell phone is a slave to the network it connects to , right ?
Most phones will auto-update their firmware or settings if the network tells it to , and there is usually no way to disable this behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No sh*t. Don't let people install trojans on your phone.You do realize that the cell phone is a slave to the network it connects to, right?
Most phones will auto-update their firmware or settings if the network tells it to, and there is usually no way to disable this behavior.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947186</id>
	<title>Re:WORST. ARTICLE. EVER</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1264759680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And, as could be expected, it seems your comment got deleted, or was never approved for posting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And , as could be expected , it seems your comment got deleted , or was never approved for posting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, as could be expected, it seems your comment got deleted, or was never approved for posting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943516</id>
	<title>Sure, if you install the spy software.</title>
	<author>InlawBiker</author>
	<datestamp>1264682280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This tactic requires you to install software on the target's phone without their knowledge.  That doesn't render the encryption faulty, it's just stealing the voice signal before it gets encrypted.  I like this part from the vendor's web site:

"$PRODUCT\_NAME for iPhone is professional grade spy phone software that takes minutes to install on a jailbroken iPhone, and instantly starts sending data to a secure web account where you can log in and view records..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>This tactic requires you to install software on the target 's phone without their knowledge .
That does n't render the encryption faulty , it 's just stealing the voice signal before it gets encrypted .
I like this part from the vendor 's web site : " $ PRODUCT \ _NAME for iPhone is professional grade spy phone software that takes minutes to install on a jailbroken iPhone , and instantly starts sending data to a secure web account where you can log in and view records... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This tactic requires you to install software on the target's phone without their knowledge.
That doesn't render the encryption faulty, it's just stealing the voice signal before it gets encrypted.
I like this part from the vendor's web site:

"$PRODUCT\_NAME for iPhone is professional grade spy phone software that takes minutes to install on a jailbroken iPhone, and instantly starts sending data to a secure web account where you can log in and view records..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30946314</id>
	<title>Not worthless at all!</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1264706700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those products are hyped as a means to prevent your calls from being intercepted by a third party.  They do indeed protect the call in transit as promised.  The flaw being pointed out is that if the endpoints (the phone) are compromised, you can't guarantee the security of the call.  Well duh, there's a no brainer.  That's like claiming your VPN software isn't secure if someone surreptitiously slipped a keylogger into your computer.</p><p>Did anyone else notice that this seems to be an ad for flexispy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those products are hyped as a means to prevent your calls from being intercepted by a third party .
They do indeed protect the call in transit as promised .
The flaw being pointed out is that if the endpoints ( the phone ) are compromised , you ca n't guarantee the security of the call .
Well duh , there 's a no brainer .
That 's like claiming your VPN software is n't secure if someone surreptitiously slipped a keylogger into your computer.Did anyone else notice that this seems to be an ad for flexispy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those products are hyped as a means to prevent your calls from being intercepted by a third party.
They do indeed protect the call in transit as promised.
The flaw being pointed out is that if the endpoints (the phone) are compromised, you can't guarantee the security of the call.
Well duh, there's a no brainer.
That's like claiming your VPN software isn't secure if someone surreptitiously slipped a keylogger into your computer.Did anyone else notice that this seems to be an ad for flexispy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944280</id>
	<title>Re:The solution</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1264687140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I spiem mn rot 13. Totem sigurmtc.</p></div><p>Lfl errq kf mfib fe mfli EBG 13 jbvccj.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I spiem mn rot 13 .
Totem sigurmtc.Lfl errq kf mfib fe mfli EBG 13 jbvccj .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I spiem mn rot 13.
Totem sigurmtc.Lfl errq kf mfib fe mfli EBG 13 jbvccj.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943476</id>
	<title>I Don't Trust Wireless In General</title>
	<author>smpoole7</author>
	<datestamp>1264682100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Call me paranoid, but I don't. Even wireless networks with WPA2. Too many ways they can be spoofed, or cracked, or hacked, or man-in-the-middle'd. But that's just me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Call me paranoid , but I do n't .
Even wireless networks with WPA2 .
Too many ways they can be spoofed , or cracked , or hacked , or man-in-the-middle 'd .
But that 's just me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call me paranoid, but I don't.
Even wireless networks with WPA2.
Too many ways they can be spoofed, or cracked, or hacked, or man-in-the-middle'd.
But that's just me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943430</id>
	<title>Backdoors != news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264681800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you honestly surprised by this news? Having backdoors in cell phones is a de facto legal requirement for cell phone manufacturers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you honestly surprised by this news ?
