<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_04_2042204</id>
	<title>Police Want Fast Track To Get At Your Private Data</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265277300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"According to this story on CNET, police again are pushing for new laws <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578\_3-10446503-38.html">requiring ISPs and webmail providers to store users' private data for five years</a> and also want a new electronic way of speeding up subpoenas and search warrants via police-only encrypted portals at all ISPs and webmail providers."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " According to this story on CNET , police again are pushing for new laws requiring ISPs and webmail providers to store users ' private data for five years and also want a new electronic way of speeding up subpoenas and search warrants via police-only encrypted portals at all ISPs and webmail providers .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "According to this story on CNET, police again are pushing for new laws requiring ISPs and webmail providers to store users' private data for five years and also want a new electronic way of speeding up subpoenas and search warrants via police-only encrypted portals at all ISPs and webmail providers.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027736</id>
	<title>Police-only encrypted portals???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265281800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Police-only encrypted portals?</p><p>Hmmmm... sounds like a challenge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Police-only encrypted portals ? Hmmmm... sounds like a challenge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Police-only encrypted portals?Hmmmm... sounds like a challenge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028270</id>
	<title>Duh</title>
	<author>DeanFox</author>
	<datestamp>1265284500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
tl;dr: Stumbled upon or unsolicited - fine.  Active investigation targeted request - search warrant.
<br> <br>
What I'm told (IANAL) is they don't need a search warrant if they walk into a hardware store and ask to see all the receipts for January 12th - so long as the business owner says "sure - here you go..."  So, 99\% of officers responded that they would like to login and search a site's entire database from their desk.  Duh, oh course they want it.  Who wouldn't?
<br> <br>
In other news 99\% of the employees I polled in my office would like to have unfettered access to our payroll system.
<br> <br>
I would like to see the rules of evidence tightened to exclude data requested in this manner whether by a generic FAX up to and including a sticky note with the suspects name on it.  If police stumble upon evidence in the course of their duties or information is offered to them unsolicited that's one thing.  But if they're actively requesting information about a particular suspect - my opinion is it should require a search warrant that's fully vetted by the courts stipulating the search parameters.
<br> <br>
This has always been a sticking point with investigators.  They want full access to anything and everything at their discretion with zero oversight.  No surprise when polled that's what they want.  It's my opinion the state should not be able to buy a subscription to a private company like LexisNexis and be able to use that information.  Not without a search warrant.
<br> <br>
-[d]-</htmltext>
<tokenext>tl ; dr : Stumbled upon or unsolicited - fine .
Active investigation targeted request - search warrant .
What I 'm told ( IANAL ) is they do n't need a search warrant if they walk into a hardware store and ask to see all the receipts for January 12th - so long as the business owner says " sure - here you go... " So , 99 \ % of officers responded that they would like to login and search a site 's entire database from their desk .
Duh , oh course they want it .
Who would n't ?
In other news 99 \ % of the employees I polled in my office would like to have unfettered access to our payroll system .
I would like to see the rules of evidence tightened to exclude data requested in this manner whether by a generic FAX up to and including a sticky note with the suspects name on it .
If police stumble upon evidence in the course of their duties or information is offered to them unsolicited that 's one thing .
But if they 're actively requesting information about a particular suspect - my opinion is it should require a search warrant that 's fully vetted by the courts stipulating the search parameters .
This has always been a sticking point with investigators .
They want full access to anything and everything at their discretion with zero oversight .
No surprise when polled that 's what they want .
It 's my opinion the state should not be able to buy a subscription to a private company like LexisNexis and be able to use that information .
Not without a search warrant .
- [ d ] -</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
tl;dr: Stumbled upon or unsolicited - fine.
Active investigation targeted request - search warrant.
What I'm told (IANAL) is they don't need a search warrant if they walk into a hardware store and ask to see all the receipts for January 12th - so long as the business owner says "sure - here you go..."  So, 99\% of officers responded that they would like to login and search a site's entire database from their desk.
Duh, oh course they want it.
Who wouldn't?
In other news 99\% of the employees I polled in my office would like to have unfettered access to our payroll system.
I would like to see the rules of evidence tightened to exclude data requested in this manner whether by a generic FAX up to and including a sticky note with the suspects name on it.
If police stumble upon evidence in the course of their duties or information is offered to them unsolicited that's one thing.
But if they're actively requesting information about a particular suspect - my opinion is it should require a search warrant that's fully vetted by the courts stipulating the search parameters.
This has always been a sticking point with investigators.
They want full access to anything and everything at their discretion with zero oversight.
No surprise when polled that's what they want.
It's my opinion the state should not be able to buy a subscription to a private company like LexisNexis and be able to use that information.
Not without a search warrant.
-[d]-</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028082</id>
	<title>Where to draw the line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265283540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are supposed to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure but where is that line? We're now told we should have no assumption of privacy on the web. The GPS devices in our cars can be used to track us at times with no court order. What privacy rights do we have left? Our thoughts? Even that is limited. I heard of a guy being sued because he had an idea for a piece of software he didn't write down and the company he worked for sued to get the idea. Isn't that "unreasonable"? 'Dear Supreme Court. Please define "Unreasonable" because apparently we all have different definitions of what constitutes unreasonable.' If I post on-line that I think I know what happens on the last episode of "Lost" can I be sued for what's in my head and if I reveal it and I happen to be right have I broken laws and can I be sued?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are supposed to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure but where is that line ?
We 're now told we should have no assumption of privacy on the web .
The GPS devices in our cars can be used to track us at times with no court order .
What privacy rights do we have left ?
Our thoughts ?
Even that is limited .
I heard of a guy being sued because he had an idea for a piece of software he did n't write down and the company he worked for sued to get the idea .
Is n't that " unreasonable " ?
'Dear Supreme Court .
Please define " Unreasonable " because apparently we all have different definitions of what constitutes unreasonable .
' If I post on-line that I think I know what happens on the last episode of " Lost " can I be sued for what 's in my head and if I reveal it and I happen to be right have I broken laws and can I be sued ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are supposed to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure but where is that line?
We're now told we should have no assumption of privacy on the web.
The GPS devices in our cars can be used to track us at times with no court order.
What privacy rights do we have left?
Our thoughts?
Even that is limited.
I heard of a guy being sued because he had an idea for a piece of software he didn't write down and the company he worked for sued to get the idea.
Isn't that "unreasonable"?
'Dear Supreme Court.
Please define "Unreasonable" because apparently we all have different definitions of what constitutes unreasonable.
' If I post on-line that I think I know what happens on the last episode of "Lost" can I be sued for what's in my head and if I reveal it and I happen to be right have I broken laws and can I be sued?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31029792</id>
	<title>Re:NO!</title>
	<author>element-o.p.</author>
	<datestamp>1265293500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Anchorage, Alaska, the municipality already requires business owners to have a lock box near the front door with a key inside used to open said front door...in the event of an emergency, of course.  I imagine it is only a matter of time until they require the same for private residences.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Anchorage , Alaska , the municipality already requires business owners to have a lock box near the front door with a key inside used to open said front door...in the event of an emergency , of course .
I imagine it is only a matter of time until they require the same for private residences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Anchorage, Alaska, the municipality already requires business owners to have a lock box near the front door with a key inside used to open said front door...in the event of an emergency, of course.
I imagine it is only a matter of time until they require the same for private residences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028036</id>
	<title>The verdict</title>
	<author>StillNeedMoreCoffee</author>
	<datestamp>1265283180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, No.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027906</id>
	<title>A real boon for the bad guys.</title>
	<author>OFnow</author>
	<datestamp>1265282640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bad guys are way better at getting this sort of data out of the ISPs<br>than the ISPs are at protecting it.    The scammers are going to love<br>this new data, nicely collecting valid IP addresses, email addresses,<br>and more in convenient form to steal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bad guys are way better at getting this sort of data out of the ISPsthan the ISPs are at protecting it .
The scammers are going to lovethis new data , nicely collecting valid IP addresses , email addresses,and more in convenient form to steal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bad guys are way better at getting this sort of data out of the ISPsthan the ISPs are at protecting it.
The scammers are going to lovethis new data, nicely collecting valid IP addresses, email addresses,and more in convenient form to steal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027928</id>
	<title>Need to cut police spending</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1265282760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can't afford all the police.  Time to just decriminalize some stuff, have speedy death sentences for other stuff, and just have a cheaper justice system.  And, if someone shoots a burglar or a would be home invader, don't give them a bunch of crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We ca n't afford all the police .
Time to just decriminalize some stuff , have speedy death sentences for other stuff , and just have a cheaper justice system .
And , if someone shoots a burglar or a would be home invader , do n't give them a bunch of crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can't afford all the police.
Time to just decriminalize some stuff, have speedy death sentences for other stuff, and just have a cheaper justice system.
