<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_05_0737210</id>
	<title>GameStop, Other Retailers Subpoenaed Over Credit Card Information Sharing</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1265369160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>New York State's Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, has <a href="http://kotaku.com/5464504/gamestop-among-retailers-subpoenaed-over-deceptive-ads">subpoenaed a number of online retailers</a>, including GameStop, Barnes &amp; Noble, Ticketmaster and Staples, over the way they pass information to marketing firms while processing transactions. MSNBC explains the scenario thus: "You're on the site of a well-known retailer and you make a purchase. As soon as you complete the transaction a pop-up window appears. It offers a discount on your next purchase. Click on the ad and you are automatically redirected to another company's site where you are signed up for a buying club, travel club or credit card protection service. The yearly cost is usually $100 to $145. Here's where things really get smarmy. Even though you did not give that second company any account information, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35221235/ns/business-consumer\_news//">they will bill the credit or debit card number</a> you used to make the original purchase. You didn't have to provide your account number because the 'trusted' retailer gave it to them for a cut of the action." While there is no law preventing this sort of behavior, Cuomo hopes the investigation will pressure these companies to change their ways, or at least inform customers when their information might be shared.</htmltext>
<tokenext>New York State 's Attorney General , Andrew Cuomo , has subpoenaed a number of online retailers , including GameStop , Barnes &amp; Noble , Ticketmaster and Staples , over the way they pass information to marketing firms while processing transactions .
MSNBC explains the scenario thus : " You 're on the site of a well-known retailer and you make a purchase .
As soon as you complete the transaction a pop-up window appears .
It offers a discount on your next purchase .
Click on the ad and you are automatically redirected to another company 's site where you are signed up for a buying club , travel club or credit card protection service .
The yearly cost is usually $ 100 to $ 145 .
Here 's where things really get smarmy .
Even though you did not give that second company any account information , they will bill the credit or debit card number you used to make the original purchase .
You did n't have to provide your account number because the 'trusted ' retailer gave it to them for a cut of the action .
" While there is no law preventing this sort of behavior , Cuomo hopes the investigation will pressure these companies to change their ways , or at least inform customers when their information might be shared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New York State's Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, has subpoenaed a number of online retailers, including GameStop, Barnes &amp; Noble, Ticketmaster and Staples, over the way they pass information to marketing firms while processing transactions.
MSNBC explains the scenario thus: "You're on the site of a well-known retailer and you make a purchase.
As soon as you complete the transaction a pop-up window appears.
It offers a discount on your next purchase.
Click on the ad and you are automatically redirected to another company's site where you are signed up for a buying club, travel club or credit card protection service.
The yearly cost is usually $100 to $145.
Here's where things really get smarmy.
Even though you did not give that second company any account information, they will bill the credit or debit card number you used to make the original purchase.
You didn't have to provide your account number because the 'trusted' retailer gave it to them for a cut of the action.
" While there is no law preventing this sort of behavior, Cuomo hopes the investigation will pressure these companies to change their ways, or at least inform customers when their information might be shared.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31036982</id>
	<title>Re:Legal but dishonest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265397000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Common sense, decency and good old fashioned right and wrong clearly indicate that there should be a law against this.</p></div><p>There already is... it's called fraud.</p><p>We don't need any more laws we just got <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/01/new.laws/index.html" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">40,000 news ones last year</a> [cnn.com].</p><p>It's scary when you can't even drive to work without likely violating dozens of laws you don't even know about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Common sense , decency and good old fashioned right and wrong clearly indicate that there should be a law against this.There already is... it 's called fraud.We do n't need any more laws we just got 40,000 news ones last year [ cnn.com ] .It 's scary when you ca n't even drive to work without likely violating dozens of laws you do n't even know about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Common sense, decency and good old fashioned right and wrong clearly indicate that there should be a law against this.There already is... it's called fraud.We don't need any more laws we just got 40,000 news ones last year [cnn.com].It's scary when you can't even drive to work without likely violating dozens of laws you don't even know about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033160</id>
	<title>Legal but dishonest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265373840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFS:<p><div class="quote"><p>While there is no law preventing this sort of behavior</p></div><p>Well that, right there, would appear to be a fairly large gap in the legal system. Common sense, decency and good old fashioned right and wrong clearly indicate that there <b>should</b> be a law against this.It reminds me of a scam that a site called RedSave.com ran in the UK. Hidden way, way down in the tiny small print of their Terms and Conditions when you made a purchase was a line that stated "We will charge you &pound;20 every month unless you contact us to opt out". Apparently this isn't against the letter of the law, but it sure as hell isn't a good business practice and isn't in the interests of the consumer. It, and the situation from TFA, are examples of cynical, money-grabbing exploitation of customers. One can only hope that a sensible judge has the balls to come down really hard on them, discouraging others from trying these sorts of practices in the future.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFS : While there is no law preventing this sort of behaviorWell that , right there , would appear to be a fairly large gap in the legal system .
Common sense , decency and good old fashioned right and wrong clearly indicate that there should be a law against this.It reminds me of a scam that a site called RedSave.com ran in the UK .
Hidden way , way down in the tiny small print of their Terms and Conditions when you made a purchase was a line that stated " We will charge you   20 every month unless you contact us to opt out " .
Apparently this is n't against the letter of the law , but it sure as hell is n't a good business practice and is n't in the interests of the consumer .
It , and the situation from TFA , are examples of cynical , money-grabbing exploitation of customers .
One can only hope that a sensible judge has the balls to come down really hard on them , discouraging others from trying these sorts of practices in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFS:While there is no law preventing this sort of behaviorWell that, right there, would appear to be a fairly large gap in the legal system.
Common sense, decency and good old fashioned right and wrong clearly indicate that there should be a law against this.It reminds me of a scam that a site called RedSave.com ran in the UK.
Hidden way, way down in the tiny small print of their Terms and Conditions when you made a purchase was a line that stated "We will charge you £20 every month unless you contact us to opt out".
Apparently this isn't against the letter of the law, but it sure as hell isn't a good business practice and isn't in the interests of the consumer.
It, and the situation from TFA, are examples of cynical, money-grabbing exploitation of customers.
One can only hope that a sensible judge has the balls to come down really hard on them, discouraging others from trying these sorts of practices in the future.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034914</id>
	<title>List of sites that do this</title>
	<author>TechwoIf</author>
	<datestamp>1265387940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like to see a website set up that lists sites that do this practice. Hopefully some developer can make a plugin that warn or even block this for firefox and other browsers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like to see a website set up that lists sites that do this practice .
Hopefully some developer can make a plugin that warn or even block this for firefox and other browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like to see a website set up that lists sites that do this practice.
Hopefully some developer can make a plugin that warn or even block this for firefox and other browsers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31036930</id>
	<title>campaigning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265396700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's just running for governor.</p><p>Where do New York politicians get the idea that if they can become governor or mayor of New York City, they're shoo-ins for presidential nominations?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's just running for governor.Where do New York politicians get the idea that if they can become governor or mayor of New York City , they 're shoo-ins for presidential nominations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's just running for governor.Where do New York politicians get the idea that if they can become governor or mayor of New York City, they're shoo-ins for presidential nominations?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033182</id>
	<title>Pretty sure that's illegal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265374200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in most countries outside of the U.S.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in most countries outside of the U.S .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in most countries outside of the U.S.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033228</id>
	<title>Re:PCI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265374680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They've lost permission to accept <b>my</b> credit card. I'll shop elsewhere from now just for thinking that I'd allow this, regardless of restitution and new legal protections.<br> <br>FALITFA ( <a href="http://www.ag.ny.gov/media\_center/2010/jan/jan27a\_10.html" title="ny.gov">http://www.ag.ny.gov/media\_center/2010/jan/jan27a\_10.html</a> [ny.gov] ): Barnes &amp; Noble, Orbitz.com, Buy.com, Ticketmaster.com, MovieTickets.com, FTD.com, Shutterfly.com, 1-800Flowers.com, Avon.com, Budget, Staples.com, Priceline.com, GMAC Mortgage, Classmates.com, Travelocity, Vistaprint, Intelius, Hotwire.com, Expedia/Hotels.com, Columbia House, Pizza Hut and Gamestop/EB Games were subpoenaed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've lost permission to accept my credit card .
I 'll shop elsewhere from now just for thinking that I 'd allow this , regardless of restitution and new legal protections .
FALITFA ( http : //www.ag.ny.gov/media \ _center/2010/jan/jan27a \ _10.html [ ny.gov ] ) : Barnes &amp; Noble , Orbitz.com , Buy.com , Ticketmaster.com , MovieTickets.com , FTD.com , Shutterfly.com , 1-800Flowers.com , Avon.com , Budget , Staples.com , Priceline.com , GMAC Mortgage , Classmates.com , Travelocity , Vistaprint , Intelius , Hotwire.com , Expedia/Hotels.com , Columbia House , Pizza Hut and Gamestop/EB Games were subpoenaed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've lost permission to accept my credit card.
I'll shop elsewhere from now just for thinking that I'd allow this, regardless of restitution and new legal protections.