Having backdoors in cell phones is a de facto legal requirement for cell phone manufacturers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you honestly surprised by this news?
Having backdoors in cell phones is a de facto legal requirement for cell phone manufacturers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947672</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Trust Wireless In General</title>
	<author>carp3\_noct3m</author>
	<datestamp>1264767240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok first of all, you have no idea who he is or what he does. There are far more practical applications and uses for good cell encryption technology than you seem to be giving credit. Businessmen who deal with trade secrets, government officials or contractors, and any number of other sensitive areas of work, for example often people now do some level of banking on their phones. Often there are materials that are marked as "Confidential" and require little to no official compartmentalization, but still require the person with that knowledge to do his/her best to keep the information out of the public's' hands. (Which is also why we love Wikileak and should donate) Also encryption seems to me to be a vital part of a free society in this modern age, as it is one of the tools used to route around censorship and other Orwellian government controls and repressions of freedom. Also, you statement that "You aren't that special" is eerily close to the "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." argument which has thoroughly been debunked as being complete bullshit by people smarter than me (Bruce Schneier ect) So in effect, you have completely dismissed the idea that a person could find their own information valuable with no sort of reasons given? Even the most mundane of information over a phone could add up to be quite a comprehensive list about a person. Call it the "Google Effect" if you may. Imagine for a second I had recordings of every phone conversation you ever had in the past 6 months, it would be fairly simple to automate grabbing the telling data with minimal manpower, and I could combine information to make a profile of you. Where and who you call, and how often, would probably also tell me the places you do business and where to go to. What kind of travel and what airlines you use. Called your bank? I know you last 4 and your credit card number. Starting to get the picture? Now next time, before just posting a knee-jerk reaction, use that (semi)intelligent brain of your sand form a rational argument. I recommend <a href="http://www.roanestate.edu/owl&amp;writingcenter/OWL/Argument.html" title="roanestate.edu">http://www.roanestate.edu/owl&amp;writingcenter/OWL/Argument.html</a> [roanestate.edu] as a starting point for anyone who tends to post on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. often.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok first of all , you have no idea who he is or what he does .
There are far more practical applications and uses for good cell encryption technology than you seem to be giving credit .
Businessmen who deal with trade secrets , government officials or contractors , and any number of other sensitive areas of work , for example often people now do some level of banking on their phones .
Often there are materials that are marked as " Confidential " and require little to no official compartmentalization , but still require the person with that knowledge to do his/her best to keep the information out of the public 's ' hands .
( Which is also why we love Wikileak and should donate ) Also encryption seems to me to be a vital part of a free society in this modern age , as it is one of the tools used to route around censorship and other Orwellian government controls and repressions of freedom .
Also , you statement that " You are n't that special " is eerily close to the " If you have nothing to hide , you have nothing to fear .
" argument which has thoroughly been debunked as being complete bullshit by people smarter than me ( Bruce Schneier ect ) So in effect , you have completely dismissed the idea that a person could find their own information valuable with no sort of reasons given ?
Even the most mundane of information over a phone could add up to be quite a comprehensive list about a person .
Call it the " Google Effect " if you may .
Imagine for a second I had recordings of every phone conversation you ever had in the past 6 months , it would be fairly simple to automate grabbing the telling data with minimal manpower , and I could combine information to make a profile of you .
Where and who you call , and how often , would probably also tell me the places you do business and where to go to .
What kind of travel and what airlines you use .
Called your bank ?
I know you last 4 and your credit card number .
Starting to get the picture ?
Now next time , before just posting a knee-jerk reaction , use that ( semi ) intelligent brain of your sand form a rational argument .
I recommend http : //www.roanestate.edu/owl&amp;writingcenter/OWL/Argument.html [ roanestate.edu ] as a starting point for anyone who tends to post on / .
often .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok first of all, you have no idea who he is or what he does.
There are far more practical applications and uses for good cell encryption technology than you seem to be giving credit.
Businessmen who deal with trade secrets, government officials or contractors, and any number of other sensitive areas of work, for example often people now do some level of banking on their phones.
Often there are materials that are marked as "Confidential" and require little to no official compartmentalization, but still require the person with that knowledge to do his/her best to keep the information out of the public's' hands.
(Which is also why we love Wikileak and should donate) Also encryption seems to me to be a vital part of a free society in this modern age, as it is one of the tools used to route around censorship and other Orwellian government controls and repressions of freedom.