And, if someone shoots a burglar or a would be home invader, don't give them a bunch of crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027800</id>
	<title>Nothing can stop them now.</title>
	<author>djfuq</author>
	<datestamp>1265282100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hey pig<br>yeah you<br>hey pig piggy pig pig pig<br>all of my fears came true<br>black and blue and broken bones you left me here I'm all alone<br>my little piggy needed something new</p><p>nothing can stop me now<br>I don't care anymore<br>nothing can stop me now<br>I just don't care</p><p>hey pig<br>nothing's turning out the way I planned<br>hey pig there's a lot of things I hoped you could help me understand<br>what am I supposed to do I lost my shit because of you</p><p>nothing can stop me now<br>I don't care anymore<br>nothing can stop me now<br>I just don't care<br>nothing can stop me now<br>you don't need me anymore</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hey pigyeah youhey pig piggy pig pig pigall of my fears came trueblack and blue and broken bones you left me here I 'm all alonemy little piggy needed something newnothing can stop me nowI do n't care anymorenothing can stop me nowI just do n't carehey pignothing 's turning out the way I plannedhey pig there 's a lot of things I hoped you could help me understandwhat am I supposed to do I lost my shit because of younothing can stop me nowI do n't care anymorenothing can stop me nowI just do n't carenothing can stop me nowyou do n't need me anymore</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hey pigyeah youhey pig piggy pig pig pigall of my fears came trueblack and blue and broken bones you left me here I'm all alonemy little piggy needed something newnothing can stop me nowI don't care anymorenothing can stop me nowI just don't carehey pignothing's turning out the way I plannedhey pig there's a lot of things I hoped you could help me understandwhat am I supposed to do I lost my shit because of younothing can stop me nowI don't care anymorenothing can stop me nowI just don't carenothing can stop me nowyou don't need me anymore</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027778</id>
	<title>Wasn't this what caused the Google hack?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265281980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't a system very similar to the proposed encrypted portal responsible for the Google hack, where the email accounts of many human rights activists were compromised?</p><p>And now they want EVERYONE to have such a system?  Lovely.  Because it's not like those will be hacker-bait or anything...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't a system very similar to the proposed encrypted portal responsible for the Google hack , where the email accounts of many human rights activists were compromised ? And now they want EVERYONE to have such a system ?
Lovely. Because it 's not like those will be hacker-bait or anything.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't a system very similar to the proposed encrypted portal responsible for the Google hack, where the email accounts of many human rights activists were compromised?And now they want EVERYONE to have such a system?
Lovely.  Because it's not like those will be hacker-bait or anything...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027676</id>
	<title>Kevin Mitnick needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265281560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where is Kevin Mitnick when you need him?</p><p>Yo dawg we heard you like wire taps so we put a wire tap in your wire tap so we can hear while you hear.</p><p>A million internets to the first person to crack this system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is Kevin Mitnick when you need him ? Yo dawg we heard you like wire taps so we put a wire tap in your wire tap so we can hear while you hear.A million internets to the first person to crack this system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is Kevin Mitnick when you need him?Yo dawg we heard you like wire taps so we put a wire tap in your wire tap so we can hear while you hear.A million internets to the first person to crack this system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31032406</id>
	<title>Cox doing it right. Law enforcement hates that.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1265362860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The article mentions that law enforcement considers Cox Communications "uncooperative".  That's because <a href="http://www.cox.com/Policy/leainformation/default.asp" title="cox.com">Cox Communications' procedures</a> [cox.com] are legally correct.
</p><p>
Cox insists that all requests go through their Records Custodian in Atlanta.  Local offices aren't allowed to deal with law enforcement.  There's a worksheet to be filled out. "Please complete with all relevant information and fax with court order". Cox flatly refuses to do anything without a court order. They do accept "emergency requests". The "Emergency Request" form requires law enforcement people to sign this:
</p><ul><li>"The requester states, as representative of a governmental entity, that this request relates to an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to a person and the information provided shall not be used for any unlawful or harmful purpose.  Requesting party represents that he or she has the authority to execute this form and agrees to indemnify Cox Communications, its subsidiaries, employees, and agents harmless for any claim, demand, loss, or injury, including attorneys fees brought against Cox by a third party, including the subscriber, as a result of Cox's compliance with this request."</li>
</ul><p>
That makes whomever signs that <i>personally</i> responsible if there's anything illegal about the request.
</p><p>
Then there's billing.  Trap and trace, $2500 for 30 days.  Wiretap, $3500 for 30 days. Inaccurate requests (for non-Cox phones), $25 each.
Payment may be required in advance.  Visa, Master Card, and AMEX accepted. Cox reserves the right to withhold delivery until payment.
</p><p>
Cox <a href="http://news.cnet.com/Some-companies-helped-the-NSA,-but-which/2100-1028\_3-6035305.html" title="cnet.com">refused to cooperate with NSA's warrentless wiretapping program.</a> [cnet.com]
</p><p>
Cox is obeying the law.  Law enforcement hates that when it applies to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article mentions that law enforcement considers Cox Communications " uncooperative " .
That 's because Cox Communications ' procedures [ cox.com ] are legally correct .
Cox insists that all requests go through their Records Custodian in Atlanta .
Local offices are n't allowed to deal with law enforcement .
There 's a worksheet to be filled out .
" Please complete with all relevant information and fax with court order " .
Cox flatly refuses to do anything without a court order .
They do accept " emergency requests " .
The " Emergency Request " form requires law enforcement people to sign this : " The requester states , as representative of a governmental entity , that this request relates to an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to a person and the information provided shall not be used for any unlawful or harmful purpose .
Requesting party represents that he or she has the authority to execute this form and agrees to indemnify Cox Communications , its subsidiaries , employees , and agents harmless for any claim , demand , loss , or injury , including attorneys fees brought against Cox by a third party , including the subscriber , as a result of Cox 's compliance with this request .
" That makes whomever signs that personally responsible if there 's anything illegal about the request .
Then there 's billing .
Trap and trace , $ 2500 for 30 days .
Wiretap , $ 3500 for 30 days .
Inaccurate requests ( for non-Cox phones ) , $ 25 each .
Payment may be required in advance .
Visa , Master Card , and AMEX accepted .
Cox reserves the right to withhold delivery until payment .
Cox refused to cooperate with NSA 's warrentless wiretapping program .
[ cnet.com ] Cox is obeying the law .
Law enforcement hates that when it applies to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The article mentions that law enforcement considers Cox Communications "uncooperative".
That's because Cox Communications' procedures [cox.com] are legally correct.
Cox insists that all requests go through their Records Custodian in Atlanta.
Local offices aren't allowed to deal with law enforcement.
There's a worksheet to be filled out.
"Please complete with all relevant information and fax with court order".
Cox flatly refuses to do anything without a court order.
They do accept "emergency requests".
The "Emergency Request" form requires law enforcement people to sign this:
"The requester states, as representative of a governmental entity, that this request relates to an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to a person and the information provided shall not be used for any unlawful or harmful purpose.
Requesting party represents that he or she has the authority to execute this form and agrees to indemnify Cox Communications, its subsidiaries, employees, and agents harmless for any claim, demand, loss, or injury, including attorneys fees brought against Cox by a third party, including the subscriber, as a result of Cox's compliance with this request.
"

That makes whomever signs that personally responsible if there's anything illegal about the request.
Then there's billing.
Trap and trace, $2500 for 30 days.
Wiretap, $3500 for 30 days.
Inaccurate requests (for non-Cox phones), $25 each.
Payment may be required in advance.
Visa, Master Card, and AMEX accepted.
Cox reserves the right to withhold delivery until payment.
Cox refused to cooperate with NSA's warrentless wiretapping program.
[cnet.com]

Cox is obeying the law.
Law enforcement hates that when it applies to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027876</id>
	<title>Police want...</title>
	<author>pluther</author>
	<datestamp>1265282400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And criminals want to be given everything they want without having to work for it first.</p><p>They both need to grow the fuck up, and leave the rest of us alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And criminals want to be given everything they want without having to work for it first.They both need to grow the fuck up , and leave the rest of us alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And criminals want to be given everything they want without having to work for it first.They both need to grow the fuck up, and leave the rest of us alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31033202</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, coppers, first do this!</title>
	<author>Chowderbags</author>
	<datestamp>1265374500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One more thing:<br> <br>

If it's found that an officer has lied to get a warrant, or blatently ignored the requirement to get a warrant, or collected information outside the scope of the warrant, then they should go to prison. Real actual prison with the rest of the criminals, not a minimum security resort.<br> <br>

Politicians say they want to be tough on crime, I'd like to see them back that up when dealing with those we offer the most trust to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One more thing : If it 's found that an officer has lied to get a warrant , or blatently ignored the requirement to get a warrant , or collected information outside the scope of the warrant , then they should go to prison .
Real actual prison with the rest of the criminals , not a minimum security resort .
Politicians say they want to be tough on crime , I 'd like to see them back that up when dealing with those we offer the most trust to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One more thing: 

If it's found that an officer has lied to get a warrant, or blatently ignored the requirement to get a warrant, or collected information outside the scope of the warrant, then they should go to prison.
Real actual prison with the rest of the criminals, not a minimum security resort.