FALITFA ( http://www.ag.ny.gov/media\_center/2010/jan/jan27a\_10.html [ny.gov] ): Barnes &amp; Noble, Orbitz.com, Buy.com, Ticketmaster.com, MovieTickets.com, FTD.com, Shutterfly.com, 1-800Flowers.com, Avon.com, Budget, Staples.com, Priceline.com, GMAC Mortgage, Classmates.com, Travelocity, Vistaprint, Intelius, Hotwire.com, Expedia/Hotels.com, Columbia House, Pizza Hut and Gamestop/EB Games were subpoenaed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033386</id>
	<title>What we've known for years..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265376600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, that's incredible. I find popups and popunders very invasive, so for years I haven't clicked them on principle. I had no idea that it had gotten this far. <br> <br>I'm going to print off this article (I suggest you do the same) and find the dopey people that I know (the ones who use IE and think sending chain emails is a good idea), thrust it to them and say: "Don't... click... popups!". If that doesn't wake them up, nothing will..<br> <br>
If anyone is interested, I <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1532934&amp;cid=30990786" title="slashdot.org">posted the other day</a> [slashdot.org] about the marvels of Privoxy, which stops a lot of ads, irrespective of browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that 's incredible .
I find popups and popunders very invasive , so for years I have n't clicked them on principle .
I had no idea that it had gotten this far .
I 'm going to print off this article ( I suggest you do the same ) and find the dopey people that I know ( the ones who use IE and think sending chain emails is a good idea ) , thrust it to them and say : " Do n't... click... popups ! " .
If that does n't wake them up , nothing will. . If anyone is interested , I posted the other day [ slashdot.org ] about the marvels of Privoxy , which stops a lot of ads , irrespective of browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that's incredible.
I find popups and popunders very invasive, so for years I haven't clicked them on principle.
I had no idea that it had gotten this far.
I'm going to print off this article (I suggest you do the same) and find the dopey people that I know (the ones who use IE and think sending chain emails is a good idea), thrust it to them and say: "Don't... click... popups!".
If that doesn't wake them up, nothing will.. 
If anyone is interested, I posted the other day [slashdot.org] about the marvels of Privoxy, which stops a lot of ads, irrespective of browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033422</id>
	<title>Re:For once ...</title>
	<author>djdevon3</author>
	<datestamp>1265377020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until you try to use Sandbox or take in a donation without a fee.  If Paypal wasn't so big it would be a joke... wait no... it still is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until you try to use Sandbox or take in a donation without a fee .
If Paypal was n't so big it would be a joke... wait no... it still is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until you try to use Sandbox or take in a donation without a fee.
If Paypal wasn't so big it would be a joke... wait no... it still is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31038558</id>
	<title>How to detect subtle changes in small print</title>
	<author>KWTm</author>
	<datestamp>1265360700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"... you did aut<b>h</b>orize it<b>;</b> it is just in very tiny print somewhere on the form you clicked. Smarmy yes<b>;</b>  illegal, maybe not.</i><br>FTFY.</p><p>I do want to mention a shell script that might be of interest.  It automates the task of looking for subtle changes in Terms and Conditions for those web agreements that you click on for day-to-day banking, etc.  After a while, people get used to clicking "Agree" on long pieces of text in tiny scrolling windows <em>every time</em> they access the bank web site or Internet store.  Ridiculous!  Do you ever see this in physical bricks-and-mortar stores?  Do you have to read through the conditions every time you use a credit card?</p><p>What if someone changes the text subtly one day, and you've been clicking through daily for the past few months?  My script is designed to catch that.  Just highlight and copy the text to clipboard and then run the script (you don't even have to paste the text anywhere).</p><p>This shell script compares what's in the clipboard to text files in a certain directory; in this case it's ~/Documents/terms\_and\_conditions. This is where I would store the T&amp;C text from various web sites. When it finds a similar match, it does a diff to look for minor changes. If there is no exact match, it offers to store the copied text in a new text file so you can compare the current version to future versions.</p><p>It's at my journal.  Hope it helps.  It doesn't obviate the need for having to read the Terms &amp; Conditions at least once, but hopefully it will prevent you from being so bored of reading that you skip over every Terms &amp; Conditions text.</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/journal/227249/detecting-subtle-changes-in-Terms-amp-Conditions" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/journal/227249/detecting-subtle-changes-in-Terms-amp-Conditions</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... you did authorize it ; it is just in very tiny print somewhere on the form you clicked .
Smarmy yes ; illegal , maybe not.FTFY.I do want to mention a shell script that might be of interest .
It automates the task of looking for subtle changes in Terms and Conditions for those web agreements that you click on for day-to-day banking , etc .
After a while , people get used to clicking " Agree " on long pieces of text in tiny scrolling windows every time they access the bank web site or Internet store .
Ridiculous ! Do you ever see this in physical bricks-and-mortar stores ?
Do you have to read through the conditions every time you use a credit card ? What if someone changes the text subtly one day , and you 've been clicking through daily for the past few months ?
My script is designed to catch that .
Just highlight and copy the text to clipboard and then run the script ( you do n't even have to paste the text anywhere ) .This shell script compares what 's in the clipboard to text files in a certain directory ; in this case it 's ~ /Documents/terms \ _and \ _conditions .
This is where I would store the T&amp;C text from various web sites .
When it finds a similar match , it does a diff to look for minor changes .
If there is no exact match , it offers to store the copied text in a new text file so you can compare the current version to future versions.It 's at my journal .
Hope it helps .
It does n't obviate the need for having to read the Terms &amp; Conditions at least once , but hopefully it will prevent you from being so bored of reading that you skip over every Terms &amp; Conditions text.http : //slashdot.org/journal/227249/detecting-subtle-changes-in-Terms-amp-Conditions [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... you did authorize it; it is just in very tiny print somewhere on the form you clicked.
Smarmy yes;  illegal, maybe not.FTFY.I do want to mention a shell script that might be of interest.
It automates the task of looking for subtle changes in Terms and Conditions for those web agreements that you click on for day-to-day banking, etc.
After a while, people get used to clicking "Agree" on long pieces of text in tiny scrolling windows every time they access the bank web site or Internet store.
Ridiculous!  Do you ever see this in physical bricks-and-mortar stores?
Do you have to read through the conditions every time you use a credit card?What if someone changes the text subtly one day, and you've been clicking through daily for the past few months?
My script is designed to catch that.
Just highlight and copy the text to clipboard and then run the script (you don't even have to paste the text anywhere).This shell script compares what's in the clipboard to text files in a certain directory; in this case it's ~/Documents/terms\_and\_conditions.
This is where I would store the T&amp;C text from various web sites.
When it finds a similar match, it does a diff to look for minor changes.
If there is no exact match, it offers to store the copied text in a new text file so you can compare the current version to future versions.It's at my journal.
Hope it helps.
It doesn't obviate the need for having to read the Terms &amp; Conditions at least once, but hopefully it will prevent you from being so bored of reading that you skip over every Terms &amp; Conditions text.http://slashdot.org/journal/227249/detecting-subtle-changes-in-Terms-amp-Conditions [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033960</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty sure that's illegal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265382120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I know the <a href="http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/142" title="accc.gov.au" rel="nofollow">ACCC</a> [accc.gov.au] would be all over this. Does the US have a similar consumer watchdog?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I know the ACCC [ accc.gov.au ] would be all over this .
Does the US have a similar consumer watchdog ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I know the ACCC [accc.gov.au] would be all over this.
Does the US have a similar consumer watchdog?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033338</id>
	<title>Social Games and the Federal Probe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265376060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>with out authorization it is credit card fraud among other things that a DA will throw at me.  If a business gives my information to a third party and the third party charges my credit card then that's just sharing?  I need to start up a couple of businesses.</p></div><p>Apparently <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/11/01/1421253/Scams-and-Social-Gaming" title="slashdot.org">social gaming</a> [slashdot.org] is a great business model for this kind of crap.  The mentioned retailers get you after you make your purchase but when you need more <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/11/12/0512235/Mafia-Wars-CEO-Brags-About-Scamming-Users" title="slashdot.org">resources in Farmville or Mafia Wars on Facebook</a> [slashdot.org]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In games like Mafia Wars, Farmville, YoVille and Vampires Live, you know, some of the major sources of all those garbage announcements cluttering up your Facebook, players compete to complete missions and level up. By leveling up, you can complete more difficult missions and fight off weaker opponents. You can wait for your various energies to regenerate naturally over time, or you can purchase with real money in-game boosts. Or, you can complete various lead generation offers, many of which are of the "answer page after page of questions and opt in and out of receiving various kinds of spam" variety. Some of them install malware and adware that is impossible to remove. And some of them secretly subscribe you to monthly recurring $9.99 credit card charges.</p></div><p>Don't ever put your credit card information into Facebook or a Facebook app.  Social Media <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/01/AR2009110100018\_pf.html" title="washingtonpost.com">is rife with crap like this</a> [washingtonpost.com].  Right about now we should be asking when we'll get to see the findings in the <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/17/0051239/Senate-To-Air-Findings-In-Web-Mystery-Charge-Probe?art\_pos=3" title="slashdot.org">the federal probe that set out to address shoddy "business practices" like this</a> [slashdot.org] and <a href="http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&amp;ContentRecord\_id=f6af8b48-0be2-48d5-9f17-aa414bfef777" title="senate.gov">what is being done about it now that we know about it</a> [senate.gov]?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>with out authorization it is credit card fraud among other things that a DA will throw at me .
If a business gives my information to a third party and the third party charges my credit card then that 's just sharing ?
I need to start up a couple of businesses.Apparently social gaming [ slashdot.org ] is a great business model for this kind of crap .
The mentioned retailers get you after you make your purchase but when you need more resources in Farmville or Mafia Wars on Facebook [ slashdot.org ] : In games like Mafia Wars , Farmville , YoVille and Vampires Live , you know , some of the major sources of all those garbage announcements cluttering up your Facebook , players compete to complete missions and level up .