Also, you statement that "You aren't that special" is eerily close to the "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
" argument which has thoroughly been debunked as being complete bullshit by people smarter than me (Bruce Schneier ect) So in effect, you have completely dismissed the idea that a person could find their own information valuable with no sort of reasons given?
Even the most mundane of information over a phone could add up to be quite a comprehensive list about a person.
Call it the "Google Effect" if you may.
Imagine for a second I had recordings of every phone conversation you ever had in the past 6 months, it would be fairly simple to automate grabbing the telling data with minimal manpower, and I could combine information to make a profile of you.
Where and who you call, and how often, would probably also tell me the places you do business and where to go to.
What kind of travel and what airlines you use.
Called your bank?
I know you last 4 and your credit card number.
Starting to get the picture?
Now next time, before just posting a knee-jerk reaction, use that (semi)intelligent brain of your sand form a rational argument.
I recommend http://www.roanestate.edu/owl&amp;writingcenter/OWL/Argument.html [roanestate.edu] as a starting point for anyone who tends to post on /.
often.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30946454</id>
	<title>Re:Just 80\%?</title>
	<author>genik76</author>
	<datestamp>1264708140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time\_pad" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">One-time pads</a> [wikipedia.org] are absolutely secure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One-time pads [ wikipedia.org ] are absolutely secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One-time pads [wikipedia.org] are absolutely secure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947356</id>
	<title>"all crypto is insecure" -- Wrong!  OTP works</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1264762020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>100\% of encryption is insecure, if you throw enough resources into breaking it.</p></div><p>Suppose I'm thinking of a number x between 1 and 10.  I choose a uniformly random number y between 1 and 10.  I transmit z = (x + y) modulo 10 over the wire, which you get to look at.  Let's say I transmit z = 7.  Which number x am I thinking of?</p><p>No matter what you do, you can do no better than guessing.  You might know that 4 is my favourite number, but that's independent of the value of z.  Seeing the cipher text provides you with no additional information over what you already know.</p><p>It's impractical, because the person decrypting needs to know the y I chose, so I have to send that too, in some way.  You can do quantum key distribution if you have the infrastructure for it (which you don't), or you can give them a 1TB drive full of pre-chosen y-values if you meet with them in person (which you don't if they're ebay/visa/${e-shop}).</p><p>Not <em>all</em> crypto can be broken.  Only well over 99\% of it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>&lt;/pedantic&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>100 \ % of encryption is insecure , if you throw enough resources into breaking it.Suppose I 'm thinking of a number x between 1 and 10 .
I choose a uniformly random number y between 1 and 10 .
I transmit z = ( x + y ) modulo 10 over the wire , which you get to look at .
Let 's say I transmit z = 7 .
Which number x am I thinking of ? No matter what you do , you can do no better than guessing .
You might know that 4 is my favourite number , but that 's independent of the value of z. Seeing the cipher text provides you with no additional information over what you already know.It 's impractical , because the person decrypting needs to know the y I chose , so I have to send that too , in some way .
You can do quantum key distribution if you have the infrastructure for it ( which you do n't ) , or you can give them a 1TB drive full of pre-chosen y-values if you meet with them in person ( which you do n't if they 're ebay/visa/ $ { e-shop } ) .Not all crypto can be broken .
Only well over 99 \ % of it : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100\% of encryption is insecure, if you throw enough resources into breaking it.Suppose I'm thinking of a number x between 1 and 10.
I choose a uniformly random number y between 1 and 10.
I transmit z = (x + y) modulo 10 over the wire, which you get to look at.
Let's say I transmit z = 7.
Which number x am I thinking of?No matter what you do, you can do no better than guessing.
You might know that 4 is my favourite number, but that's independent of the value of z.  Seeing the cipher text provides you with no additional information over what you already know.It's impractical, because the person decrypting needs to know the y I chose, so I have to send that too, in some way.
You can do quantum key distribution if you have the infrastructure for it (which you don't), or you can give them a 1TB drive full of pre-chosen y-values if you meet with them in person (which you don't if they're ebay/visa/${e-shop}).Not all crypto can be broken.
