<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_05_2015205</id>
	<title>FBI Pushing For 2-Year Retention of Web Traffic Logs</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1265361060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>suraj.sun writes to tell us that the FBI is pushing to have ISPs keep detailed records of <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578\_3-10448060-38.html">what web sites customers have visited</a> for up to two years.  Claiming a desire to combat "child pornography and other serious crimes," the FBI and others are pressing for increased data retention, which they have been doing since as early as 2006.  <i>"If logs of Web sites visited began to be kept, they would be available only to local, state, and federal police with legal authorization such as a subpoena or search warrant.  What remains unclear are the details of what the FBI is proposing. The possibilities include requiring an Internet provider to log the Internet protocol (IP) address of a Web site visited, or the domain name such as cnet.com, a host name such as news.cnet.com, or the actual URL such as http://reviews.cnet.com/Music/2001-6450\_7-0.html.  While the first three categories could be logged without doing deep packet inspection, the fourth category would require it. That could run up against opposition in Congress, which lambasted the concept in a series of hearings in 2008, causing the demise of a company, NebuAd, which pioneered it inside the United States."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>suraj.sun writes to tell us that the FBI is pushing to have ISPs keep detailed records of what web sites customers have visited for up to two years .
Claiming a desire to combat " child pornography and other serious crimes , " the FBI and others are pressing for increased data retention , which they have been doing since as early as 2006 .
" If logs of Web sites visited began to be kept , they would be available only to local , state , and federal police with legal authorization such as a subpoena or search warrant .
What remains unclear are the details of what the FBI is proposing .
The possibilities include requiring an Internet provider to log the Internet protocol ( IP ) address of a Web site visited , or the domain name such as cnet.com , a host name such as news.cnet.com , or the actual URL such as http : //reviews.cnet.com/Music/2001-6450 \ _7-0.html .
While the first three categories could be logged without doing deep packet inspection , the fourth category would require it .
That could run up against opposition in Congress , which lambasted the concept in a series of hearings in 2008 , causing the demise of a company , NebuAd , which pioneered it inside the United States .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suraj.sun writes to tell us that the FBI is pushing to have ISPs keep detailed records of what web sites customers have visited for up to two years.
Claiming a desire to combat "child pornography and other serious crimes," the FBI and others are pressing for increased data retention, which they have been doing since as early as 2006.
"If logs of Web sites visited began to be kept, they would be available only to local, state, and federal police with legal authorization such as a subpoena or search warrant.
What remains unclear are the details of what the FBI is proposing.
The possibilities include requiring an Internet provider to log the Internet protocol (IP) address of a Web site visited, or the domain name such as cnet.com, a host name such as news.cnet.com, or the actual URL such as http://reviews.cnet.com/Music/2001-6450\_7-0.html.
While the first three categories could be logged without doing deep packet inspection, the fourth category would require it.
That could run up against opposition in Congress, which lambasted the concept in a series of hearings in 2008, causing the demise of a company, NebuAd, which pioneered it inside the United States.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040210</id>
	<title>Dear F.B.I. By Clicking This Link  For Log Info</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265368140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you authorize the payment of Euro 100,000,000 to the bank account of Kilgore Trout.</p><p>The info for traffic logs can be obtained directly from<br>the N.S.A. subsidiary  <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/04/131224/" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Google</a> [slashdot.org]<br>for all traffic logs. While your dredging for my traffic logs,<br>would you kindly publish ALL of the e-mail of the world's largest crime syndicate ( BushCo )?</p><p>Thanks in advance.</p><p>Yours In Astrakhan<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCiVKJ5VjE4&amp;feature=related" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">KIlgore Trout</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you authorize the payment of Euro 100,000,000 to the bank account of Kilgore Trout.The info for traffic logs can be obtained directly fromthe N.S.A .
subsidiary Google [ slashdot.org ] for all traffic logs .
While your dredging for my traffic logs,would you kindly publish ALL of the e-mail of the world 's largest crime syndicate ( BushCo ) ? Thanks in advance.Yours In AstrakhanKIlgore Trout [ youtube.com ]  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>you authorize the payment of Euro 100,000,000 to the bank account of Kilgore Trout.The info for traffic logs can be obtained directly fromthe N.S.A.
subsidiary  Google [slashdot.org]for all traffic logs.