Politicians say they want to be tough on crime, I'd like to see them back that up when dealing with those we offer the most trust to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31029594</id>
	<title>And inversely..</title>
	<author>Psaakyrn</author>
	<datestamp>1265292360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would also like a fast track to get at the data used to determine that my data is significant, and to sue those who abuse said system. The only way for people to accept loss of privacy, is to reduce abuse of power. (since the whole concept of privacy stems from protecting the people from abuse of power)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would also like a fast track to get at the data used to determine that my data is significant , and to sue those who abuse said system .
The only way for people to accept loss of privacy , is to reduce abuse of power .
( since the whole concept of privacy stems from protecting the people from abuse of power )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would also like a fast track to get at the data used to determine that my data is significant, and to sue those who abuse said system.
The only way for people to accept loss of privacy, is to reduce abuse of power.
(since the whole concept of privacy stems from protecting the people from abuse of power)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31030626</id>
	<title>Its OK with me</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1265300880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All my US ISP proides me with is a connection to the Internet. My sensitive e-mail is hosted overseas. Where US warrants aren't worth squat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All my US ISP proides me with is a connection to the Internet .
My sensitive e-mail is hosted overseas .
Where US warrants are n't worth squat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All my US ISP proides me with is a connection to the Internet.
My sensitive e-mail is hosted overseas.
Where US warrants aren't worth squat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027904</id>
	<title>Re:Well if they're encrypted...</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1265282640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You pay for the ISP that has a legal department that spends money trying to block warrants.</p><p>I'll just encrypt sensitive information before it leaves my damn computer (please note that I do not expect to send any 'sensitive' information from my personal computer anytime in the next 5 years).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You pay for the ISP that has a legal department that spends money trying to block warrants.I 'll just encrypt sensitive information before it leaves my damn computer ( please note that I do not expect to send any 'sensitive ' information from my personal computer anytime in the next 5 years ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You pay for the ISP that has a legal department that spends money trying to block warrants.I'll just encrypt sensitive information before it leaves my damn computer (please note that I do not expect to send any 'sensitive' information from my personal computer anytime in the next 5 years).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028070</id>
	<title>How about</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1265283420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Starting with emails at the White House, and working down from there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Starting with emails at the White House , and working down from there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Starting with emails at the White House, and working down from there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31029192</id>
	<title>Maybe some day they will learn</title>
	<author>sleeping143</author>
	<datestamp>1265289900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that evil will always triumph , because good is dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027926</id>
	<title>Why is it...</title>
	<author>Mister Whirly</author>
	<datestamp>1265282760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is it that these intelligence gathering entities always seem to think that the problem is not enough information? They already have way too much info, and collecting even more isn't going to help. Sifting through the info they have to weed out the useless stuff is what they really should be concentrating on. And hasn't law enforcemnt ever heard of the Wayback Machine?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that these intelligence gathering entities always seem to think that the problem is not enough information ?
They already have way too much info , and collecting even more is n't going to help .
Sifting through the info they have to weed out the useless stuff is what they really should be concentrating on .
And has n't law enforcemnt ever heard of the Wayback Machine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that these intelligence gathering entities always seem to think that the problem is not enough information?
They already have way too much info, and collecting even more isn't going to help.
Sifting through the info they have to weed out the useless stuff is what they really should be concentrating on.
And hasn't law enforcemnt ever heard of the Wayback Machine?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31031250</id>
	<title>The only real private data you have...</title>
	<author>ls671</author>
	<datestamp>1265306220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only real private data you have is the one you keep in your head or write on a piece of paper as long as nobody has access to the said piece of paper.</p><p>Don't get me wrong here, I still encourage privacy online defenders to continue their efforts but the above statement will always remain a fact when you think about it carefully. Electronic data goes with inherent risks for privacy in my humble opinion<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only real private data you have is the one you keep in your head or write on a piece of paper as long as nobody has access to the said piece of paper.Do n't get me wrong here , I still encourage privacy online defenders to continue their efforts but the above statement will always remain a fact when you think about it carefully .
Electronic data goes with inherent risks for privacy in my humble opinion ; - ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only real private data you have is the one you keep in your head or write on a piece of paper as long as nobody has access to the said piece of paper.Don't get me wrong here, I still encourage privacy online defenders to continue their efforts but the above statement will always remain a fact when you think about it carefully.
Electronic data goes with inherent risks for privacy in my humble opinion ;-))</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028324</id>
	<title>Email the President</title>
	<author>StillNeedMoreCoffee</author>
	<datestamp>1265284860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let the administration know what you think.  He has some control over policy and direction. He should know what this community thinks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let the administration know what you think .
He has some control over policy and direction .
He should know what this community thinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let the administration know what you think.
He has some control over policy and direction.
He should know what this community thinks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028228</id>
	<title>This is a surprise?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265284320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Police (or, equivalently, their political masters) ALWAYS want ways to make their job easier or more convenient for THEM, meanwhile YOUR rights be damned!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Police ( or , equivalently , their political masters ) ALWAYS want ways to make their job easier or more convenient for THEM , meanwhile YOUR rights be damned !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Police (or, equivalently, their political masters) ALWAYS want ways to make their job easier or more convenient for THEM, meanwhile YOUR rights be damned!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028722</id>
	<title>Re:A road paved in good intentions</title>
	<author>RichM</author>
	<datestamp>1265287020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Just where is it taking us?</p></div></blockquote><p>
City 17.<br>
The UK with their surveillance society is almost there already.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just where is it taking us ?
City 17 .
The UK with their surveillance society is almost there already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just where is it taking us?
City 17.
The UK with their surveillance society is almost there already.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31034614</id>
	<title>the law is only the law...</title>
	<author>agentultra</author>
	<datestamp>1265386200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... so long as it's enforceable.</p><p>If the majority of ISPs refuse to comply, what could they possibly do about it?</p><p>Nothing.</p><p>But if they start arresting people, then you'll know what kind of country you're living in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... so long as it 's enforceable.If the majority of ISPs refuse to comply , what could they possibly do about it ? Nothing.But if they start arresting people , then you 'll know what kind of country you 're living in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... so long as it's enforceable.If the majority of ISPs refuse to comply, what could they possibly do about it?Nothing.But if they start arresting people, then you'll know what kind of country you're living in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31033470</id>
	<title>that didn't help the CIA with Aldritch Ames</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265377740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich\_Ames" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich\_Ames</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>"Past performance is not indicative of future results".</p><p>It is simply impossible to prove that someone can be trusted.  As an icon of the Right once said, "trust but verify."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich \ _Ames [ wikipedia.org ] " Past performance is not indicative of future results " .It is simply impossible to prove that someone can be trusted .
As an icon of the Right once said , " trust but verify .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich\_Ames [wikipedia.org]"Past performance is not indicative of future results".It is simply impossible to prove that someone can be trusted.
As an icon of the Right once said, "trust but verify.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31033612</id>
	<title>Re:NO!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265379180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha!   You have no idea how it is NOW.</p><p>Many police forces have gone to the local banks and requested REMOTE ACCESS to their video feeds.   Some of the banks have given them this access.</p><p>The idea here is *when* there is a robbery they can watch the live feed.   Why?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha !
You have no idea how it is NOW.Many police forces have gone to the local banks and requested REMOTE ACCESS to their video feeds .
Some of the banks have given them this access.The idea here is * when * there is a robbery they can watch the live feed .
Why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha!
You have no idea how it is NOW.Many police forces have gone to the local banks and requested REMOTE ACCESS to their video feeds.
Some of the banks have given them this access.The idea here is *when* there is a robbery they can watch the live feed.
Why?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31034398</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, coppers, first do this!</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1265385000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a simpler proposal: <b> <i>people in position of power or authority should be held to higher standards</i> </b>.<br>That's it.</p><p>That includes <b> <i>more</i> </b> scrutiny and, yes, <b> <i>harsher</i> </b> penalties.<br>For example, no more "administrative discipline" for police officers or government officials.  If they do something that a regular citizen would go to jail for, they should always expect to get a harsher sentence.</p><p>This, of course, will never happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a simpler proposal : people in position of power or authority should be held to higher standards .That 's it.That includes more scrutiny and , yes , harsher penalties.For example , no more " administrative discipline " for police officers or government officials .
If they do something that a regular citizen would go to jail for , they should always expect to get a harsher sentence.This , of course , will never happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a simpler proposal:  people in position of power or authority should be held to higher standards .That's it.That includes  more  scrutiny and, yes,  harsher  penalties.For example, no more "administrative discipline" for police officers or government officials.
If they do something that a regular citizen would go to jail for, they should always expect to get a harsher sentence.This, of course, will never happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027888</id>
	<title>Smacks of Corruption.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265282580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"...via police-only encrypted portals at all ISPs and webmail providers.</p></div><p>Er, why don't you just hang a big sign over this system that says "Hack Me!"?  And "police only"?  Like we've never put the words "Police" and "Corruption" together before.  I also like how they use the term "speed up" when referring to the process of obtaining search warrants and subpoenas.  I think what they really mean to say is "go around".</p><p>I can just see it now.  Users with access to this "all-seeing" system bankrolled by lawyers to either "clean" users data, or create some "evidence"...</p><p>The corruption smacks harder than S&amp;M porn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...via police-only encrypted portals at all ISPs and webmail providers.Er , why do n't you just hang a big sign over this system that says " Hack Me ! " ?