Only well over 99\% of it :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944392</id>
	<title>Re:Just 80\%?</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1264687980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly, its alot easier to break the person, than it is the encryption...  People are weak, just go all Jack Bauer on them, they will talk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , its alot easier to break the person , than it is the encryption... People are weak , just go all Jack Bauer on them , they will talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, its alot easier to break the person, than it is the encryption...  People are weak, just go all Jack Bauer on them, they will talk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944346</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then they're not really solutions, are they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then they 're not really solutions , are they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then they're not really solutions, are they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944382</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move along</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think his video gives a lot of food for thought.</p><p>It's as if an awesome lock for your house doesn't do much good if there is someone hiding on the inside.</p><p>This is a great lesson for my 10 year old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think his video gives a lot of food for thought.It 's as if an awesome lock for your house does n't do much good if there is someone hiding on the inside.This is a great lesson for my 10 year old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think his video gives a lot of food for thought.It's as if an awesome lock for your house doesn't do much good if there is someone hiding on the inside.This is a great lesson for my 10 year old.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947846</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Trust Wireless In General</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264769520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until you're a witness in a criminal or civil investigation.  Or until you blow the whistle on a large corporation.  Or until you start dating an FBI agent's ex-wife.</p><p>Or until you ask some really uncomfortable questions to an up-and-coming political figure on national TV.  Then everybody's interested in your medical records, phone records, and your business records.  Then all of a sudden everybody's like "hey, Joe the Plumber* isn't actually a licensed plumber!  And he hasn't paid his taxes correctly this year!"</p><p>Nobody gives a shit right now.  And maybe I'm boring, but it's not all about me.  It's about the system as a whole, and how it applies to all of us.</p><p>*- Yes, he was a douchebag.  No, the sudden and unpunished violation of his PII was not justified.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until you 're a witness in a criminal or civil investigation .
Or until you blow the whistle on a large corporation .
Or until you start dating an FBI agent 's ex-wife.Or until you ask some really uncomfortable questions to an up-and-coming political figure on national TV .
Then everybody 's interested in your medical records , phone records , and your business records .
Then all of a sudden everybody 's like " hey , Joe the Plumber * is n't actually a licensed plumber !
And he has n't paid his taxes correctly this year !
" Nobody gives a shit right now .
And maybe I 'm boring , but it 's not all about me .
It 's about the system as a whole , and how it applies to all of us .
* - Yes , he was a douchebag .
No , the sudden and unpunished violation of his PII was not justified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until you're a witness in a criminal or civil investigation.
Or until you blow the whistle on a large corporation.
Or until you start dating an FBI agent's ex-wife.Or until you ask some really uncomfortable questions to an up-and-coming political figure on national TV.
Then everybody's interested in your medical records, phone records, and your business records.
Then all of a sudden everybody's like "hey, Joe the Plumber* isn't actually a licensed plumber!
And he hasn't paid his taxes correctly this year!
"Nobody gives a shit right now.
And maybe I'm boring, but it's not all about me.
It's about the system as a whole, and how it applies to all of us.
*- Yes, he was a douchebag.
No, the sudden and unpunished violation of his PII was not justified.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944476</id>
	<title>blah blah "don't attack the encryption"</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1264688520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Blah blah don't attack the encryption; attack how it's used! blah.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blah blah do n't attack the encryption ; attack how it 's used !
blah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blah blah don't attack the encryption; attack how it's used!
blah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943976</id>
	<title>Re:The solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264684920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>V fcrnx va ebg 13. Gbgny frphevgl.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>V fcrnx va ebg 13 .
Gbgny frphevgl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>V fcrnx va ebg 13.
Gbgny frphevgl.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947326</id>
	<title>Where do you see the delusion?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1264761480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[you're] delusional.  The most important fact is that no one actually gives a shit about your phone calls</p></div><p>Parent never said "they're out to get me."  He just said he didn't trust wifi.  I don't <em>trust</em> that no one at my CS dept. Will sniff the wireless network (and my slashdot password)---I'm not certain of it.  But I use it anyways.</p><p>Where do you pick out the delusional thoughts, rather than just fear and mistrust?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ you 're ] delusional .
The most important fact is that no one actually gives a shit about your phone callsParent never said " they 're out to get me .
" He just said he did n't trust wifi .
I do n't trust that no one at my CS dept .
Will sniff the wireless network ( and my slashdot password ) ---I 'm not certain of it .
But I use it anyways.Where do you pick out the delusional thoughts , rather than just fear and mistrust ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[you're] delusional.
The most important fact is that no one actually gives a shit about your phone callsParent never said "they're out to get me.
"  He just said he didn't trust wifi.
I don't trust that no one at my CS dept.
Will sniff the wireless network (and my slashdot password)---I'm not certain of it.