While your dredging for my traffic logs,would you kindly publish ALL of the e-mail of the world's largest crime syndicate ( BushCo )?Thanks in advance.Yours In AstrakhanKIlgore Trout [youtube.com]
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041138</id>
	<title>Would those be the same "search warrants"...</title>
	<author>The Ultimate Fartkno</author>
	<datestamp>1265373420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...required by the phone companies? You know, the ones that pretty much ended up being "Yeah, listen, I need all the numbers this brown guy called. He's with the Al Quakers or something. Who, me? FBI? Sure, whatever it takes."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...required by the phone companies ?
You know , the ones that pretty much ended up being " Yeah , listen , I need all the numbers this brown guy called .
He 's with the Al Quakers or something .
Who , me ?
FBI ? Sure , whatever it takes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...required by the phone companies?
You know, the ones that pretty much ended up being "Yeah, listen, I need all the numbers this brown guy called.
He's with the Al Quakers or something.
Who, me?
FBI? Sure, whatever it takes.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040650</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>oneTheory</author>
	<datestamp>1265370360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wizards's First Rule: "People are stupid;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wizards 's First Rule : " People are stupid ; ... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wizards's First Rule: "People are stupid; ..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042970</id>
	<title>Let's Burn More Money!</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265388180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         Convictions cost big bucks and we already have way to many convicts. I'm not so certain that we need to enable the FBI in tracking down sweaty little perverts or loonies trying to stuff bombs in their boxer shorts or sneakers. It seems to me that almost all of the time society loses a lot of money when we sweep up this trash. It might be better to let them run about or perhaps build some treatment facilities where people with short circuited brains could get some real help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Convictions cost big bucks and we already have way to many convicts .
I 'm not so certain that we need to enable the FBI in tracking down sweaty little perverts or loonies trying to stuff bombs in their boxer shorts or sneakers .
It seems to me that almost all of the time society loses a lot of money when we sweep up this trash .
It might be better to let them run about or perhaps build some treatment facilities where people with short circuited brains could get some real help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         Convictions cost big bucks and we already have way to many convicts.
I'm not so certain that we need to enable the FBI in tracking down sweaty little perverts or loonies trying to stuff bombs in their boxer shorts or sneakers.
It seems to me that almost all of the time society loses a lot of money when we sweep up this trash.
It might be better to let them run about or perhaps build some treatment facilities where people with short circuited brains could get some real help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041430</id>
	<title>Re:Deep Packet Inspection for URL Not Required...</title>
	<author>RoboRay</author>
	<datestamp>1265375400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That may be how they'll rope websites, and other types of internet services for that matter, into complying with log retention.</i></p><p>I believe this is actually how they plan to push all web-servers out of the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That may be how they 'll rope websites , and other types of internet services for that matter , into complying with log retention.I believe this is actually how they plan to push all web-servers out of the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That may be how they'll rope websites, and other types of internet services for that matter, into complying with log retention.I believe this is actually how they plan to push all web-servers out of the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042704</id>
	<title>Re:What are the logistics of this for a big site?</title>
	<author>/dev/trash</author>
	<datestamp>1265385720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like a plot by the hard drive guys to get a spike in sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a plot by the hard drive guys to get a spike in sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a plot by the hard drive guys to get a spike in sales.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040308</id>
	<title>Just make it permanent</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1265368500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That way what you do today that is completely legal, can be used against you in 10 years when it isn't legal. Oh, and add location services, based on cell phone records, credit card purchases ( must ban cash ) street corner cameras, etc.</p><p>Stop the bus, i want off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That way what you do today that is completely legal , can be used against you in 10 years when it is n't legal .
Oh , and add location services , based on cell phone records , credit card purchases ( must ban cash ) street corner cameras , etc.Stop the bus , i want off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That way what you do today that is completely legal, can be used against you in 10 years when it isn't legal.
Oh, and add location services, based on cell phone records, credit card purchases ( must ban cash ) street corner cameras, etc.Stop the bus, i want off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040408</id>
	<title>The minute this becomes law...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265369040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the minute I find some company with no U.S. presence that will provide me with a VPN.  Then simply configure my router appropriately.  All the ISP can log is a bunch of encrypted traffic to the VPN provider.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the minute I find some company with no U.S. presence that will provide me with a VPN .
Then simply configure my router appropriately .