By leveling up , you can complete more difficult missions and fight off weaker opponents .
You can wait for your various energies to regenerate naturally over time , or you can purchase with real money in-game boosts .
Or , you can complete various lead generation offers , many of which are of the " answer page after page of questions and opt in and out of receiving various kinds of spam " variety .
Some of them install malware and adware that is impossible to remove .
And some of them secretly subscribe you to monthly recurring $ 9.99 credit card charges.Do n't ever put your credit card information into Facebook or a Facebook app .
Social Media is rife with crap like this [ washingtonpost.com ] .
Right about now we should be asking when we 'll get to see the findings in the the federal probe that set out to address shoddy " business practices " like this [ slashdot.org ] and what is being done about it now that we know about it [ senate.gov ] ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with out authorization it is credit card fraud among other things that a DA will throw at me.
If a business gives my information to a third party and the third party charges my credit card then that's just sharing?
I need to start up a couple of businesses.Apparently social gaming [slashdot.org] is a great business model for this kind of crap.
The mentioned retailers get you after you make your purchase but when you need more resources in Farmville or Mafia Wars on Facebook [slashdot.org]:In games like Mafia Wars, Farmville, YoVille and Vampires Live, you know, some of the major sources of all those garbage announcements cluttering up your Facebook, players compete to complete missions and level up.
By leveling up, you can complete more difficult missions and fight off weaker opponents.
You can wait for your various energies to regenerate naturally over time, or you can purchase with real money in-game boosts.
Or, you can complete various lead generation offers, many of which are of the "answer page after page of questions and opt in and out of receiving various kinds of spam" variety.
Some of them install malware and adware that is impossible to remove.
And some of them secretly subscribe you to monthly recurring $9.99 credit card charges.Don't ever put your credit card information into Facebook or a Facebook app.
Social Media is rife with crap like this [washingtonpost.com].
Right about now we should be asking when we'll get to see the findings in the the federal probe that set out to address shoddy "business practices" like this [slashdot.org] and what is being done about it now that we know about it [senate.gov]?
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31037284</id>
	<title>Happened to Me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265398260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something similar to this happened to me with Gamestop. I purchased a DS game from their online store and a month later I was having money withdrawn for a subscription service, through one of Gamestop's third party affiliates, that I never purchased or agreed to.</p><p>After calling and canceling the 'phantom subscription' they promptly returned my money, but they knew damn well I would never buy from them again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something similar to this happened to me with Gamestop .
I purchased a DS game from their online store and a month later I was having money withdrawn for a subscription service , through one of Gamestop 's third party affiliates , that I never purchased or agreed to.After calling and canceling the 'phantom subscription ' they promptly returned my money , but they knew damn well I would never buy from them again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something similar to this happened to me with Gamestop.
I purchased a DS game from their online store and a month later I was having money withdrawn for a subscription service, through one of Gamestop's third party affiliates, that I never purchased or agreed to.After calling and canceling the 'phantom subscription' they promptly returned my money, but they knew damn well I would never buy from them again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31035190</id>
	<title>Re:PCI?</title>
	<author>fatalwall</author>
	<datestamp>1265389440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually he is asking for them to provide information on the method that perform this action. Because it might be implemented in a way that IS illegal.</p><p>Part of his job is to sniff out organizations or businesses that appear fishy. Then to request information in regards to it or subpoena it if they refuse and its fishy enough.</p><p>They do the same thing all the time to the phone companies when they hear of a practice that does not seem on the level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually he is asking for them to provide information on the method that perform this action .
Because it might be implemented in a way that IS illegal.Part of his job is to sniff out organizations or businesses that appear fishy .
Then to request information in regards to it or subpoena it if they refuse and its fishy enough.They do the same thing all the time to the phone companies when they hear of a practice that does not seem on the level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually he is asking for them to provide information on the method that perform this action.
Because it might be implemented in a way that IS illegal.Part of his job is to sniff out organizations or businesses that appear fishy.
Then to request information in regards to it or subpoena it if they refuse and its fishy enough.They do the same thing all the time to the phone companies when they hear of a practice that does not seem on the level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034200</id>
	<title>Ventrue?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265383740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The three discount companies in question are Webloyalty, Affinion/Trilegiant and <strong>Vertrue</strong>.</p></div><p>Well, there you go. Anyone dumb enough to accept a discount from an ancient lineage of aristocratic vampires deserves what they get.</p><p>Wait... oh, <em>Ver</em>true. Oops. Never mind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : The three discount companies in question are Webloyalty , Affinion/Trilegiant and Vertrue.Well , there you go .
Anyone dumb enough to accept a discount from an ancient lineage of aristocratic vampires deserves what they get.Wait... oh , Vertrue .
Oops. Never mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:The three discount companies in question are Webloyalty, Affinion/Trilegiant and Vertrue.Well, there you go.
Anyone dumb enough to accept a discount from an ancient lineage of aristocratic vampires deserves what they get.Wait... oh, Vertrue.
Oops. Never mind.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033606</id>
	<title>Re:PCI?</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1265379060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now goto the <a href="http://consumerist.com/" title="consumerist.com">http://consumerist.com/</a> [consumerist.com] and request/search for the respective top emails and tell them your thoughts too.<br>
Get a name to go with the brand.<br>
Then spread the word.<br>
The joy of reading about about your day job<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now goto the http : //consumerist.com/ [ consumerist.com ] and request/search for the respective top emails and tell them your thoughts too .
Get a name to go with the brand .
Then spread the word .
The joy of reading about about your day job : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now goto the http://consumerist.com/ [consumerist.com] and request/search for the respective top emails and tell them your thoughts too.
Get a name to go with the brand.
Then spread the word.
The joy of reading about about your day job :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033132</id>
	<title>So if I use some one else's credit card</title>
	<author>ImNotAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1265373420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>with out authorization it is credit card fraud among other things that a DA will throw at me.  If a business gives my information to a third party and the third party charges my credit card then that's just sharing?  I need to start up a couple of businesses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>with out authorization it is credit card fraud among other things that a DA will throw at me .
If a business gives my information to a third party and the third party charges my credit card then that 's just sharing ?
I need to start up a couple of businesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with out authorization it is credit card fraud among other things that a DA will throw at me.
If a business gives my information to a third party and the third party charges my credit card then that's just sharing?
I need to start up a couple of businesses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033642</id>
	<title>Pizza Hut?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265379480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, you almost come to expect this kind of behavior from scummy web based companies, but really, Pizza Hut? I had to check out their <a href="http://www.pizzahut.com/PrivacyPolicy.aspx" title="pizzahut.com">Privacy Policy</a> [pizzahut.com] once I found out they were involved in this action and sure enough it says:</p><p><i><br>Should you choose to accept an offer from a third party, We will pass your relevant Personal Information, which may include your name, address, and credit/debit card number, to that third party.<br></i></p><p>Okay Pizza Hut, like, WTF?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , you almost come to expect this kind of behavior from scummy web based companies , but really , Pizza Hut ?
I had to check out their Privacy Policy [ pizzahut.com ] once I found out they were involved in this action and sure enough it says : Should you choose to accept an offer from a third party , We will pass your relevant Personal Information , which may include your name , address , and credit/debit card number , to that third party.Okay Pizza Hut , like , WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, you almost come to expect this kind of behavior from scummy web based companies, but really, Pizza Hut?
I had to check out their Privacy Policy [pizzahut.com] once I found out they were involved in this action and sure enough it says:Should you choose to accept an offer from a third party, We will pass your relevant Personal Information, which may include your name, address, and credit/debit card number, to that third party.Okay Pizza Hut, like, WTF?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034902</id>
	<title>Re:Legal but dishonest</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265387880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Common sense, decency and good old fashioned right and wrong clearly indicate that there should be a law against this</i></p><p>What do common sense, decency and good old fashioned right and wrong have to do with the law?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Common sense , decency and good old fashioned right and wrong clearly indicate that there should be a law against thisWhat do common sense , decency and good old fashioned right and wrong have to do with the law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Common sense, decency and good old fashioned right and wrong clearly indicate that there should be a law against thisWhat do common sense, decency and good old fashioned right and wrong have to do with the law?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033510</id>
	<title>Re:So if I use some one else's credit card</title>
	<author>rhsanborn</author>
	<datestamp>1265378220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except, if I remember it correctly, you did autorize it, it is just in very tiny print somewhere on the form you clicked. Smarmy yes, illegal, maybe not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except , if I remember it correctly , you did autorize it , it is just in very tiny print somewhere on the form you clicked .
Smarmy yes , illegal , maybe not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except, if I remember it correctly, you did autorize it, it is just in very tiny print somewhere on the form you clicked.
Smarmy yes, illegal, maybe not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31040914</id>
	<title>Re:Best buy used to do this and they got in big tr</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1265371980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're singeing up an awful lot of things, even for a dragon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're singeing up an awful lot of things , even for a dragon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're singeing up an awful lot of things, even for a dragon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033118</id>
	<title>PCI?</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1265373000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There may be no law against it, but how does it comply with PCI security requirements? Shouldn't those companies be losing their permission to accept credit cards?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There may be no law against it , but how does it comply with PCI security requirements ?
Should n't those companies be losing their permission to accept credit cards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There may be no law against it, but how does it comply with PCI security requirements?