And " police only " ?
Like we 've never put the words " Police " and " Corruption " together before .
I also like how they use the term " speed up " when referring to the process of obtaining search warrants and subpoenas .
I think what they really mean to say is " go around " .I can just see it now .
Users with access to this " all-seeing " system bankrolled by lawyers to either " clean " users data , or create some " evidence " ...The corruption smacks harder than S&amp;M porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...via police-only encrypted portals at all ISPs and webmail providers.Er, why don't you just hang a big sign over this system that says "Hack Me!"?
And "police only"?
Like we've never put the words "Police" and "Corruption" together before.
I also like how they use the term "speed up" when referring to the process of obtaining search warrants and subpoenas.
I think what they really mean to say is "go around".I can just see it now.
Users with access to this "all-seeing" system bankrolled by lawyers to either "clean" users data, or create some "evidence"...The corruption smacks harder than S&amp;M porn.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31030634</id>
	<title>Re:NO!</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1265300940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see this as essentially the same as if all private snailmail were opened, scanned, and archived, to be made available to the cops on demand. Or if all phone calls were recorded, archived, and available to the cops on demand.</p><p>It occurs to me that there must already be a lively behind-the-scenes police market for this sort of data, or Cox wouldn't even *have* the complex price structure for providing access to customer data, as cited in a link from TFA.</p><p>As to the keys-to-your-castle thing, they already have that -- it's called a battering ram.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see this as essentially the same as if all private snailmail were opened , scanned , and archived , to be made available to the cops on demand .
Or if all phone calls were recorded , archived , and available to the cops on demand.It occurs to me that there must already be a lively behind-the-scenes police market for this sort of data , or Cox would n't even * have * the complex price structure for providing access to customer data , as cited in a link from TFA.As to the keys-to-your-castle thing , they already have that -- it 's called a battering ram .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see this as essentially the same as if all private snailmail were opened, scanned, and archived, to be made available to the cops on demand.
Or if all phone calls were recorded, archived, and available to the cops on demand.It occurs to me that there must already be a lively behind-the-scenes police market for this sort of data, or Cox wouldn't even *have* the complex price structure for providing access to customer data, as cited in a link from TFA.As to the keys-to-your-castle thing, they already have that -- it's called a battering ram.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31034762</id>
	<title>Re:Cox doing it right. Law enforcement hates that.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265387160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don&rsquo;t care if you <em>do</em> work for Cox... you&rsquo;re a damn good salesman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I don    t care if you do work for Cox... you    re a damn good salesman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don’t care if you do work for Cox... you’re a damn good salesman.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31032406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027868</id>
	<title>Bad bad Idea.</title>
	<author>Asadullah Ahmad</author>
	<datestamp>1265282340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anything that gives too much centralized and easy access to thousands of users' data is a terrible thing to even consider, be it for Police or whatever. </p><p> Law enforcement agencies are not filled with angles who will just stick to a line if they have access like this. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything that gives too much centralized and easy access to thousands of users ' data is a terrible thing to even consider , be it for Police or whatever .
Law enforcement agencies are not filled with angles who will just stick to a line if they have access like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything that gives too much centralized and easy access to thousands of users' data is a terrible thing to even consider, be it for Police or whatever.
Law enforcement agencies are not filled with angles who will just stick to a line if they have access like this. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31029288</id>
	<title>Breaking into wireless networks...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265290500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>has never been easier.. The smart criminals will wardrive and use an innocent person's internet. There would be no traces if done correctly, and the innocent person gets screwed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>has never been easier.. The smart criminals will wardrive and use an innocent person 's internet .
There would be no traces if done correctly , and the innocent person gets screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>has never been easier.. The smart criminals will wardrive and use an innocent person's internet.
There would be no traces if done correctly, and the innocent person gets screwed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31030992</id>
	<title>Take your data elsewhere.</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1265304300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do not store your data on US based servers (or UK based, they may be even worse). Maybe Canada is better? Or how about Sealand, does that still exist? It is really something holding me back to use gmail or google docs or so. I keep all my e-mail on my server, so if any government would want to have a look at it they would have to go through me. I use Debian as server and I do trust them (for being open-source) to not have back doors built in in their distribution. This for the fact they are open source, not a business but a huge group of volunteers, so irregularities will be found and published.
</p><p>I think there is big business to be made to set up in a country that has strong privacy laws: start lobbying some island nation to be more than a tax haven. Have them lay a fat pipe to connect to the rest of the world, and have your data protected there well. No logging allowed for longer than a few months, no specific data retention, maximum permissions for privacy.
</p><p>Oh but wait that will probably a haven for child pornographers as well. And for Al Qaeda. And for $villain-of-the-week.
</p><p>Otherwise just dump it on a server in China or so. Then you don't have to worry. Then you can be sure they will listen in to it. With the US government you can't be sure about that yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do not store your data on US based servers ( or UK based , they may be even worse ) .
Maybe Canada is better ?
Or how about Sealand , does that still exist ?
It is really something holding me back to use gmail or google docs or so .
I keep all my e-mail on my server , so if any government would want to have a look at it they would have to go through me .
I use Debian as server and I do trust them ( for being open-source ) to not have back doors built in in their distribution .
This for the fact they are open source , not a business but a huge group of volunteers , so irregularities will be found and published .
I think there is big business to be made to set up in a country that has strong privacy laws : start lobbying some island nation to be more than a tax haven .
Have them lay a fat pipe to connect to the rest of the world , and have your data protected there well .
No logging allowed for longer than a few months , no specific data retention , maximum permissions for privacy .
Oh but wait that will probably a haven for child pornographers as well .
And for Al Qaeda .
And for $ villain-of-the-week .
Otherwise just dump it on a server in China or so .
Then you do n't have to worry .
Then you can be sure they will listen in to it .
With the US government you ca n't be sure about that yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do not store your data on US based servers (or UK based, they may be even worse).
Maybe Canada is better?
Or how about Sealand, does that still exist?
It is really something holding me back to use gmail or google docs or so.
I keep all my e-mail on my server, so if any government would want to have a look at it they would have to go through me.
I use Debian as server and I do trust them (for being open-source) to not have back doors built in in their distribution.
This for the fact they are open source, not a business but a huge group of volunteers, so irregularities will be found and published.
I think there is big business to be made to set up in a country that has strong privacy laws: start lobbying some island nation to be more than a tax haven.
Have them lay a fat pipe to connect to the rest of the world, and have your data protected there well.
No logging allowed for longer than a few months, no specific data retention, maximum permissions for privacy.
Oh but wait that will probably a haven for child pornographers as well.
And for Al Qaeda.
And for $villain-of-the-week.
Otherwise just dump it on a server in China or so.
Then you don't have to worry.
Then you can be sure they will listen in to it.
With the US government you can't be sure about that yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028056</id>
	<title>S-MIME</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265283300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time to break out S-MIME. That should slow 'em down a bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to break out S-MIME .
That should slow 'em down a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to break out S-MIME.
That should slow 'em down a bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028370</id>
	<title>This will work</title>
	<author>passim</author>
	<datestamp>1265285160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>as well as the police demand for complete access to GPS data on automobiles. As soon as someone said "we'll track the police cars too, for efficiency" - which actually makes sense - they raised hell and and claimed it was unfair.</htmltext>
<tokenext>as well as the police demand for complete access to GPS data on automobiles .
As soon as someone said " we 'll track the police cars too , for efficiency " - which actually makes sense - they raised hell and and claimed it was unfair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as well as the police demand for complete access to GPS data on automobiles.
As soon as someone said "we'll track the police cars too, for efficiency" - which actually makes sense - they raised hell and and claimed it was unfair.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028800</id>
	<title>Re:Need to cut police spending</title>
	<author>Mashiki</author>
	<datestamp>1265287380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know where you live but the number of police to citizens is somewhere between 1:400-900 people, if you're lucky.  There's some cities where I live that have a 1:2000 officer:citizen ratio.  That's pretty common everywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know where you live but the number of police to citizens is somewhere between 1 : 400-900 people , if you 're lucky .
There 's some cities where I live that have a 1 : 2000 officer : citizen ratio .
That 's pretty common everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know where you live but the number of police to citizens is somewhere between 1:400-900 people, if you're lucky.
There's some cities where I live that have a 1:2000 officer:citizen ratio.