All the ISP can log is a bunch of encrypted traffic to the VPN provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the minute I find some company with no U.S. presence that will provide me with a VPN.
Then simply configure my router appropriately.
All the ISP can log is a bunch of encrypted traffic to the VPN provider.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044022</id>
	<title>This excuse for invasion of privacy....</title>
	<author>mrdtr</author>
	<datestamp>1265489940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is getting really old and worn out. Why doesn't the FBI just be strait up with the people, and just say they want to have as much info on every American as possible - they need not use the child porn card anymore. This would be the biggest invasion of privacy ever - if it were enacted. The potential for abuse and theft of this info would be enormous, and I'm sure it would also have a price tag in the billions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is getting really old and worn out .
Why does n't the FBI just be strait up with the people , and just say they want to have as much info on every American as possible - they need not use the child porn card anymore .
This would be the biggest invasion of privacy ever - if it were enacted .
The potential for abuse and theft of this info would be enormous , and I 'm sure it would also have a price tag in the billions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is getting really old and worn out.
Why doesn't the FBI just be strait up with the people, and just say they want to have as much info on every American as possible - they need not use the child porn card anymore.
This would be the biggest invasion of privacy ever - if it were enacted.
The potential for abuse and theft of this info would be enormous, and I'm sure it would also have a price tag in the billions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042402</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265382720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Also, laws are publicly recorded</i> </p><p>My friend, you seriously need to take a thorough course in geography. I don't think you have the vaguest idea where on the planet you are.</p><p>As an initial step in your education, I'd like to point out that you are in the United States of America.</p><p>You know, the place where warrantless wiretapping was illegal. It still was, even after the buttfucking prior occupant of the White House wiped his fetid asshole with the Constitution and told the cops and the telcos, "Don't sweat it -- I've got your back."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , laws are publicly recorded My friend , you seriously need to take a thorough course in geography .
I do n't think you have the vaguest idea where on the planet you are.As an initial step in your education , I 'd like to point out that you are in the United States of America.You know , the place where warrantless wiretapping was illegal .
It still was , even after the buttfucking prior occupant of the White House wiped his fetid asshole with the Constitution and told the cops and the telcos , " Do n't sweat it -- I 've got your back .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, laws are publicly recorded My friend, you seriously need to take a thorough course in geography.
I don't think you have the vaguest idea where on the planet you are.As an initial step in your education, I'd like to point out that you are in the United States of America.You know, the place where warrantless wiretapping was illegal.
It still was, even after the buttfucking prior occupant of the White House wiped his fetid asshole with the Constitution and told the cops and the telcos, "Don't sweat it -- I've got your back.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040762</id>
	<title>VPN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265371080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone here know of why a commercial VPN connection would be a way around this sort of thing?  Would TOR work for this as well?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone here know of why a commercial VPN connection would be a way around this sort of thing ?
Would TOR work for this as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone here know of why a commercial VPN connection would be a way around this sort of thing?
Would TOR work for this as well?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31048040</id>
	<title>wrong law</title>
	<author>uncreativeslashnick</author>
	<datestamp>1265452200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>seems to me the guys we elect should be pushing for a law that *requires* ISPs to destroy logs after 30 days or so, rather than forcing them to preserve logs... whose side are these guys on?</htmltext>
<tokenext>seems to me the guys we elect should be pushing for a law that * requires * ISPs to destroy logs after 30 days or so , rather than forcing them to preserve logs... whose side are these guys on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seems to me the guys we elect should be pushing for a law that *requires* ISPs to destroy logs after 30 days or so, rather than forcing them to preserve logs... whose side are these guys on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041420</id>
	<title>Re:Deep Packet Inspection for URL Not Required...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265375400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE's market share is already dropping, if they did this and people found out they might as well pull out of the browser industry all together. Plus this would be impossible for the two other popular browsers (Firefox/Chrome) since they are both open source and a version would simply be released without it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE 's market share is already dropping , if they did this and people found out they might as well pull out of the browser industry all together .
Plus this would be impossible for the two other popular browsers ( Firefox/Chrome ) since they are both open source and a version would simply be released without it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE's market share is already dropping, if they did this and people found out they might as well pull out of the browser industry all together.