Shouldn't those companies be losing their permission to accept credit cards?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033696</id>
	<title>Re:So if I use some one else's credit card</title>
	<author>tomtomtom</author>
	<datestamp>1265379840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least in the UK, this type of activity would probably fall foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, <em>especially</em> if well buried in the small print. There is a decent amount of case law prior to this legislation supporting this as well.</p><p>Not that that particularly helps you as an individual, since you'd then need to reverse the card transaction, then risk being sued for it and, finally, asserting that the term was unfair and therefore void in your defence case.</p><p>There are powers for certain government bodies like the OFT to take more useful action (such as seeking an injunction against the company in question enforcing those terms) though, which may explain why these scams don't seem to have appeared on reputable UK-centric sites yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least in the UK , this type of activity would probably fall foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 , especially if well buried in the small print .
There is a decent amount of case law prior to this legislation supporting this as well.Not that that particularly helps you as an individual , since you 'd then need to reverse the card transaction , then risk being sued for it and , finally , asserting that the term was unfair and therefore void in your defence case.There are powers for certain government bodies like the OFT to take more useful action ( such as seeking an injunction against the company in question enforcing those terms ) though , which may explain why these scams do n't seem to have appeared on reputable UK-centric sites yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least in the UK, this type of activity would probably fall foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, especially if well buried in the small print.
There is a decent amount of case law prior to this legislation supporting this as well.Not that that particularly helps you as an individual, since you'd then need to reverse the card transaction, then risk being sued for it and, finally, asserting that the term was unfair and therefore void in your defence case.There are powers for certain government bodies like the OFT to take more useful action (such as seeking an injunction against the company in question enforcing those terms) though, which may explain why these scams don't seem to have appeared on reputable UK-centric sites yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31048692</id>
	<title>Re:My wife got scammed by Joann.com / Webloyalty</title>
	<author>Nightspirit</author>
	<datestamp>1265458620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This happens to me about every year (I swear Best Buy must do this, I keep getting magazine subscriptions even though every time I insist no), so I've made it a habit of just closing my account once a year to change the account numbers so these companies no longer have my information (they are nearly impossible to get a hold of and claim ignorance every time). Now I only shop online via amazon and newegg and no longer buy anything from Best Buy, and so far I've been lucky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This happens to me about every year ( I swear Best Buy must do this , I keep getting magazine subscriptions even though every time I insist no ) , so I 've made it a habit of just closing my account once a year to change the account numbers so these companies no longer have my information ( they are nearly impossible to get a hold of and claim ignorance every time ) .
Now I only shop online via amazon and newegg and no longer buy anything from Best Buy , and so far I 've been lucky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This happens to me about every year (I swear Best Buy must do this, I keep getting magazine subscriptions even though every time I insist no), so I've made it a habit of just closing my account once a year to change the account numbers so these companies no longer have my information (they are nearly impossible to get a hold of and claim ignorance every time).
Now I only shop online via amazon and newegg and no longer buy anything from Best Buy, and so far I've been lucky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31035160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033234</id>
	<title>IT'S A SCAM JOE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265374740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Run away run away! The evil internet empire is upon us.  Again!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Run away run away !
The evil internet empire is upon us .
Again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Run away run away!
The evil internet empire is upon us.
Again!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034092</id>
	<title>So let me see if I have this right....</title>
	<author>Jed\_8</author>
	<datestamp>1265383020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"As soon as you complete the transaction a pop-up window appears. It offers a discount on your next purchase. Click on the ad...."

So this is something that affects only people dumb enough to click on pop-ups, while those of us with either blockers or the brains to close pop-ups like this when they open are not affected?

Internet darwinism at work and working as intended imo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" As soon as you complete the transaction a pop-up window appears .
It offers a discount on your next purchase .
Click on the ad.... " So this is something that affects only people dumb enough to click on pop-ups , while those of us with either blockers or the brains to close pop-ups like this when they open are not affected ?
Internet darwinism at work and working as intended imo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As soon as you complete the transaction a pop-up window appears.
It offers a discount on your next purchase.
Click on the ad...."

So this is something that affects only people dumb enough to click on pop-ups, while those of us with either blockers or the brains to close pop-ups like this when they open are not affected?
Internet darwinism at work and working as intended imo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034146</id>
	<title>Re:Social Games and the Federal Probe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265383380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>my name is.... and i play farmville... *lowers head* i know its dumb.  anyway i would never EVER put a red cent into that game and i dont know why anybody would.  security reasons aside... if you wanted a pay to play game with social networks you should probably play something good like WoW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my name is.... and i play farmville... * lowers head * i know its dumb .
anyway i would never EVER put a red cent into that game and i dont know why anybody would .
security reasons aside... if you wanted a pay to play game with social networks you should probably play something good like WoW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my name is.... and i play farmville... *lowers head* i know its dumb.
anyway i would never EVER put a red cent into that game and i dont know why anybody would.
security reasons aside... if you wanted a pay to play game with social networks you should probably play something good like WoW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31035636</id>
	<title>Re:PCI?</title>
	<author>Firehed</author>
	<datestamp>1265391540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You haven't seen these things in action.</p><p>They're (often) ads designed to look like coupons that are inserted into the middle of or immediately after the checkout process. I've even seen them placed in order confirmation emails.  "Click here to save $10 on that order you just completed." kind of things, with no fine print whatsoever.  Some of them will immediately sign you up; others will make you hit at least one additional page before you get screwed over - it depends on how much or little fine print, usually.</p><p>At best, it's false advertising. At worst... use your imagination.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have n't seen these things in action.They 're ( often ) ads designed to look like coupons that are inserted into the middle of or immediately after the checkout process .
I 've even seen them placed in order confirmation emails .
" Click here to save $ 10 on that order you just completed .
" kind of things , with no fine print whatsoever .
Some of them will immediately sign you up ; others will make you hit at least one additional page before you get screwed over - it depends on how much or little fine print , usually.At best , it 's false advertising .
At worst... use your imagination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You haven't seen these things in action.They're (often) ads designed to look like coupons that are inserted into the middle of or immediately after the checkout process.
I've even seen them placed in order confirmation emails.
"Click here to save $10 on that order you just completed.
" kind of things, with no fine print whatsoever.
Some of them will immediately sign you up; others will make you hit at least one additional page before you get screwed over - it depends on how much or little fine print, usually.At best, it's false advertising.
At worst... use your imagination.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31057336</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>danwesnor</author>
	<datestamp>1265558400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why there isn't a law flat-out barring businesses from giving away or selling their customers' personal information is a mystery to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why there is n't a law flat-out barring businesses from giving away or selling their customers ' personal information is a mystery to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why there isn't a law flat-out barring businesses from giving away or selling their customers' personal information is a mystery to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31035160</id>
	<title>My wife got scammed by Joann.com / Webloyalty</title>
	<author>zero\_out</author>
	<datestamp>1265389260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My wife got scammed 4 1/2 years ago when shopping at Joann.com, which is the web store for Jo-Ann fabrics and crafts, a major national chain.  At the end of her purchase, she was offered a $10 coupon, and only had to give her email address.  She gave the address of an account she uses for things that might generate a lot of spam.  She never received the email containing any coupon information, but Webloyalty started charging our CC $10/month.  After the second month, we caught on, and contacted them about it.</p><p>Long story, made short, even though there was nothing informing her about this, the simple act of providing an email address (any, even a bogus one) was interpreted as permission for Joann.com to give our CC info to Webloyalty.  They refused to give our money back, and Joann.com only responded by saying "enjoy your coupon," which she never did receive.  She doesn't shop there anymore, and neither does the majority of her circle of friends.</p><p>At least we only had $20 stolen from us.  It could have been worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife got scammed 4 1/2 years ago when shopping at Joann.com , which is the web store for Jo-Ann fabrics and crafts , a major national chain .
At the end of her purchase , she was offered a $ 10 coupon , and only had to give her email address .
She gave the address of an account she uses for things that might generate a lot of spam .
She never received the email containing any coupon information , but Webloyalty started charging our CC $ 10/month .
After the second month , we caught on , and contacted them about it.Long story , made short , even though there was nothing informing her about this , the simple act of providing an email address ( any , even a bogus one ) was interpreted as permission for Joann.com to give our CC info to Webloyalty .
They refused to give our money back , and Joann.com only responded by saying " enjoy your coupon , " which she never did receive .
She does n't shop there anymore , and neither does the majority of her circle of friends.At least we only had $ 20 stolen from us .
It could have been worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife got scammed 4 1/2 years ago when shopping at Joann.com, which is the web store for Jo-Ann fabrics and crafts, a major national chain.
At the end of her purchase, she was offered a $10 coupon, and only had to give her email address.
She gave the address of an account she uses for things that might generate a lot of spam.
She never received the email containing any coupon information, but Webloyalty started charging our CC $10/month.
After the second month, we caught on, and contacted them about it.Long story, made short, even though there was nothing informing her about this, the simple act of providing an email address (any, even a bogus one) was interpreted as permission for Joann.com to give our CC info to Webloyalty.
They refused to give our money back, and Joann.com only responded by saying "enjoy your coupon," which she never did receive.
She doesn't shop there anymore, and neither does the majority of her circle of friends.At least we only had $20 stolen from us.
It could have been worse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31037582</id>
	<title>Re:My wife got scammed by Joann.com / Webloyalty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265399760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should have called your credit card company and demanded a chargeback for the $20.
<p>
OT, but a co-worker of mine went to work for Webloyalty and left after a few months. She was so excited to move from what she thought was a bad situation, but she ended up in a worse situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should have called your credit card company and demanded a chargeback for the $ 20 .