That's pretty common everywhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028614</id>
	<title>Common sense..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265286480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your own mail server, encrypt everything, don't use American made mainstream commercial security products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your own mail server , encrypt everything , do n't use American made mainstream commercial security products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your own mail server, encrypt everything, don't use American made mainstream commercial security products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027984</id>
	<title>Re:A road paved in good intentions</title>
	<author>Xelios</author>
	<datestamp>1265283000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't even call this good intention, it's nothing but an attempt to bypass some paper work at the expense of privacy. <br> <br>

They argue that e-mailing a court order is too slow. Well no, e-mailing it is nearly instantaneous, it's the <i>response</i> that's slow. That's a problem that shouldn't require unfettered access to private data to fix. A simple piece of legislation stating ISP's must respond to legal requests by law enforcement within x days should do it.<br> <br>

As for data not being retained long enough, 20 years ago police departments didn't have <i>any</i> web data at all, and they still managed to do their jobs. I'm sure they'd <i>like</i> to have 5 years of retained data to mine, but considering the implications for privacy and security I don't think this convenience is worth it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't even call this good intention , it 's nothing but an attempt to bypass some paper work at the expense of privacy .
They argue that e-mailing a court order is too slow .
Well no , e-mailing it is nearly instantaneous , it 's the response that 's slow .
That 's a problem that should n't require unfettered access to private data to fix .
A simple piece of legislation stating ISP 's must respond to legal requests by law enforcement within x days should do it .
As for data not being retained long enough , 20 years ago police departments did n't have any web data at all , and they still managed to do their jobs .
I 'm sure they 'd like to have 5 years of retained data to mine , but considering the implications for privacy and security I do n't think this convenience is worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't even call this good intention, it's nothing but an attempt to bypass some paper work at the expense of privacy.
They argue that e-mailing a court order is too slow.
Well no, e-mailing it is nearly instantaneous, it's the response that's slow.
That's a problem that shouldn't require unfettered access to private data to fix.
A simple piece of legislation stating ISP's must respond to legal requests by law enforcement within x days should do it.
As for data not being retained long enough, 20 years ago police departments didn't have any web data at all, and they still managed to do their jobs.
I'm sure they'd like to have 5 years of retained data to mine, but considering the implications for privacy and security I don't think this convenience is worth it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31029064</id>
	<title>Re:Tyrants...</title>
	<author>spartacus\_prime</author>
	<datestamp>1265288940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>need to put to death.</p></div><p>Generally, tyrants <b>do</b> put people to death.  That's why they're tyrants.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>need to put to death.Generally , tyrants do put people to death .
That 's why they 're tyrants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>need to put to death.Generally, tyrants do put people to death.
That's why they're tyrants.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31034452</id>
	<title>Re:Tyrants...</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1265385240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The solution everyone is too afraid to talk about is simple: kill the tyrants.</p></div></blockquote><p>Are you willing to set a personal example?<br>Are you ready to be a martyr for your cause?</p><p>If not:<br>Do you expect somebody else to do that in your stead?<br>Do you really believe anything will change?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution everyone is too afraid to talk about is simple : kill the tyrants.Are you willing to set a personal example ? Are you ready to be a martyr for your cause ? If not : Do you expect somebody else to do that in your stead ? Do you really believe anything will change ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution everyone is too afraid to talk about is simple: kill the tyrants.Are you willing to set a personal example?Are you ready to be a martyr for your cause?If not:Do you expect somebody else to do that in your stead?Do you really believe anything will change?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027916</id>
	<title>We've seen the prices wireless companies command</title>
	<author>way2trivial</author>
	<datestamp>1265282700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for cell traces and wiretaps....<br>0<br>it's OBSCENE--  why wouldn't this law automatically include payment for such service/record keeping?</p><p>(yes, I realize that shifts the cost to taxpayers (everyone) instead of consumers (local customers) only)</p><p>but seriously-  when LEOs ask for information they pay the major carriers for the taps....</p><p>why isn't this requirement reimbursable--  what is the different theory?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for cell traces and wiretaps....0it 's OBSCENE-- why would n't this law automatically include payment for such service/record keeping ?
( yes , I realize that shifts the cost to taxpayers ( everyone ) instead of consumers ( local customers ) only ) but seriously- when LEOs ask for information they pay the major carriers for the taps....why is n't this requirement reimbursable-- what is the different theory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for cell traces and wiretaps....0it's OBSCENE--  why wouldn't this law automatically include payment for such service/record keeping?
(yes, I realize that shifts the cost to taxpayers (everyone) instead of consumers (local customers) only)but seriously-  when LEOs ask for information they pay the major carriers for the taps....why isn't this requirement reimbursable--  what is the different theory?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028866</id>
	<title>Webmail?</title>
	<author>Froggels</author>
	<datestamp>1265287680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read through TFA and nowhere is the word "webmail" or "web mail" mentioned at all, and even if it did, what would it mean for those of us who run our own private email servers with web interfaces such as Squirrelmail?  I'm  sure I'm not the only one among all slashdotters who does this and there is absolutely no way in hell that I am going to keep a record of every piece of email ( 99\% of which is spam) that graces my server for 5 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read through TFA and nowhere is the word " webmail " or " web mail " mentioned at all , and even if it did , what would it mean for those of us who run our own private email servers with web interfaces such as Squirrelmail ?
I 'm sure I 'm not the only one among all slashdotters who does this and there is absolutely no way in hell that I am going to keep a record of every piece of email ( 99 \ % of which is spam ) that graces my server for 5 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read through TFA and nowhere is the word "webmail" or "web mail" mentioned at all, and even if it did, what would it mean for those of us who run our own private email servers with web interfaces such as Squirrelmail?
I'm  sure I'm not the only one among all slashdotters who does this and there is absolutely no way in hell that I am going to keep a record of every piece of email ( 99\% of which is spam) that graces my server for 5 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027686</id>
	<title>Well if they're encrypted...</title>
	<author>Manip</author>
	<datestamp>1265281620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These "police portals" are logistical nightmares. Keep in mind that there are hundreds of police forces in the US then take into account security services and other interested parties are we might be talking about the population of a city who need completely secure access to a great deal of private information.</p><p>Then we need to talk about audit trail and legality of these searches. Who monitors the police/security services to make sure they're acting within the law? How do we know someone isn't spying on their ex' or getting stock tips?</p><p>I think the best system for all involved is a dedicated department at large ISPs/hosts who responds to requests, reads the warrant and grants/denies it. If they grant it then they're given a portal for JUST that request which disables when the warrant expires.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These " police portals " are logistical nightmares .
Keep in mind that there are hundreds of police forces in the US then take into account security services and other interested parties are we might be talking about the population of a city who need completely secure access to a great deal of private information.Then we need to talk about audit trail and legality of these searches .
Who monitors the police/security services to make sure they 're acting within the law ?
How do we know someone is n't spying on their ex ' or getting stock tips ? I think the best system for all involved is a dedicated department at large ISPs/hosts who responds to requests , reads the warrant and grants/denies it .
If they grant it then they 're given a portal for JUST that request which disables when the warrant expires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These "police portals" are logistical nightmares.
Keep in mind that there are hundreds of police forces in the US then take into account security services and other interested parties are we might be talking about the population of a city who need completely secure access to a great deal of private information.Then we need to talk about audit trail and legality of these searches.
Who monitors the police/security services to make sure they're acting within the law?
How do we know someone isn't spying on their ex' or getting stock tips?I think the best system for all involved is a dedicated department at large ISPs/hosts who responds to requests, reads the warrant and grants/denies it.
If they grant it then they're given a portal for JUST that request which disables when the warrant expires.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027662</id>
	<title>A road paved in good intentions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265281560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just where is it taking us?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just where is it taking us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just where is it taking us?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028654</id>
	<title>Could they do that...</title>
	<author>JackPepper</author>
	<datestamp>1265286660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>for snail mail as well. You never know when you'll need that year old coupon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>for snail mail as well .
You never know when you 'll need that year old coupon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for snail mail as well.
You never know when you'll need that year old coupon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027666</id>
	<title>F*ck that sh*t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265281560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The electronic version of No-Knock, and we all know how well that worked.</p><p>Why is it that LE types always think speed will improve action?  Don't they know speed kills?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The electronic version of No-Knock , and we all know how well that worked.Why is it that LE types always think speed will improve action ?
Do n't they know speed kills ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The electronic version of No-Knock, and we all know how well that worked.Why is it that LE types always think speed will improve action?