Plus this would be impossible for the two other popular browsers (Firefox/Chrome) since they are both open source and a version would simply be released without it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039706</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1265365860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, but we're nowhere near the end of abuse of kiddie porn as a justification for invasion of privacy.  I'm just waiting to see someone propose a law that requires children be photographed naked annually with the pictures stored in a national database so that they can more rapidly identify the victims of abuse.  From a logical perspective, it's completely valid.  From an ethical perspective, it's completely appalling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , but we 're nowhere near the end of abuse of kiddie porn as a justification for invasion of privacy .
I 'm just waiting to see someone propose a law that requires children be photographed naked annually with the pictures stored in a national database so that they can more rapidly identify the victims of abuse .
From a logical perspective , it 's completely valid .
From an ethical perspective , it 's completely appalling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, but we're nowhere near the end of abuse of kiddie porn as a justification for invasion of privacy.
I'm just waiting to see someone propose a law that requires children be photographed naked annually with the pictures stored in a national database so that they can more rapidly identify the victims of abuse.
From a logical perspective, it's completely valid.
From an ethical perspective, it's completely appalling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040154</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265367840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's OK, then they can use their other catch all excuse: terrorism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's OK , then they can use their other catch all excuse : terrorism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's OK, then they can use their other catch all excuse: terrorism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044602</id>
	<title>Re:Monitoring is good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265458020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've only ever heard police officers ASKING for cameras they can carry. I've only heard praise for dash cams. Video evidence can only back up a "good cop"'s story.</p><p>Frankly, for an individual to be given that sort of power, I think THEY SHOULD be monitored as long as they are in uniform/doing their duties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've only ever heard police officers ASKING for cameras they can carry .
I 've only heard praise for dash cams .
Video evidence can only back up a " good cop " 's story.Frankly , for an individual to be given that sort of power , I think THEY SHOULD be monitored as long as they are in uniform/doing their duties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've only ever heard police officers ASKING for cameras they can carry.
I've only heard praise for dash cams.
Video evidence can only back up a "good cop"'s story.Frankly, for an individual to be given that sort of power, I think THEY SHOULD be monitored as long as they are in uniform/doing their duties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040008</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1265367240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The people downloading "kitty porn" for free are doing nothing to encourage the creation of more of it. Go after the money trail instead -- the people that deserve to go to jail are the people that are paying for it, and I don't believe tracing the flow of funds requires monitoring every single internet connection. Also, laws are publicly recorded -- as soon as you announce you're going to start doing this, anybody that knows they are breaking a law is just going to start encrypting their connections and going through anonymous proxies, meaning that this technology is only effective against people who don't think they are doing anything wrong!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people downloading " kitty porn " for free are doing nothing to encourage the creation of more of it .
Go after the money trail instead -- the people that deserve to go to jail are the people that are paying for it , and I do n't believe tracing the flow of funds requires monitoring every single internet connection .
Also , laws are publicly recorded -- as soon as you announce you 're going to start doing this , anybody that knows they are breaking a law is just going to start encrypting their connections and going through anonymous proxies , meaning that this technology is only effective against people who do n't think they are doing anything wrong !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people downloading "kitty porn" for free are doing nothing to encourage the creation of more of it.
Go after the money trail instead -- the people that deserve to go to jail are the people that are paying for it, and I don't believe tracing the flow of funds requires monitoring every single internet connection.
Also, laws are publicly recorded -- as soon as you announce you're going to start doing this, anybody that knows they are breaking a law is just going to start encrypting their connections and going through anonymous proxies, meaning that this technology is only effective against people who don't think they are doing anything wrong!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468</id>
	<title>Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>ravenspear</author>
	<datestamp>1265364780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously is child pornography going to be trotted out for EVERY encroachment on privacy that we have to endure year after year?
<br> <br>
It's getting so old.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously is child pornography going to be trotted out for EVERY encroachment on privacy that we have to endure year after year ?
It 's getting so old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously is child pornography going to be trotted out for EVERY encroachment on privacy that we have to endure year after year?
It's getting so old.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31046590</id>
	<title>ask NSA</title>
	<author>djdbass</author>
	<datestamp>1265481720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't they just go ask the NSA for the data? I was under the impression that the NSA <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA\_warrantless\_surveillance\_controversy" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">already retained</a> [wikipedia.org] copies of everything they found interesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they just go ask the NSA for the data ?
I was under the impression that the NSA already retained [ wikipedia.org ] copies of everything they found interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they just go ask the NSA for the data?