OT , but a co-worker of mine went to work for Webloyalty and left after a few months .
She was so excited to move from what she thought was a bad situation , but she ended up in a worse situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should have called your credit card company and demanded a chargeback for the $20.
OT, but a co-worker of mine went to work for Webloyalty and left after a few months.
She was so excited to move from what she thought was a bad situation, but she ended up in a worse situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31035160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033684</id>
	<title>The American roots of the Holocaust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265379780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny how the cries of "Fascism!" from the left died down after The Messiah was elected, even though he's actually accelerated the rate at which government and big business are getting in bed together. Makes me wonder if any Democrat even understands what Fascism is. Well here's a hint: it's not just a ruler who imposes his will on you. It's an entire system of government where the private sector retains ownership of it's property, but it is entirely directed by the state. Sound familiar, America?  Hell, Hitler DID credit American Progressive "scientists" and politicians as the basis for his ghastly genetic superiority philosophy. And American Progressives are on record for admiring Hitler for having the balls to push his vision forward. Fascists and Progressives: more alike than they want you to know.</p><p>http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html [hnn.us]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how the cries of " Fascism !
" from the left died down after The Messiah was elected , even though he 's actually accelerated the rate at which government and big business are getting in bed together .
Makes me wonder if any Democrat even understands what Fascism is .
Well here 's a hint : it 's not just a ruler who imposes his will on you .
It 's an entire system of government where the private sector retains ownership of it 's property , but it is entirely directed by the state .
Sound familiar , America ?
Hell , Hitler DID credit American Progressive " scientists " and politicians as the basis for his ghastly genetic superiority philosophy .
And American Progressives are on record for admiring Hitler for having the balls to push his vision forward .
Fascists and Progressives : more alike than they want you to know.http : //hnn.us/articles/1796.html [ hnn.us ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how the cries of "Fascism!
" from the left died down after The Messiah was elected, even though he's actually accelerated the rate at which government and big business are getting in bed together.
Makes me wonder if any Democrat even understands what Fascism is.
Well here's a hint: it's not just a ruler who imposes his will on you.
It's an entire system of government where the private sector retains ownership of it's property, but it is entirely directed by the state.
Sound familiar, America?
Hell, Hitler DID credit American Progressive "scientists" and politicians as the basis for his ghastly genetic superiority philosophy.
And American Progressives are on record for admiring Hitler for having the balls to push his vision forward.
Fascists and Progressives: more alike than they want you to know.http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html [hnn.us]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033900</id>
	<title>Re:PCI?</title>
	<author>19thNervousBreakdown</author>
	<datestamp>1265381640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a wonderful way around the law. Not only do they not have to be guilty, it doesn't even have to be against the law, and since it's not against the law and there's no real lawsuit to win, who needs evidence or even suspicion? Subpoena them anyway! The bad press will ruin them!</p><p>It helps to be attorney general when starting a lawsuit for the express purpose of smearing people or companies (what's the difference again? Thanks SCOTUS!) and costing them  or you might find <em>yourself</em> on the wrong end of charges from an angry judge.</p><p>Can you sue for attorney costs that you spent to defend yourself against something that isn't a crime? I guess you can sue for anything<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just gotta spend more on attorneys.</p><p>Honestly, I have no doubt that these companies are doing this, but it seems like one hell of a loophole for any lawyer-politician making a run for higher office or re-election at the expense of the reputations of whoever happens to be convenient at the time, and if they ever turned out to be wrong I doubt we'd see a similar announcement saying, "No, hey, these are good guys! My bad!".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a wonderful way around the law .
Not only do they not have to be guilty , it does n't even have to be against the law , and since it 's not against the law and there 's no real lawsuit to win , who needs evidence or even suspicion ?
Subpoena them anyway !
The bad press will ruin them ! It helps to be attorney general when starting a lawsuit for the express purpose of smearing people or companies ( what 's the difference again ?
Thanks SCOTUS !
) and costing them or you might find yourself on the wrong end of charges from an angry judge.Can you sue for attorney costs that you spent to defend yourself against something that is n't a crime ?
I guess you can sue for anything ... just got ta spend more on attorneys.Honestly , I have no doubt that these companies are doing this , but it seems like one hell of a loophole for any lawyer-politician making a run for higher office or re-election at the expense of the reputations of whoever happens to be convenient at the time , and if they ever turned out to be wrong I doubt we 'd see a similar announcement saying , " No , hey , these are good guys !
My bad !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a wonderful way around the law.
Not only do they not have to be guilty, it doesn't even have to be against the law, and since it's not against the law and there's no real lawsuit to win, who needs evidence or even suspicion?
Subpoena them anyway!
The bad press will ruin them!It helps to be attorney general when starting a lawsuit for the express purpose of smearing people or companies (what's the difference again?
Thanks SCOTUS!
) and costing them  or you might find yourself on the wrong end of charges from an angry judge.Can you sue for attorney costs that you spent to defend yourself against something that isn't a crime?
I guess you can sue for anything ... just gotta spend more on attorneys.Honestly, I have no doubt that these companies are doing this, but it seems like one hell of a loophole for any lawyer-politician making a run for higher office or re-election at the expense of the reputations of whoever happens to be convenient at the time, and if they ever turned out to be wrong I doubt we'd see a similar announcement saying, "No, hey, these are good guys!
My bad!
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033918</id>
	<title>Best buy used to do this and they got in big troub</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265381760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Best buy used to do this and they got in big trouble In more then one way one was the MSN thing where they scan the free disk but don't tell you that you when singed up for a 2 year deal after the free trial ended and some people did not even use the disk and did not know that they when singed up for msn and then was the free magazine when you got singed up for if you did not call up and have it stopped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Best buy used to do this and they got in big trouble In more then one way one was the MSN thing where they scan the free disk but do n't tell you that you when singed up for a 2 year deal after the free trial ended and some people did not even use the disk and did not know that they when singed up for msn and then was the free magazine when you got singed up for if you did not call up and have it stopped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best buy used to do this and they got in big trouble In more then one way one was the MSN thing where they scan the free disk but don't tell you that you when singed up for a 2 year deal after the free trial ended and some people did not even use the disk and did not know that they when singed up for msn and then was the free magazine when you got singed up for if you did not call up and have it stopped.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31053536</id>
	<title>And the solution is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265569680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.bankofamerica.com/privacy/index.cfm?template=learn\_about\_shopsafe" title="bankofamerica.com" rel="nofollow">ShopSafe</a> [bankofamerica.com]  Bank of America and Charles Schwab credit cards both have it.</p><p>It generates a unique credit card number with a limit &amp; expiration date you choose.  And for extra safety it can only be used by one merchant.</p><p>This would stop would stop the bogus actions described in the article.  And it's really the only way to do online shopping.... it doesn't matter if the merchant loses the card number because its only usable by that merchant and you've hopefully set the limit at just enough for the purchase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ShopSafe [ bankofamerica.com ] Bank of America and Charles Schwab credit cards both have it.It generates a unique credit card number with a limit &amp; expiration date you choose .
And for extra safety it can only be used by one merchant.This would stop would stop the bogus actions described in the article .
And it 's really the only way to do online shopping.... it does n't matter if the merchant loses the card number because its only usable by that merchant and you 've hopefully set the limit at just enough for the purchase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ShopSafe [bankofamerica.com]  Bank of America and Charles Schwab credit cards both have it.It generates a unique credit card number with a limit &amp; expiration date you choose.
And for extra safety it can only be used by one merchant.This would stop would stop the bogus actions described in the article.
And it's really the only way to do online shopping.... it doesn't matter if the merchant loses the card number because its only usable by that merchant and you've hopefully set the limit at just enough for the purchase.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033208</id>
	<title>Accidental Purchases</title>
	<author>B33R N1NJ4</author>
	<datestamp>1265374560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really! I didn't -mean- to buy Blow-Up Betty and a years subscription to Back-Door Babes. They tricked me into it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really !
I did n't -mean- to buy Blow-Up Betty and a years subscription to Back-Door Babes .
They tricked me into it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really!
I didn't -mean- to buy Blow-Up Betty and a years subscription to Back-Door Babes.
They tricked me into it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31044986</id>
	<title>Re:Legal but dishonest</title>
	<author>cas2000</author>
	<datestamp>1265464920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Both VISA and Mastercard have very explicit regulations on data sharing, and how 'Cross Sales' are conducted: they both prohibit it in their merchant agreements.<br>VISA is somewhat lax on its [...]<br>Mastercard will fine and terminate merchants [...]<br><b>To say that no regulation exists is somewhat uninformed.</b> </i></p></div> </blockquote><p>to think that company policies are anything even remotely like *regulation* is not only naive, it is stupid.  to *say* it or offer it as advice is either deliberate deception or, more likely, just negligent.</p><p>company policies are not regulation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both VISA and Mastercard have very explicit regulations on data sharing , and how 'Cross Sales ' are conducted : they both prohibit it in their merchant agreements.VISA is somewhat lax on its [ ... ] Mastercard will fine and terminate merchants [ ... ] To say that no regulation exists is somewhat uninformed .
to think that company policies are anything even remotely like * regulation * is not only naive , it is stupid .
to * say * it or offer it as advice is either deliberate deception or , more likely , just negligent.company policies are not regulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Both VISA and Mastercard have very explicit regulations on data sharing, and how 'Cross Sales' are conducted: they both prohibit it in their merchant agreements.VISA is somewhat lax on its [...]Mastercard will fine and terminate merchants [...]To say that no regulation exists is somewhat uninformed.
to think that company policies are anything even remotely like *regulation* is not only naive, it is stupid.
to *say* it or offer it as advice is either deliberate deception or, more likely, just negligent.company policies are not regulation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31038954</id>
	<title>Re:PCI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265362440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, the one I saw made it seem like it was a routine part of the transaction.  I clicked through and read the fine print and thought, "screw them".  When I clicked no, it took me back to where I was before and on a closer reading I saw my transaction had actually been completed.  I didn't seen anything that would be fraud, but it clearly wasn't done in good faith.  I remember being disappointing they would stoop so low.  I wish I remembered if it was B&amp;N or Amazon who did it to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , the one I saw made it seem like it was a routine part of the transaction .