But I use it anyways.Where do you pick out the delusional thoughts, rather than just fear and mistrust?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30954522</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move along</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264757820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They did mention that one or two of the products specifically blocked the outbound call when it detected an application that tried to access the microphone simultaneously when trying to place a call.</p><p>Granted, an external mic could be planted, but that would require opening the casing and placing a mic so as to not be spotted.  A trojan is much easier and, done right, less noticeable on casual inspection.</p><p>It does still smell of product placement tho.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did mention that one or two of the products specifically blocked the outbound call when it detected an application that tried to access the microphone simultaneously when trying to place a call.Granted , an external mic could be planted , but that would require opening the casing and placing a mic so as to not be spotted .
A trojan is much easier and , done right , less noticeable on casual inspection.It does still smell of product placement tho .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did mention that one or two of the products specifically blocked the outbound call when it detected an application that tried to access the microphone simultaneously when trying to place a call.Granted, an external mic could be planted, but that would require opening the casing and placing a mic so as to not be spotted.
A trojan is much easier and, done right, less noticeable on casual inspection.It does still smell of product placement tho.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943538</id>
	<title>Misleading article</title>
	<author>badboy\_tw2002</author>
	<datestamp>1264682400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This guy didn't break any encryption.  He admitted up front he couldn't, except for some vague handwavy stuff about distributed brute force key attacks.  Instead, he installed a trojan on the phone that records the phone conversation.  He didn't even write the trojan.  The awesome software he couldn't crack (the "20\%") were "secure" because it was either different hardware his cool program didn't work for, or some older gear the program didn't run on.  Phew!  I'll make sure to buy those now that I know they're air tight.</p><p>Came for a cool story about breaking over the air phone encryption but all I got was a script kiddie installing software and making grand pronouncements to get pageviews.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy did n't break any encryption .
He admitted up front he could n't , except for some vague handwavy stuff about distributed brute force key attacks .
Instead , he installed a trojan on the phone that records the phone conversation .
He did n't even write the trojan .
The awesome software he could n't crack ( the " 20 \ % " ) were " secure " because it was either different hardware his cool program did n't work for , or some older gear the program did n't run on .
Phew ! I 'll make sure to buy those now that I know they 're air tight.Came for a cool story about breaking over the air phone encryption but all I got was a script kiddie installing software and making grand pronouncements to get pageviews .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy didn't break any encryption.
He admitted up front he couldn't, except for some vague handwavy stuff about distributed brute force key attacks.
Instead, he installed a trojan on the phone that records the phone conversation.
He didn't even write the trojan.
The awesome software he couldn't crack (the "20\%") were "secure" because it was either different hardware his cool program didn't work for, or some older gear the program didn't run on.
Phew!  I'll make sure to buy those now that I know they're air tight.Came for a cool story about breaking over the air phone encryption but all I got was a script kiddie installing software and making grand pronouncements to get pageviews.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943952</id>
	<title>Re:Just 80\%?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264684800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm.</p><p>99\% of encryption is breakable. The other 1\% is a one-time pad.</p><p>And he didn't break any encryption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm.99 \ % of encryption is breakable .
The other 1 \ % is a one-time pad.And he did n't break any encryption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm.99\% of encryption is breakable.
The other 1\% is a one-time pad.And he didn't break any encryption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943574</id>
	<title>Just 80\%?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264682760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>100\% of encryption is insecure, if you throw enough resources into breaking it.
The real question is how much effort is put into the encryption (both human-hours
developing the system, and cpu-cycles doing the math) vs how much effort the
attacker can/will put into breaking it.<br>
<br>
I'm guessing PhoneCrypt (just to pick one from tfa) is breakable if Eve has enough
resources to spend, and is willing to spend them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>100 \ % of encryption is insecure , if you throw enough resources into breaking it .
The real question is how much effort is put into the encryption ( both human-hours developing the system , and cpu-cycles doing the math ) vs how much effort the attacker can/will put into breaking it .
I 'm guessing PhoneCrypt ( just to pick one from tfa ) is breakable if Eve has enough resources to spend , and is willing to spend them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100\% of encryption is insecure, if you throw enough resources into breaking it.
The real question is how much effort is put into the encryption (both human-hours
developing the system, and cpu-cycles doing the math) vs how much effort the
attacker can/will put into breaking it.