I was under the impression that the NSA already retained [wikipedia.org] copies of everything they found interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042608</id>
	<title>Re:Monitoring is good</title>
	<author>Plugh</author>
	<datestamp>1265384760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could say we're workin' on it.<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/5FWXnK5UyRI" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/v/5FWXnK5UyRI</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could say we 're workin ' on it.http : //www.youtube.com/v/5FWXnK5UyRI [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could say we're workin' on it.http://www.youtube.com/v/5FWXnK5UyRI [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042758</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>rtb61</author>
	<datestamp>1265386200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> More importantly what happens when some one creates a firefox plugin that randomly accesses web sites, thus obfuscating your any actual web usage and poisoning perverts data base mining efforts. A similar tool to  track me not <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3173" title="mozilla.org">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3173</a> [mozilla.org], perhaps making a random selection from logical IP address ranges. Whta happens if you are a frequent user of stumbleupon <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/138" title="mozilla.org">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/138</a> [mozilla.org], who is liable for those choices, you or stumbleupon, I've pressed that button more than 100,000 times and I certainly take no responsibility for where it ends up. Then there is change of IP address, what was once a child safe IP address can months latter become a child porn address and, vice versa. Now add IPv6 into that and naughty web sites can literally have thousands of IP addresses, scattered and not tied to a particular range. One could image the 2 year databases could become huge and contaminated with millions even billions of false connection records.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More importantly what happens when some one creates a firefox plugin that randomly accesses web sites , thus obfuscating your any actual web usage and poisoning perverts data base mining efforts .
A similar tool to track me not https : //addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3173 [ mozilla.org ] , perhaps making a random selection from logical IP address ranges .
Whta happens if you are a frequent user of stumbleupon https : //addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/138 [ mozilla.org ] , who is liable for those choices , you or stumbleupon , I 've pressed that button more than 100,000 times and I certainly take no responsibility for where it ends up .
Then there is change of IP address , what was once a child safe IP address can months latter become a child porn address and , vice versa .
Now add IPv6 into that and naughty web sites can literally have thousands of IP addresses , scattered and not tied to a particular range .
One could image the 2 year databases could become huge and contaminated with millions even billions of false connection records .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> More importantly what happens when some one creates a firefox plugin that randomly accesses web sites, thus obfuscating your any actual web usage and poisoning perverts data base mining efforts.
A similar tool to  track me not https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3173 [mozilla.org], perhaps making a random selection from logical IP address ranges.
Whta happens if you are a frequent user of stumbleupon https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/138 [mozilla.org], who is liable for those choices, you or stumbleupon, I've pressed that button more than 100,000 times and I certainly take no responsibility for where it ends up.
Then there is change of IP address, what was once a child safe IP address can months latter become a child porn address and, vice versa.
Now add IPv6 into that and naughty web sites can literally have thousands of IP addresses, scattered and not tied to a particular range.
One could image the 2 year databases could become huge and contaminated with millions even billions of false connection records.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31043884</id>
	<title>Freedom of speech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265486760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I exercise my first amendment rights and operate a website that contains my own free speech messages (not porn). None of the content on my website is restricted or illegal. And I do not wish to keep logs of every access. Forcing my site down because I do not comply with the FBI's requirements would violate my right to free speech.</p><p>Government agencies can make any sort of demands they want, but blatant violations of constitutional rights are quickly shut down. There is almost no way to debate the other side of this, so I'm not even remotely worried about it.</p><p>(and yes I provide hosting for several other websites on my two servers, so technically that makes me an ISP)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I exercise my first amendment rights and operate a website that contains my own free speech messages ( not porn ) .
None of the content on my website is restricted or illegal .
And I do not wish to keep logs of every access .
Forcing my site down because I do not comply with the FBI 's requirements would violate my right to free speech.Government agencies can make any sort of demands they want , but blatant violations of constitutional rights are quickly shut down .
There is almost no way to debate the other side of this , so I 'm not even remotely worried about it .
( and yes I provide hosting for several other websites on my two servers , so technically that makes me an ISP )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I exercise my first amendment rights and operate a website that contains my own free speech messages (not porn).
None of the content on my website is restricted or illegal.
And I do not wish to keep logs of every access.
Forcing my site down because I do not comply with the FBI's requirements would violate my right to free speech.Government agencies can make any sort of demands they want, but blatant violations of constitutional rights are quickly shut down.