I clicked through and read the fine print and thought , " screw them " .
When I clicked no , it took me back to where I was before and on a closer reading I saw my transaction had actually been completed .
I did n't seen anything that would be fraud , but it clearly was n't done in good faith .
I remember being disappointing they would stoop so low .
I wish I remembered if it was B&amp;N or Amazon who did it to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, the one I saw made it seem like it was a routine part of the transaction.
I clicked through and read the fine print and thought, "screw them".
When I clicked no, it took me back to where I was before and on a closer reading I saw my transaction had actually been completed.
I didn't seen anything that would be fraud, but it clearly wasn't done in good faith.
I remember being disappointing they would stoop so low.
I wish I remembered if it was B&amp;N or Amazon who did it to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31035636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034682</id>
	<title>No law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265386620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean there's no law against it? This is called fraud, isn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean there 's no law against it ?
This is called fraud , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean there's no law against it?
This is called fraud, isn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034124</id>
	<title>Re:So if I use some one else's credit card</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265383260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Except, if I remember it correctly, you did autorize it, it is just in very tiny print somewhere on the form you clicked</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, it was &lt;small&gt; print inside of a &lt;!-- comment --&gt; inside of a &lt;div&gt; that has a style of "display:none; position:absolute;left:-10000px;".  I don't know why couldn't see it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except , if I remember it correctly , you did autorize it , it is just in very tiny print somewhere on the form you clickedYeah , it was print inside of a inside of a that has a style of " display : none ; position : absolute ; left : -10000px ; " .
I do n't know why could n't see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except, if I remember it correctly, you did autorize it, it is just in very tiny print somewhere on the form you clickedYeah, it was  print inside of a  inside of a  that has a style of "display:none; position:absolute;left:-10000px;".
I don't know why couldn't see it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034918</id>
	<title>Re:So if I use some one else's credit card</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1265387940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Making a clear cut law won't stop it either, they'll work around a loophole, probably something similar to;

Buy something through Ticketmaster, TM site has a pop up to Acme Company Inc, and when you click the pop up, Ticketmaster charges you an extra $100 for that, they send $70 to Acme. Nothing they did was considered illegal, as the information you entered was with Ticketmaster, and processed through them.

I've come across these (I was on Ticketmaster the other day) and its a good thing popup blockers are standard now, otherwise I might have accidentally clicked on this ploy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Making a clear cut law wo n't stop it either , they 'll work around a loophole , probably something similar to ; Buy something through Ticketmaster , TM site has a pop up to Acme Company Inc , and when you click the pop up , Ticketmaster charges you an extra $ 100 for that , they send $ 70 to Acme .
Nothing they did was considered illegal , as the information you entered was with Ticketmaster , and processed through them .
I 've come across these ( I was on Ticketmaster the other day ) and its a good thing popup blockers are standard now , otherwise I might have accidentally clicked on this ploy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making a clear cut law won't stop it either, they'll work around a loophole, probably something similar to;

Buy something through Ticketmaster, TM site has a pop up to Acme Company Inc, and when you click the pop up, Ticketmaster charges you an extra $100 for that, they send $70 to Acme.
Nothing they did was considered illegal, as the information you entered was with Ticketmaster, and processed through them.
I've come across these (I was on Ticketmaster the other day) and its a good thing popup blockers are standard now, otherwise I might have accidentally clicked on this ploy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033624</id>
	<title>Re:For once ...</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1265379240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually they do offer one great function.  One time use credit card numbers.  these completely bypass any scumbag tricks like this.  The credit card number I give a site is good for only the amount I set the number for.  Paypad had this feature 3 years ago and I used it on a lot of "iffy" sites.  <a href="http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=xpt/cps/account/VDCFrequentlyAskedQuestions-outside" title="paypal.com">http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=xpt/cps/account/VDCFrequentlyAskedQuestions-outside</a> [paypal.com]</p><p>They call it the virtual debit card.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually they do offer one great function .
One time use credit card numbers .
these completely bypass any scumbag tricks like this .
The credit card number I give a site is good for only the amount I set the number for .
Paypad had this feature 3 years ago and I used it on a lot of " iffy " sites .
http : //www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr ? cmd = xpt/cps/account/VDCFrequentlyAskedQuestions-outside [ paypal.com ] They call it the virtual debit card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually they do offer one great function.
One time use credit card numbers.
these completely bypass any scumbag tricks like this.
The credit card number I give a site is good for only the amount I set the number for.
Paypad had this feature 3 years ago and I used it on a lot of "iffy" sites.
http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=xpt/cps/account/VDCFrequentlyAskedQuestions-outside [paypal.com]They call it the virtual debit card.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033268</id>
	<title>For once ...</title>
	<author>nospam007</author>
	<datestamp>1265375100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... it seems like PayPal looks good in comparison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... it seems like PayPal looks good in comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... it seems like PayPal looks good in comparison.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034140</id>
	<title>Yay!</title>
	<author>sesshomaru</author>
	<datestamp>1265383380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the best news I've heard in a while.  I do tech support for a local Buddhist temple, which has some staff authorized to use corporate credit cards to buy supplies for the temple.</p><p>Well, more then once I've been called in to help out with the mysterious charges on their credit cards, and it's always because of this scam.  These people are both good-hearted and completely unsophisticated, they see someone offering a discount they don't question it.  (Recently these scam artists had to change up their fine print so it's easier to read due to lawsuits in other states.)</p><p>The worst thing is it's semi-reputable companies destroying their brands for the sake of getting $10 a month charges out of grandma's checking account.  I mean Barnes and Nobel? I used to work for them, I can't believe they've sunk this low.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the best news I 've heard in a while .
I do tech support for a local Buddhist temple , which has some staff authorized to use corporate credit cards to buy supplies for the temple.Well , more then once I 've been called in to help out with the mysterious charges on their credit cards , and it 's always because of this scam .
These people are both good-hearted and completely unsophisticated , they see someone offering a discount they do n't question it .
( Recently these scam artists had to change up their fine print so it 's easier to read due to lawsuits in other states .
) The worst thing is it 's semi-reputable companies destroying their brands for the sake of getting $ 10 a month charges out of grandma 's checking account .
I mean Barnes and Nobel ?
I used to work for them , I ca n't believe they 've sunk this low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the best news I've heard in a while.
I do tech support for a local Buddhist temple, which has some staff authorized to use corporate credit cards to buy supplies for the temple.Well, more then once I've been called in to help out with the mysterious charges on their credit cards, and it's always because of this scam.
These people are both good-hearted and completely unsophisticated, they see someone offering a discount they don't question it.
(Recently these scam artists had to change up their fine print so it's easier to read due to lawsuits in other states.
)The worst thing is it's semi-reputable companies destroying their brands for the sake of getting $10 a month charges out of grandma's checking account.
I mean Barnes and Nobel?
I used to work for them, I can't believe they've sunk this low.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034494</id>
	<title>Re:PCI?</title>
	<author>riegel</author>
	<datestamp>1265385480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm pretty sure there's a generally-worded fraud law or something somewhere on the books that would catch this since these guys are basically waiting until you buy one thing and then without knowledge or consent billing you for a second thing.</p></div><p>The problem is the pop-up or whatever says something like "Would you also like salsa with your chips? (we'll ship a new jar every month)" and when you click "yes" you are aware of it and are also consenting to it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure there 's a generally-worded fraud law or something somewhere on the books that would catch this since these guys are basically waiting until you buy one thing and then without knowledge or consent billing you for a second thing.The problem is the pop-up or whatever says something like " Would you also like salsa with your chips ?
( we 'll ship a new jar every month ) " and when you click " yes " you are aware of it and are also consenting to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure there's a generally-worded fraud law or something somewhere on the books that would catch this since these guys are basically waiting until you buy one thing and then without knowledge or consent billing you for a second thing.The problem is the pop-up or whatever says something like "Would you also like salsa with your chips?
(we'll ship a new jar every month)" and when you click "yes" you are aware of it and are also consenting to it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033188</id>
	<title>WHAT?</title>
	<author>Asadullah Ahmad</author>
	<datestamp>1265374260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is absolutely frightening. Now I'll have to read the privacy statements to see if they share credit card information with other companies also? What exactly do the claims of "You are secure" and sort mean?</p><p>Fortunately my bank has disabled on-line transactions by default, and neither do I ever intend to click any ad while using my card. But I think that a lot of credit cards are activated for internet use, and </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Information about joining the membership program and its ramifications, including the fact that the consumer is agreeing to transfer his or her credit or debit card account information, is buried in fine print and cluttered text.</p></div><p> is a terrible prospect as just seeing an ad doesn't usually mean agreeing to the purchase UNTIL we click on billing and shipping information.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is absolutely frightening .
Now I 'll have to read the privacy statements to see if they share credit card information with other companies also ?