I'm guessing PhoneCrypt (just to pick one from tfa) is breakable if Eve has enough
resources to spend, and is willing to spend them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947598</id>
	<title>Isn't that logical?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264766100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure about the laws in the US of A, but here in Europe, there are some legal things to consider.</p><p>You will probably not find anything secure in the market, because there is most of the time a backdoor built in.</p><p>GSM is "encrypted", but this can be switched off remotely for easy interception.<br>Most commercial software have weaknesses, or an escrow key, built-in to decrypt after interception.</p><p>It's not that it is required by law to have this, but when you have build a commercial encryption tool, and the authorities ask for your help to decrypt it because they intercepted communications for some reason, you are required to cooporate.</p><p>If you don't it can be considered as obstruction of law enforcement.</p><p>Many commercial entities don't want to run this risk, and that's why so many of make sure they have the possibility to decrypt. This way there is no chance of "obstruction".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure about the laws in the US of A , but here in Europe , there are some legal things to consider.You will probably not find anything secure in the market , because there is most of the time a backdoor built in.GSM is " encrypted " , but this can be switched off remotely for easy interception.Most commercial software have weaknesses , or an escrow key , built-in to decrypt after interception.It 's not that it is required by law to have this , but when you have build a commercial encryption tool , and the authorities ask for your help to decrypt it because they intercepted communications for some reason , you are required to cooporate.If you do n't it can be considered as obstruction of law enforcement.Many commercial entities do n't want to run this risk , and that 's why so many of make sure they have the possibility to decrypt .
This way there is no chance of " obstruction " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure about the laws in the US of A, but here in Europe, there are some legal things to consider.You will probably not find anything secure in the market, because there is most of the time a backdoor built in.GSM is "encrypted", but this can be switched off remotely for easy interception.Most commercial software have weaknesses, or an escrow key, built-in to decrypt after interception.It's not that it is required by law to have this, but when you have build a commercial encryption tool, and the authorities ask for your help to decrypt it because they intercepted communications for some reason, you are required to cooporate.If you don't it can be considered as obstruction of law enforcement.Many commercial entities don't want to run this risk, and that's why so many of make sure they have the possibility to decrypt.
This way there is no chance of "obstruction".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943620</id>
	<title>Re:The solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264683000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note secure enough: Clearly it is up to the user to use some other form of obfuscation.</p><p>We'll need another approach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note secure enough : Clearly it is up to the user to use some other form of obfuscation.We 'll need another approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note secure enough: Clearly it is up to the user to use some other form of obfuscation.We'll need another approach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945418</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Trust Wireless In General</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264697280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, you're paranoid.  And delusional.</p><p>The most important fact is that no one actually gives a shit about your phone calls so even if they could listen to every word any time they wanted to, it still wouldn't matter.  The sooner you realize you aren't that special, the sooner your paranoia will go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , you 're paranoid .
And delusional.The most important fact is that no one actually gives a shit about your phone calls so even if they could listen to every word any time they wanted to , it still would n't matter .
The sooner you realize you are n't that special , the sooner your paranoia will go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, you're paranoid.
And delusional.The most important fact is that no one actually gives a shit about your phone calls so even if they could listen to every word any time they wanted to, it still wouldn't matter.
The sooner you realize you aren't that special, the sooner your paranoia will go away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945430</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move along</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1264697400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not very creative remember the old <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/10/23/1212248/Of-Encrypted-Hard-Drives-and-Evil-Maids?art\_pos=1" title="slashdot.org"> evil maid</a> [slashdot.org]. Same thing people have been preaching about Linux too. Once the person has root access doesn't matter(or sufficient rights). You have been owned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not very creative remember the old evil maid [ slashdot.org ] .
Same thing people have been preaching about Linux too .
Once the person has root access does n't matter ( or sufficient rights ) .
You have been owned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not very creative remember the old  evil maid [slashdot.org].
Same thing people have been preaching about Linux too.
Once the person has root access doesn't matter(or sufficient rights).
You have been owned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943862</id>
	<title>Obligatory XKCD</title>
	<author>data2</author>
	<datestamp>1264684320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the title says.</p><p>Oblig: <a href="http://xkcd.com/257/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/257/</a> [xkcd.com] [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the title says.Oblig : http : //xkcd.com/257/ [ xkcd.com ] [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the title says.Oblig: http://xkcd.com/257/ [xkcd.com] [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30948522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30946454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30954522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_2317254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2317254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2317254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2317254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30954522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2317254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2317254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30948522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2317254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2317254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2317254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2317254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2317254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30947356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30945594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30946454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2317254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2317254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943976
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30944280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_2317254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_2317254.30943360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