Don't they know speed kills?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31032570</id>
	<title>Re:A road paved in good intentions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265365260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rome, all roads lead to Rome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rome , all roads lead to Rome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rome, all roads lead to Rome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028658</id>
	<title>And now you know....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265286660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why I run my own mail server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why I run my own mail server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why I run my own mail server.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31029702</id>
	<title>Fast track this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265292900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My messages start with this...</p><p><i>-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----</i></p><p>Perhaps that's why the captcha is "infamous"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My messages start with this...-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----Perhaps that 's why the captcha is " infamous "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My messages start with this...-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----Perhaps that's why the captcha is "infamous"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31030446</id>
	<title>The Portal isn't for spying</title>
	<author>jis5</author>
	<datestamp>1265299380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am someone who has responded to law enforcement requests. The process is pretty cumbersome. They deliver a piece of paper to you (since 9/11 they can fax it to you, before that it generally had to be delivered by hand).</p><p>You then do the search (after the attorneys tell you the request/demand is legit) and have to negotiate with them as to which format they can accept and you can produce. All very time consuming.</p><p>I believe what is being asked for here are two separate things:</p><ol>
<li>Longer and standardized record retention. I'm not addressing that here.</li><li>An electronic way to send a subpoena and receive the results. Normally people might think "e-mail", but I suspect they (correctly) fear the lack of security of e-mail. So how about a website run by the ISP where the law enforcement types upload the subpoena (and perhaps answer some standard questions to help categorize the subpoena) and where the ISP can place the data once it is available.</li></ol><p>This is very different then a web portal back door! Now I am sure that there are some folks who would want that, but that isn't what is being asked for here! Btw. I suspect that those who want the "spy" portal are not law enforcement. Law Enforcement wants to receive information that is squeaky clean. If they violate the law in their gathering of information, they can lose their case. They want information so they can prosecute someone, and they want that prosecution to be strong, not weakened by poor evidence gathering.</p><p>So please don't confuse a spying backdoor with a request for a better way to communicate. When you do, it weakens your argument and makes it easier to label you a crackpot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am someone who has responded to law enforcement requests .
The process is pretty cumbersome .
They deliver a piece of paper to you ( since 9/11 they can fax it to you , before that it generally had to be delivered by hand ) .You then do the search ( after the attorneys tell you the request/demand is legit ) and have to negotiate with them as to which format they can accept and you can produce .
All very time consuming.I believe what is being asked for here are two separate things : Longer and standardized record retention .
I 'm not addressing that here.An electronic way to send a subpoena and receive the results .
Normally people might think " e-mail " , but I suspect they ( correctly ) fear the lack of security of e-mail .
So how about a website run by the ISP where the law enforcement types upload the subpoena ( and perhaps answer some standard questions to help categorize the subpoena ) and where the ISP can place the data once it is available.This is very different then a web portal back door !
Now I am sure that there are some folks who would want that , but that is n't what is being asked for here !
Btw. I suspect that those who want the " spy " portal are not law enforcement .
Law Enforcement wants to receive information that is squeaky clean .
If they violate the law in their gathering of information , they can lose their case .
They want information so they can prosecute someone , and they want that prosecution to be strong , not weakened by poor evidence gathering.So please do n't confuse a spying backdoor with a request for a better way to communicate .
When you do , it weakens your argument and makes it easier to label you a crackpot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am someone who has responded to law enforcement requests.
The process is pretty cumbersome.
They deliver a piece of paper to you (since 9/11 they can fax it to you, before that it generally had to be delivered by hand).You then do the search (after the attorneys tell you the request/demand is legit) and have to negotiate with them as to which format they can accept and you can produce.
All very time consuming.I believe what is being asked for here are two separate things:
Longer and standardized record retention.
I'm not addressing that here.An electronic way to send a subpoena and receive the results.
Normally people might think "e-mail", but I suspect they (correctly) fear the lack of security of e-mail.
So how about a website run by the ISP where the law enforcement types upload the subpoena (and perhaps answer some standard questions to help categorize the subpoena) and where the ISP can place the data once it is available.This is very different then a web portal back door!
Now I am sure that there are some folks who would want that, but that isn't what is being asked for here!
Btw. I suspect that those who want the "spy" portal are not law enforcement.
Law Enforcement wants to receive information that is squeaky clean.
If they violate the law in their gathering of information, they can lose their case.
They want information so they can prosecute someone, and they want that prosecution to be strong, not weakened by poor evidence gathering.So please don't confuse a spying backdoor with a request for a better way to communicate.
When you do, it weakens your argument and makes it easier to label you a crackpot!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027716</id>
	<title>Didn't we just learn this lesson?</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1265281800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;A system like this should have strong logins, should require that the request be documented fully, and should produce statistical information so there can be strong oversight</p><p>You cannot make a system strong enough to protect this attractive of a data store. That's how China accessed Gmail accounts, and that was fucking Google. If it can happen at Google, it can happen anywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; A system like this should have strong logins , should require that the request be documented fully , and should produce statistical information so there can be strong oversightYou can not make a system strong enough to protect this attractive of a data store .
That 's how China accessed Gmail accounts , and that was fucking Google .
If it can happen at Google , it can happen anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;A system like this should have strong logins, should require that the request be documented fully, and should produce statistical information so there can be strong oversightYou cannot make a system strong enough to protect this attractive of a data store.
That's how China accessed Gmail accounts, and that was fucking Google.
If it can happen at Google, it can happen anywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028330</id>
	<title>How to setup private e-mail server ???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265284920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everything looks nice on paper however like we learned systems like these are abused and used for unlawful requests.</p><p>Can someone please recommned solution for offline email server. Which provider would be the best? Offshore maybe?</p><p>Is the email stored as it passes through the intermediate servers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything looks nice on paper however like we learned systems like these are abused and used for unlawful requests.Can someone please recommned solution for offline email server .
Which provider would be the best ?
Offshore maybe ? Is the email stored as it passes through the intermediate servers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything looks nice on paper however like we learned systems like these are abused and used for unlawful requests.Can someone please recommned solution for offline email server.
Which provider would be the best?
Offshore maybe?Is the email stored as it passes through the intermediate servers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028192</id>
	<title>Re:Need to cut police spending</title>
	<author>Therilith</author>
	<datestamp>1265284080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, we can't trust the government with our data, but we can trust them to decide who lives and who dies.</p><p>"He was in/near my house" is not a reasonable answer to "Why the hell did you shoot that guy?".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , we ca n't trust the government with our data , but we can trust them to decide who lives and who dies .
" He was in/near my house " is not a reasonable answer to " Why the hell did you shoot that guy ?
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, we can't trust the government with our data, but we can trust them to decide who lives and who dies.
"He was in/near my house" is not a reasonable answer to "Why the hell did you shoot that guy?
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028380</id>
	<title>fuck the cops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265285160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I figured they would want a fast track to the donut shop really though isnt this a violation of my privacy fucking cops nothing better to do then to read peoples email your not the CIA or the FBI your  useless cops get over it and move on</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I figured they would want a fast track to the donut shop really though isnt this a violation of my privacy fucking cops nothing better to do then to read peoples email your not the CIA or the FBI your useless cops get over it and move on</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I figured they would want a fast track to the donut shop really though isnt this a violation of my privacy fucking cops nothing better to do then to read peoples email your not the CIA or the FBI your  useless cops get over it and move on</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027990</id>
	<title>And of course</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1265283060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They want provisions to pay for all the extra storage and have provided a mechanism to verify a judge's sign-off and create a public record of the judicial process, right?</p><p>What are all those crickets doing in here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They want provisions to pay for all the extra storage and have provided a mechanism to verify a judge 's sign-off and create a public record of the judicial process , right ? What are all those crickets doing in here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They want provisions to pay for all the extra storage and have provided a mechanism to verify a judge's sign-off and create a public record of the judicial process, right?What are all those crickets doing in here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028124</id>
	<title>Cypherpunks ho!</title>
	<author>spinkham</author>
	<datestamp>1265283780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess it's time to bring back the cypherpunks.. Somebody light up the Phil Zimmerman beacon!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Only upside I can see is more willingness to use GPG or S/MIME if a law like this gets passed..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess it 's time to bring back the cypherpunks.. Somebody light up the Phil Zimmerman beacon !
; - ) Only upside I can see is more willingness to use GPG or S/MIME if a law like this gets passed. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess it's time to bring back the cypherpunks.. Somebody light up the Phil Zimmerman beacon!
;-)Only upside I can see is more willingness to use GPG or S/MIME if a law like this gets passed..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027592</id>
	<title>Security keeps increasing...</title>
	<author>Jorl17</author>
	<datestamp>1265281140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As well as criminality. Can we see a pattern here?

These measures don't seem to help at all. They are ethically wrong and have been empirically proven useless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As well as criminality .
Can we see a pattern here ?
These measures do n't seem to help at all .
They are ethically wrong and have been empirically proven useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As well as criminality.
Can we see a pattern here?
These measures don't seem to help at all.
They are ethically wrong and have been empirically proven useless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028826</id>
	<title>How to **rew police up?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265287560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use Tor (with a bridge),  pidgin with OTR, overseas/offshore mail or SSH proxy accounts and be safe from surveillance crap. Also, don't bring your phone everywhere with you. At least Skype is still OK (as it's located in Luxemburg).</p><p>Google also deserves a middle finger for helping the police on (mostly warantless) spying on citizens. I would really like to know to which jurisdictions (governments) they provide that "chinese" backdoor Obviously US can do what they want, but for some reason China is exception. As usual it's always "human right activists" (yeah,right) that get hurt when something like this happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use Tor ( with a bridge ) , pidgin with OTR , overseas/offshore mail or SSH proxy accounts and be safe from surveillance crap .
Also , do n't bring your phone everywhere with you .