What exactly do the claims of " You are secure " and sort mean ? Fortunately my bank has disabled on-line transactions by default , and neither do I ever intend to click any ad while using my card .
But I think that a lot of credit cards are activated for internet use , and Information about joining the membership program and its ramifications , including the fact that the consumer is agreeing to transfer his or her credit or debit card account information , is buried in fine print and cluttered text .
is a terrible prospect as just seeing an ad does n't usually mean agreeing to the purchase UNTIL we click on billing and shipping information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is absolutely frightening.
Now I'll have to read the privacy statements to see if they share credit card information with other companies also?
What exactly do the claims of "You are secure" and sort mean?Fortunately my bank has disabled on-line transactions by default, and neither do I ever intend to click any ad while using my card.
But I think that a lot of credit cards are activated for internet use, and Information about joining the membership program and its ramifications, including the fact that the consumer is agreeing to transfer his or her credit or debit card account information, is buried in fine print and cluttered text.
is a terrible prospect as just seeing an ad doesn't usually mean agreeing to the purchase UNTIL we click on billing and shipping information.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31037128</id>
	<title>Re:Legal but dishonest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265397660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first problem is that Visa and Mastercard don't bother to enforce their own rules until after something makes the news.  If you have a big theft, and the theft makes newspaper headlines, then suddenly there are rules and fines.  Otherwise, anything goes.  The second problem is that once a fine is levied, the shady business just closes up shop and reopens as a different shady business.  Corporations are too protected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first problem is that Visa and Mastercard do n't bother to enforce their own rules until after something makes the news .
If you have a big theft , and the theft makes newspaper headlines , then suddenly there are rules and fines .
Otherwise , anything goes .
The second problem is that once a fine is levied , the shady business just closes up shop and reopens as a different shady business .
Corporations are too protected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first problem is that Visa and Mastercard don't bother to enforce their own rules until after something makes the news.
If you have a big theft, and the theft makes newspaper headlines, then suddenly there are rules and fines.
Otherwise, anything goes.
The second problem is that once a fine is levied, the shady business just closes up shop and reopens as a different shady business.
Corporations are too protected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033472</id>
	<title>JC Whitney is one of these.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265377800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you need car parts. DO NOT go to JC Whitney.   They did this.  The company they sold my credit card information to had gone under a dozen different names and phone numbers in the last 6 years. They were investigated by the Better Business Bureau. Everything time the BBB got close they shut their doors changed their name and they were starting right up again. The other company got $9 a month for 6 months before we realized it.  I found out through bragging on the other website that they had gotten over 12 million people this way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you need car parts .
DO NOT go to JC Whitney .
They did this .
The company they sold my credit card information to had gone under a dozen different names and phone numbers in the last 6 years .
They were investigated by the Better Business Bureau .
Everything time the BBB got close they shut their doors changed their name and they were starting right up again .
The other company got $ 9 a month for 6 months before we realized it .
I found out through bragging on the other website that they had gotten over 12 million people this way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you need car parts.
DO NOT go to JC Whitney.
They did this.
The company they sold my credit card information to had gone under a dozen different names and phone numbers in the last 6 years.
They were investigated by the Better Business Bureau.
Everything time the BBB got close they shut their doors changed their name and they were starting right up again.
The other company got $9 a month for 6 months before we realized it.
I found out through bragging on the other website that they had gotten over 12 million people this way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31036572</id>
	<title>Re:So if I use some one else's credit card</title>
	<author>GasparGMSwordsman</author>
	<datestamp>1265395080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Best Buy lost a class action lawsuit in California around 2000 for doing this in person.<br> <br>

A customer would make a live purchase with a credit card and the cashier would as them if they wanted a magazine for free.  If the customer said yes, they were given a three month trial that would then auto bill the customers credit card until the customer canceled the account. (Some times the customer said no or was not asked and they were still signed up.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Best Buy lost a class action lawsuit in California around 2000 for doing this in person .
A customer would make a live purchase with a credit card and the cashier would as them if they wanted a magazine for free .
If the customer said yes , they were given a three month trial that would then auto bill the customers credit card until the customer canceled the account .
( Some times the customer said no or was not asked and they were still signed up .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best Buy lost a class action lawsuit in California around 2000 for doing this in person.
A customer would make a live purchase with a credit card and the cashier would as them if they wanted a magazine for free.
If the customer said yes, they were given a three month trial that would then auto bill the customers credit card until the customer canceled the account.
(Some times the customer said no or was not asked and they were still signed up.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033410</id>
	<title>Re:Legal but dishonest</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1265376900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It reminds me of a scam that a site called RedSave.com ran in the UK. Hidden way, way down in the tiny small print of their Terms and Conditions when you made a purchase was a line that stated "We will charge you &pound;20 every month unless you contact us to opt out". Apparently this isn't against the letter of the law, but it sure as hell isn't a good business practice and isn't in the interests of the consumer.</i></p><p>While I don't suspect it's <i>illegal</i> (i.e. the owners of the business aren't going to end up in jail over it), I also don't suspect it's <i>legally enforceable</i> -- i.e. if you take them to court and demand your money back, they'll probably end up having to give it to you.  There's a principle of English contract law that when dealing with consumers, the business must call the consumer's attention to anything which is unusual and detrimental to the consumer, otherwise it may not be an eforceable term of the contract.  As Lord Justice Denning said:</p><p>"The more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient." (J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461)</p><p>(IANAL, this is not legal advice, but I'd certainly suggest if you paid any money to this company within the last 7 years that you get some...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It reminds me of a scam that a site called RedSave.com ran in the UK .
Hidden way , way down in the tiny small print of their Terms and Conditions when you made a purchase was a line that stated " We will charge you   20 every month unless you contact us to opt out " .
Apparently this is n't against the letter of the law , but it sure as hell is n't a good business practice and is n't in the interests of the consumer.While I do n't suspect it 's illegal ( i.e .
the owners of the business are n't going to end up in jail over it ) , I also do n't suspect it 's legally enforceable -- i.e .
if you take them to court and demand your money back , they 'll probably end up having to give it to you .
There 's a principle of English contract law that when dealing with consumers , the business must call the consumer 's attention to anything which is unusual and detrimental to the consumer , otherwise it may not be an eforceable term of the contract .
As Lord Justice Denning said : " The more unreasonable a clause is , the greater the notice which must be given of it .
Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient .
" ( J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [ 1956 ] 1 WLR 461 ) ( IANAL , this is not legal advice , but I 'd certainly suggest if you paid any money to this company within the last 7 years that you get some... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It reminds me of a scam that a site called RedSave.com ran in the UK.
Hidden way, way down in the tiny small print of their Terms and Conditions when you made a purchase was a line that stated "We will charge you £20 every month unless you contact us to opt out".
Apparently this isn't against the letter of the law, but it sure as hell isn't a good business practice and isn't in the interests of the consumer.While I don't suspect it's illegal (i.e.
the owners of the business aren't going to end up in jail over it), I also don't suspect it's legally enforceable -- i.e.
if you take them to court and demand your money back, they'll probably end up having to give it to you.
There's a principle of English contract law that when dealing with consumers, the business must call the consumer's attention to anything which is unusual and detrimental to the consumer, otherwise it may not be an eforceable term of the contract.
As Lord Justice Denning said:"The more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it.
Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.
" (J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461)(IANAL, this is not legal advice, but I'd certainly suggest if you paid any money to this company within the last 7 years that you get some...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033388</id>
	<title>Smarmy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265376660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's where things really get smarmy.</p></div><p>Excuse me?</p><p> <i>Smarmy</i>: unpleasantly and excessively suave or ingratiating in manner or speech</p><p>Perhaps the word you were looking for is one of: deceptive, devious, underhand, sneaky, execrable, abhorrent, hateful, annoying, irritating, enraging, infuriating or inexcusable?</p><p>It's hard to believe that this practice is legal. I give my credit card details to one company, and it becomes perfectly legal for them to <b>sell</b> these details to a completely unrelated third party, simply because I clicked on an advert on a web site?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's where things really get smarmy.Excuse me ?
Smarmy : unpleasantly and excessively suave or ingratiating in manner or speechPerhaps the word you were looking for is one of : deceptive , devious , underhand , sneaky , execrable , abhorrent , hateful , annoying , irritating , enraging , infuriating or inexcusable ? It 's hard to believe that this practice is legal .
I give my credit card details to one company , and it becomes perfectly legal for them to sell these details to a completely unrelated third party , simply because I clicked on an advert on a web site ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's where things really get smarmy.Excuse me?
Smarmy: unpleasantly and excessively suave or ingratiating in manner or speechPerhaps the word you were looking for is one of: deceptive, devious, underhand, sneaky, execrable, abhorrent, hateful, annoying, irritating, enraging, infuriating or inexcusable?It's hard to believe that this practice is legal.
I give my credit card details to one company, and it becomes perfectly legal for them to sell these details to a completely unrelated third party, simply because I clicked on an advert on a web site?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31038182</id>
	<title>There are laws in Europe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265402220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>European laws protect against this sort of thing. The US could do with similar protections. Lack of protection is one reason why Europe is against data sharing with the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>European laws protect against this sort of thing .
The US could do with similar protections .
Lack of protection is one reason why Europe is against data sharing with the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>European laws protect against this sort of thing.
The US could do with similar protections.
Lack of protection is one reason why Europe is against data sharing with the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31048652</id>
	<title>Re:Legal but dishonest</title>
	<author>Nightspirit</author>
	<datestamp>1265458260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I keep hearing about prohibitions in merchant agreements, such as they can't ask you for ID when using a credit card, or they can't charge an additional fee to use a card, or they can't require a minimum. Yet nearly every business around me does all of these things. So either restrictions on merchant accounts aren't enforced or there is a huge misunderstanding of what businesses are allowed to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep hearing about prohibitions in merchant agreements , such as they ca n't ask you for ID when using a credit card , or they ca n't charge an additional fee to use a card , or they ca n't require a minimum .
Yet nearly every business around me does all of these things .
So either restrictions on merchant accounts are n't enforced or there is a huge misunderstanding of what businesses are allowed to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep hearing about prohibitions in merchant agreements, such as they can't ask you for ID when using a credit card, or they can't charge an additional fee to use a card, or they can't require a minimum.
Yet nearly every business around me does all of these things.
So either restrictions on merchant accounts aren't enforced or there is a huge misunderstanding of what businesses are allowed to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31037898</id>
	<title>Re:Best buy used to do this and they got in big tr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265401140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Best buy used to do this and they got in big trouble In more then one way one was the MSN thing where they scan the free disk but don't tell you that you when singed up for a 2 year deal after the free trial ended and some people did not even use the disk and did not know that they when singed up for msn and then was the free magazine when you got singed up for if you did not call up and have it stopped.</p></div><p>Punctuation, motherfucker, do you know it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Best buy used to do this and they got in big trouble In more then one way one was the MSN thing where they scan the free disk but do n't tell you that you when singed up for a 2 year deal after the free trial ended and some people did not even use the disk and did not know that they when singed up for msn and then was the free magazine when you got singed up for if you did not call up and have it stopped.Punctuation , motherfucker , do you know it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best buy used to do this and they got in big trouble In more then one way one was the MSN thing where they scan the free disk but don't tell you that you when singed up for a 2 year deal after the free trial ended and some people did not even use the disk and did not know that they when singed up for msn and then was the free magazine when you got singed up for if you did not call up and have it stopped.Punctuation, motherfucker, do you know it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033582</id>
	<title>Re:PCI?</title>
	<author>Shadow of Eternity</author>
	<datestamp>1265378880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure there's a generally-worded fraud law or something somewhere on the books that would catch this since these guys are basically waiting until you buy one thing and then without knowledge or consent billing you for a second thing.</p><p>It's like going to a restaurant, ordering your meal, paying, and then finding out that on the back of one of the fold out flaps in the menu it says you'll also be charged a $150 service charge. You looked at one price, you agreed to one price, and while technically you were "informed" of the second charge in the "fine print" by all reasonable measures you were outright scammed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure there 's a generally-worded fraud law or something somewhere on the books that would catch this since these guys are basically waiting until you buy one thing and then without knowledge or consent billing you for a second thing.It 's like going to a restaurant , ordering your meal , paying , and then finding out that on the back of one of the fold out flaps in the menu it says you 'll also be charged a $ 150 service charge .
You looked at one price , you agreed to one price , and while technically you were " informed " of the second charge in the " fine print " by all reasonable measures you were outright scammed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure there's a generally-worded fraud law or something somewhere on the books that would catch this since these guys are basically waiting until you buy one thing and then without knowledge or consent billing you for a second thing.It's like going to a restaurant, ordering your meal, paying, and then finding out that on the back of one of the fold out flaps in the menu it says you'll also be charged a $150 service charge.
You looked at one price, you agreed to one price, and while technically you were "informed" of the second charge in the "fine print" by all reasonable measures you were outright scammed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31038270</id>
	<title>Re:So if I use some one else's credit card</title>
	<author>jythie</author>
	<datestamp>1265402580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if it is not illegal, credit card companies are always thrilled to do chargebacks....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if it is not illegal , credit card companies are always thrilled to do chargebacks... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if it is not illegal, credit card companies are always thrilled to do chargebacks....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033354</id>
	<title>Re:Legal but dishonest</title>
	<author>Archon-X</author>
	<datestamp>1265376240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both VISA and Mastercard have very explicit regulations on data sharing, and how 'Cross Sales' are conducted: they both prohibit it in their merchant agreements.<br>VISA is somewhat lax on its enforcement, preferring to take a case-by-case approach if there is abuse, however has been cracking down significantly on this type of behavior of late: <a href="http://corporate.visa.com/media-center/press-releases/press969.jsp" title="visa.com">http://corporate.visa.com/media-center/press-releases/press969.jsp</a> [visa.com]</p><p>Mastercard will fine and terminate merchants it finds passing CC information between third parties. Fines normally start at 25k per offense.</p><p>The storage of CC data is another highly regulated procedure. 'Normal' merchants are prevented from storing CC data, and to even handle it, normally have to become PCI-compliant.<br>The storage of CVV data is very, very regulated - You have to have PCI-level 3 compliance - something typically reserved for merchant processors themselves.</p><p>To say that no regulation exists is somewhat uninformed.</p><p>However, even with the above all in place, as these guys are all using merchant accounts, they're going to see all the CC/CVV information in the flux; as presented by the article, it's very common to use this data, if the merchants can 'stay under the radar'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both VISA and Mastercard have very explicit regulations on data sharing , and how 'Cross Sales ' are conducted : they both prohibit it in their merchant agreements.VISA is somewhat lax on its enforcement , preferring to take a case-by-case approach if there is abuse , however has been cracking down significantly on this type of behavior of late : http : //corporate.visa.com/media-center/press-releases/press969.jsp [ visa.com ] Mastercard will fine and terminate merchants it finds passing CC information between third parties .
Fines normally start at 25k per offense.The storage of CC data is another highly regulated procedure .
'Normal ' merchants are prevented from storing CC data , and to even handle it , normally have to become PCI-compliant.The storage of CVV data is very , very regulated - You have to have PCI-level 3 compliance - something typically reserved for merchant processors themselves.To say that no regulation exists is somewhat uninformed.However , even with the above all in place , as these guys are all using merchant accounts , they 're going to see all the CC/CVV information in the flux ; as presented by the article , it 's very common to use this data , if the merchants can 'stay under the radar' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both VISA and Mastercard have very explicit regulations on data sharing, and how 'Cross Sales' are conducted: they both prohibit it in their merchant agreements.VISA is somewhat lax on its enforcement, preferring to take a case-by-case approach if there is abuse, however has been cracking down significantly on this type of behavior of late: http://corporate.visa.com/media-center/press-releases/press969.jsp [visa.com]Mastercard will fine and terminate merchants it finds passing CC information between third parties.
Fines normally start at 25k per offense.The storage of CC data is another highly regulated procedure.
'Normal' merchants are prevented from storing CC data, and to even handle it, normally have to become PCI-compliant.The storage of CVV data is very, very regulated - You have to have PCI-level 3 compliance - something typically reserved for merchant processors themselves.To say that no regulation exists is somewhat uninformed.However, even with the above all in place, as these guys are all using merchant accounts, they're going to see all the CC/CVV information in the flux; as presented by the article, it's very common to use this data, if the merchants can 'stay under the radar'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31036956</id>
	<title>Re:So let me see if I have this right....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265396880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would agree with you on the "internet darwinism", but when you work for one of these companies and your mother get hit with these charges after using an employee friends &amp; family discount you sent here, it is not "as intended".<br>I don't even work in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com department and had no idea about this thing, so there was nothing I could tell her. Really makes you want to find another job, but that is a little difficult at the moment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would agree with you on the " internet darwinism " , but when you work for one of these companies and your mother get hit with these charges after using an employee friends &amp; family discount you sent here , it is not " as intended " .I do n't even work in the .com department and had no idea about this thing , so there was nothing I could tell her .
Really makes you want to find another job , but that is a little difficult at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would agree with you on the "internet darwinism", but when you work for one of these companies and your mother get hit with these charges after using an employee friends &amp; family discount you sent here, it is not "as intended".I don't even work in the .com department and had no idea about this thing, so there was nothing I could tell her.
Really makes you want to find another job, but that is a little difficult at the moment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31037028</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1265397300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see any problem in this, actually.</p><p>Sign me up for as much stuff as you want. I'll keep whatever you send me and reverse charges for the rest. I don't even mind the inconvenience, because I know that Visa will charge the merchant a fee and if enough people have done it then they will increase the cost of transactions.</p><p>Buyers are protected with Visa, what part of that don't you understand?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see any problem in this , actually.Sign me up for as much stuff as you want .
I 'll keep whatever you send me and reverse charges for the rest .
I do n't even mind the inconvenience , because I know that Visa will charge the merchant a fee and if enough people have done it then they will increase the cost of transactions.Buyers are protected with Visa , what part of that do n't you understand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see any problem in this, actually.Sign me up for as much stuff as you want.
I'll keep whatever you send me and reverse charges for the rest.
I don't even mind the inconvenience, because I know that Visa will charge the merchant a fee and if enough people have done it then they will increase the cost of transactions.Buyers are protected with Visa, what part of that don't you understand?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31035190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31048692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31035160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31038558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31036982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31040914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31048652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31036572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31037898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31036956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31037128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31038954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31035636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31044986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31038270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31038182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31037582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31035160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0737210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0737210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0737210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0737210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0737210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31038182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034494
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31035636
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31038954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033900
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31035190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0737210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31036956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0737210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0737210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31038558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31036572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31038270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0737210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31034902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31044986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31048652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31037128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31036982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0737210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31035160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31037582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31048692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0737210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0737210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0737210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31033918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31037898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0737210.31040914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