At least Skype is still OK ( as it 's located in Luxemburg ) .Google also deserves a middle finger for helping the police on ( mostly warantless ) spying on citizens .
I would really like to know to which jurisdictions ( governments ) they provide that " chinese " backdoor Obviously US can do what they want , but for some reason China is exception .
As usual it 's always " human right activists " ( yeah,right ) that get hurt when something like this happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use Tor (with a bridge),  pidgin with OTR, overseas/offshore mail or SSH proxy accounts and be safe from surveillance crap.
Also, don't bring your phone everywhere with you.
At least Skype is still OK (as it's located in Luxemburg).Google also deserves a middle finger for helping the police on (mostly warantless) spying on citizens.
I would really like to know to which jurisdictions (governments) they provide that "chinese" backdoor Obviously US can do what they want, but for some reason China is exception.
As usual it's always "human right activists" (yeah,right) that get hurt when something like this happens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027700</id>
	<title>Tyrants...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265281680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>need to put to death.</p><p>There are going to be a lot of jackasses that comment with "so what you should have nothing to hide" or "that's what you get when you don't run your own email server" etc.</p><p>My question is, how many people would it acceptable if the USPO opened all your mail and made photocopies of it to store for their own use? What about UPS, or FedEx?</p><p>The solution everyone is too afraid to talk about is simple: kill the tyrants.</p><p>

That will send a message to the other tyrants that we are no longer in the position to have our privacy, our freedom, and our liberty trampled upon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>need to put to death.There are going to be a lot of jackasses that comment with " so what you should have nothing to hide " or " that 's what you get when you do n't run your own email server " etc.My question is , how many people would it acceptable if the USPO opened all your mail and made photocopies of it to store for their own use ?
What about UPS , or FedEx ? The solution everyone is too afraid to talk about is simple : kill the tyrants .
That will send a message to the other tyrants that we are no longer in the position to have our privacy , our freedom , and our liberty trampled upon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>need to put to death.There are going to be a lot of jackasses that comment with "so what you should have nothing to hide" or "that's what you get when you don't run your own email server" etc.My question is, how many people would it acceptable if the USPO opened all your mail and made photocopies of it to store for their own use?
What about UPS, or FedEx?The solution everyone is too afraid to talk about is simple: kill the tyrants.
That will send a message to the other tyrants that we are no longer in the position to have our privacy, our freedom, and our liberty trampled upon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027682</id>
	<title>NO!</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1265281620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's no great surprise the cops want this.  But can you imagine the response of banks (and customers) if the police were to demand a special door in every bank so they could waltz in and search the safety deposit boxes at their convenience?  Of homeowners if the cops were to demand a master key to every house to make search warrants easier to execute?</p><p>Unfortunately, when it comes to electronic records, lawmakers seem to think expanding the AT&amp;T NSA rooms to access portals for every cop in the country is a great idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no great surprise the cops want this .
But can you imagine the response of banks ( and customers ) if the police were to demand a special door in every bank so they could waltz in and search the safety deposit boxes at their convenience ?
Of homeowners if the cops were to demand a master key to every house to make search warrants easier to execute ? Unfortunately , when it comes to electronic records , lawmakers seem to think expanding the AT&amp;T NSA rooms to access portals for every cop in the country is a great idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's no great surprise the cops want this.
But can you imagine the response of banks (and customers) if the police were to demand a special door in every bank so they could waltz in and search the safety deposit boxes at their convenience?
Of homeowners if the cops were to demand a master key to every house to make search warrants easier to execute?Unfortunately, when it comes to electronic records, lawmakers seem to think expanding the AT&amp;T NSA rooms to access portals for every cop in the country is a great idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31029256</id>
	<title>this can only catch dumb criminals</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1265290320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's really sad about this kind of thing, CALEA, etc is that even if the cops had all the powers they ask for, it would  <em>only</em> catch the people who don't worry about being caught.  If you're a Serious Criminal (TM) such that you actually know you're breaking laws and you're paranoid enough to think that the cops are out to get you (e.g. Tony Soprano), then you can defeat all these intercept systems by using end-to-end encryption.  Access my mailbox, but you still need to break PGP.</p><p>Given that, and given the fact that cops <strong>say</strong> they're trying to catch the Serious Criminals, right out of the starting gate it sounds like a plan that cannot possibly be work.  Ergo, we assume the cops are lying, and that they just want to fish.  At <em>best</em> they're out to get grandma when she has her friends over for illegal poker games, not the kiddie porn  dealer or pyramid-scheme investment broker who lives next door to her.  Those guys will only get caught if they <em>want to</em> get caught, or if they're just stupid.</p><p>The technology is heavily in favor of privacy.  People who are willing to put up with being a little off the mainstream, can <em>have</em> privacy, right now, and all the governments' TLA agencies in the world combined, don't have enough supercomputing power to overcome that.  The delays in mainstreaming privacy have been shocking and depressing, but even so, <em>eventually</em> people are going to encrypt.  It's just a matter of when.  Everyone is waiting for the "Pearl Harbor" event where a bunch of people get fucked over by ne'er-do-wells because they didn't encrypt, but once that happens and justifies doing the obvious thing, then people are going to close the barn door.  (We just haven't lost enough money/lives <em>yet.</em>) Long term, intercept is <em>doomed</em> as being a useful tool.  The cops need to see this, get over it, and deal with it. The sooner that they do, the sooner we'll stop wasting money on their nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's really sad about this kind of thing , CALEA , etc is that even if the cops had all the powers they ask for , it would only catch the people who do n't worry about being caught .
If you 're a Serious Criminal ( TM ) such that you actually know you 're breaking laws and you 're paranoid enough to think that the cops are out to get you ( e.g .
Tony Soprano ) , then you can defeat all these intercept systems by using end-to-end encryption .
Access my mailbox , but you still need to break PGP.Given that , and given the fact that cops say they 're trying to catch the Serious Criminals , right out of the starting gate it sounds like a plan that can not possibly be work .
Ergo , we assume the cops are lying , and that they just want to fish .
At best they 're out to get grandma when she has her friends over for illegal poker games , not the kiddie porn dealer or pyramid-scheme investment broker who lives next door to her .
Those guys will only get caught if they want to get caught , or if they 're just stupid.The technology is heavily in favor of privacy .
People who are willing to put up with being a little off the mainstream , can have privacy , right now , and all the governments ' TLA agencies in the world combined , do n't have enough supercomputing power to overcome that .
The delays in mainstreaming privacy have been shocking and depressing , but even so , eventually people are going to encrypt .
It 's just a matter of when .
Everyone is waiting for the " Pearl Harbor " event where a bunch of people get fucked over by ne'er-do-wells because they did n't encrypt , but once that happens and justifies doing the obvious thing , then people are going to close the barn door .
( We just have n't lost enough money/lives yet .
) Long term , intercept is doomed as being a useful tool .
The cops need to see this , get over it , and deal with it .
The sooner that they do , the sooner we 'll stop wasting money on their nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's really sad about this kind of thing, CALEA, etc is that even if the cops had all the powers they ask for, it would  only catch the people who don't worry about being caught.
If you're a Serious Criminal (TM) such that you actually know you're breaking laws and you're paranoid enough to think that the cops are out to get you (e.g.
Tony Soprano), then you can defeat all these intercept systems by using end-to-end encryption.
Access my mailbox, but you still need to break PGP.Given that, and given the fact that cops say they're trying to catch the Serious Criminals, right out of the starting gate it sounds like a plan that cannot possibly be work.
Ergo, we assume the cops are lying, and that they just want to fish.
At best they're out to get grandma when she has her friends over for illegal poker games, not the kiddie porn  dealer or pyramid-scheme investment broker who lives next door to her.
Those guys will only get caught if they want to get caught, or if they're just stupid.The technology is heavily in favor of privacy.
People who are willing to put up with being a little off the mainstream, can have privacy, right now, and all the governments' TLA agencies in the world combined, don't have enough supercomputing power to overcome that.
The delays in mainstreaming privacy have been shocking and depressing, but even so, eventually people are going to encrypt.
It's just a matter of when.
Everyone is waiting for the "Pearl Harbor" event where a bunch of people get fucked over by ne'er-do-wells because they didn't encrypt, but once that happens and justifies doing the obvious thing, then people are going to close the barn door.
(We just haven't lost enough money/lives yet.
) Long term, intercept is doomed as being a useful tool.
The cops need to see this, get over it, and deal with it.
The sooner that they do, the sooner we'll stop wasting money on their nonsense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31030152</id>
	<title>hmm, *lightbulb*</title>
	<author>a\_fuzzyduck</author>
	<datestamp>1265296380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>sounds like a good excuse for someone to steal some copper's identity...</htmltext>
<tokenext>sounds like a good excuse for someone to steal some copper 's identity.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sounds like a good excuse for someone to steal some copper's identity...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31031652</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, coppers, first do this!</title>
	<author>SheeEttin</author>
	<datestamp>1265309280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If those conditions are met, then I'll gladly comply with your requests for private data.</p></div></blockquote><p>
That might be all you want, but I'm wouldn't give them shit if they didn't have a warrant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If those conditions are met , then I 'll gladly comply with your requests for private data .
That might be all you want , but I 'm would n't give them shit if they did n't have a warrant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If those conditions are met, then I'll gladly comply with your requests for private data.
That might be all you want, but I'm wouldn't give them shit if they didn't have a warrant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028488</id>
	<title>3 different levels of scare</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1265285880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see 3 major issues:</p><p>* the desire for electronic-speed/non-paper efficiency from the police point of view</p><p>* the desire not to have records be routinely destroyed between the receipt of a police request and the time the record is scheduled for destruction, i.e. "almost immediate" data-freezing</p><p>* (not stated, but probably desired) the desire to have historical information available for years.</p><p>Traditional phone companies already keep records of what phone called what phone for 2 years, which IMHO is about 22 months too long.  I'm sure the police would love similar transaction records of who emailed whom and who chatted with whom going back that far, and they would salivate over having the actual content of the communications for that long.</p><p>As a taxpayer, I'm all for increased efficiency as long as it doesn't increase the "efficiency" of illegal or barely-legal-but-inappropriate records requests.  It also makes sense that data-retention requests should be honored as soon as practical, not "oops, we just now got around to processing your request from yesterday, the data you want was purged last night, sorry."</p><p>However, transaction records and other records should not be kept any longer than necessary for billing and other internal processes.  For most services which aren't billed a la carte or per-bit or per-transaction, we are talking days, max, for individual records.  For billed services, they need to be kept until the billing=dispute deadline has passed or until all billing disputes are finalized, or the normal "few days," whichever is later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see 3 major issues : * the desire for electronic-speed/non-paper efficiency from the police point of view * the desire not to have records be routinely destroyed between the receipt of a police request and the time the record is scheduled for destruction , i.e .
" almost immediate " data-freezing * ( not stated , but probably desired ) the desire to have historical information available for years.Traditional phone companies already keep records of what phone called what phone for 2 years , which IMHO is about 22 months too long .
I 'm sure the police would love similar transaction records of who emailed whom and who chatted with whom going back that far , and they would salivate over having the actual content of the communications for that long.As a taxpayer , I 'm all for increased efficiency as long as it does n't increase the " efficiency " of illegal or barely-legal-but-inappropriate records requests .
It also makes sense that data-retention requests should be honored as soon as practical , not " oops , we just now got around to processing your request from yesterday , the data you want was purged last night , sorry .
" However , transaction records and other records should not be kept any longer than necessary for billing and other internal processes .
For most services which are n't billed a la carte or per-bit or per-transaction , we are talking days , max , for individual records .
For billed services , they need to be kept until the billing = dispute deadline has passed or until all billing disputes are finalized , or the normal " few days , " whichever is later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see 3 major issues:* the desire for electronic-speed/non-paper efficiency from the police point of view* the desire not to have records be routinely destroyed between the receipt of a police request and the time the record is scheduled for destruction, i.e.
"almost immediate" data-freezing* (not stated, but probably desired) the desire to have historical information available for years.Traditional phone companies already keep records of what phone called what phone for 2 years, which IMHO is about 22 months too long.
I'm sure the police would love similar transaction records of who emailed whom and who chatted with whom going back that far, and they would salivate over having the actual content of the communications for that long.As a taxpayer, I'm all for increased efficiency as long as it doesn't increase the "efficiency" of illegal or barely-legal-but-inappropriate records requests.
It also makes sense that data-retention requests should be honored as soon as practical, not "oops, we just now got around to processing your request from yesterday, the data you want was purged last night, sorry.
"However, transaction records and other records should not be kept any longer than necessary for billing and other internal processes.
For most services which aren't billed a la carte or per-bit or per-transaction, we are talking days, max, for individual records.
For billed services, they need to be kept until the billing=dispute deadline has passed or until all billing disputes are finalized, or the normal "few days," whichever is later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31032488</id>
	<title>All cut from the same cloth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265363760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As if it were a big surprise that the police want more police powers to produce a police state, the priests want a "priest state" one where society worships and follow the whims of the priests, and the lawyers want their equivalent as well.</p><p>Its almost as if they were all cut from the same cloth, at least mentally speaking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As if it were a big surprise that the police want more police powers to produce a police state , the priests want a " priest state " one where society worships and follow the whims of the priests , and the lawyers want their equivalent as well.Its almost as if they were all cut from the same cloth , at least mentally speaking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As if it were a big surprise that the police want more police powers to produce a police state, the priests want a "priest state" one where society worships and follow the whims of the priests, and the lawyers want their equivalent as well.Its almost as if they were all cut from the same cloth, at least mentally speaking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028650</id>
	<title>Re:NO!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265286660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's no great surprise the cops want this.  But can you imagine the response of banks (and customers) if the police were to demand a special door in every bank so they could waltz in and search the safety deposit boxes at their convenience?.</p></div><p>Two words: Operation Rize, where the London Metropolitan Police went to several secure deposit box depots and did the equivalent of instead of raiding the house of a suspected dealer, raiding each house in the whole apartment block.</p><p>The police didn't get keys when they wanted to strip down entire depots of secure deposit boxes.</p><p>Lacking that, the police instead broke into each and every one and stole every last bit of property in there. Good 'ol Britain, eh?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no great surprise the cops want this .
But can you imagine the response of banks ( and customers ) if the police were to demand a special door in every bank so they could waltz in and search the safety deposit boxes at their convenience ? .Two words : Operation Rize , where the London Metropolitan Police went to several secure deposit box depots and did the equivalent of instead of raiding the house of a suspected dealer , raiding each house in the whole apartment block.The police did n't get keys when they wanted to strip down entire depots of secure deposit boxes.Lacking that , the police instead broke into each and every one and stole every last bit of property in there .
Good 'ol Britain , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's no great surprise the cops want this.
But can you imagine the response of banks (and customers) if the police were to demand a special door in every bank so they could waltz in and search the safety deposit boxes at their convenience?.Two words: Operation Rize, where the London Metropolitan Police went to several secure deposit box depots and did the equivalent of instead of raiding the house of a suspected dealer, raiding each house in the whole apartment block.The police didn't get keys when they wanted to strip down entire depots of secure deposit boxes.Lacking that, the police instead broke into each and every one and stole every last bit of property in there.
Good 'ol Britain, eh?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028314</id>
	<title>Hey, coppers, first do this!</title>
	<author>haruchai</author>
	<datestamp>1265284800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want the keys to the kingdom? Prove you can be trusted</p><p>1.) All police officers, all employees of all police forces that may have any kind access to confidential data and any contractors or consultants<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; must submit to annual interviews including polygraphs regarding their activities, private and professional, past and present.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The Canadian Mounties have a process like this for applicants but I don't think it's done once you become a constable.<br>
&nbsp; 2.) No question is off-limits; all questions must be answered.<br>
&nbsp; 3.) Failure to submit or answer a question will result in dismissal.<br>
&nbsp; 4.) All interviews are to be observed by a panel of witnesses of which several are private citizens<br>
&nbsp; 5.) All (unedited) interviews will be available to the public upon request.</p><p>If those conditions are met, then I'll gladly comply with your requests for private data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want the keys to the kingdom ?
Prove you can be trusted1 .
) All police officers , all employees of all police forces that may have any kind access to confidential data and any contractors or consultants           must submit to annual interviews including polygraphs regarding their activities , private and professional , past and present .
          The Canadian Mounties have a process like this for applicants but I do n't think it 's done once you become a constable .
  2 .
) No question is off-limits ; all questions must be answered .
  3 .
) Failure to submit or answer a question will result in dismissal .
  4 .
) All interviews are to be observed by a panel of witnesses of which several are private citizens   5 .
) All ( unedited ) interviews will be available to the public upon request.If those conditions are met , then I 'll gladly comply with your requests for private data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want the keys to the kingdom?
Prove you can be trusted1.
) All police officers, all employees of all police forces that may have any kind access to confidential data and any contractors or consultants
          must submit to annual interviews including polygraphs regarding their activities, private and professional, past and present.
          The Canadian Mounties have a process like this for applicants but I don't think it's done once you become a constable.
  2.
) No question is off-limits; all questions must be answered.
  3.
) Failure to submit or answer a question will result in dismissal.
  4.
) All interviews are to be observed by a panel of witnesses of which several are private citizens
  5.
) All (unedited) interviews will be available to the public upon request.If those conditions are met, then I'll gladly comply with your requests for private data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2042204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31033612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2042204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31034452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2042204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31030634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2042204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31033202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2042204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31033470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2042204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2042204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31031652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2042204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31034398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2042204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2042204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31029064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2042204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2042204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31034762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31032406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2042204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31032570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2042204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2042204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2042204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2042204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31029792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2042204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2042204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2042204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31034398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31033470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31033202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31031652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2042204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2042204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31034452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31029064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2042204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31032570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2042204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2042204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31032406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31034762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2042204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2042204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2042204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31033612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31030634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31029792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2042204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31027928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2042204.31028800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