There is almost no way to debate the other side of this, so I'm not even remotely worried about it.
(and yes I provide hosting for several other websites on my two servers, so technically that makes me an ISP)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040320</id>
	<title>Protect yourself</title>
	<author>jtownatpunk.net</author>
	<datestamp>1265368620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.ipredator.se/" title="ipredator.se">ipredator</a> [ipredator.se]</p><p>Use offshore VPN for everything.  Because what you're doing today may be frowned upon tomorrow.  Or maybe you like reading extremist blogs for the lolz and you apply for a job that needs an FBI background check.  Wow, this guy sure likes militias.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ipredator [ ipredator.se ] Use offshore VPN for everything .
Because what you 're doing today may be frowned upon tomorrow .
Or maybe you like reading extremist blogs for the lolz and you apply for a job that needs an FBI background check .
Wow , this guy sure likes militias .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ipredator [ipredator.se]Use offshore VPN for everything.
Because what you're doing today may be frowned upon tomorrow.
Or maybe you like reading extremist blogs for the lolz and you apply for a job that needs an FBI background check.
Wow, this guy sure likes militias.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042286</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1265381820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just like crime, just like drugs, just like racism...</p><p>We will never rid the world of child porn.</p><p>Its an impossible goal, just like absolute security.</p><p>We can not destroy ourselves just to make the world "better".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just like crime , just like drugs , just like racism...We will never rid the world of child porn.Its an impossible goal , just like absolute security.We can not destroy ourselves just to make the world " better " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just like crime, just like drugs, just like racism...We will never rid the world of child porn.Its an impossible goal, just like absolute security.We can not destroy ourselves just to make the world "better".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040204</id>
	<title>Other serious crimes---</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1265368080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>like destroying the meaning of privacy for all the users of internet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>like destroying the meaning of privacy for all the users of internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>like destroying the meaning of privacy for all the users of internet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040240</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1265368200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Seriously is child pornography going to be trotted out for EVERY encroachment on privacy that we have to endure year after year? </i> No, not every encroachment. The wars on terrorism, drugs, and gangs, will be trotted out for many other encroachments. "Terrorism" is already used to restrict your right to anonymous travel. Fighting gangs was used as an excuse for random checkpoints in California. And drugs... will, approximately half the people in jail in the US are there on drug related charges -- trust me, being in jail is a HUGE encroachment on your privacy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously is child pornography going to be trotted out for EVERY encroachment on privacy that we have to endure year after year ?
No , not every encroachment .
The wars on terrorism , drugs , and gangs , will be trotted out for many other encroachments .
" Terrorism " is already used to restrict your right to anonymous travel .
Fighting gangs was used as an excuse for random checkpoints in California .
And drugs... will , approximately half the people in jail in the US are there on drug related charges -- trust me , being in jail is a HUGE encroachment on your privacy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously is child pornography going to be trotted out for EVERY encroachment on privacy that we have to endure year after year?
No, not every encroachment.
The wars on terrorism, drugs, and gangs, will be trotted out for many other encroachments.
"Terrorism" is already used to restrict your right to anonymous travel.
Fighting gangs was used as an excuse for random checkpoints in California.
And drugs... will, approximately half the people in jail in the US are there on drug related charges -- trust me, being in jail is a HUGE encroachment on your privacy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042572</id>
	<title>FBI is tapping you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265384400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The LEAs of the world will never be satisified until they have access to every thought of every person in the world.  Those pushing for this nonsense have tunnel vision and lack a big picture understanding of the space.</p><p>People are not sheep and they won't stand for the circumvention of their privacy.  Privacy is a mandatory ingrediant for any workable social contract amoung humans.  If you start logging we start encrypting and toring.  The more you push the more people push back.</p><p>You already have virtually all unencrpyted links for e-mail, web traffic, IM, SMS and virtually all voice communication world-wide.  Keep pushing -- keep up your lazy antics of thinking technology over real world case work that can be done IN ANY MEDIUM within which humans participate will solve your problems and it will only make your jobs all the more difficult in the end when those logs or TAPs you previously relied on and already had access to been rendered meaningless due to the use of encryption and anonymization technologies.</p><p>IPv4/6 IPSec with anon DH is enough to rain on your paradae.  Its already installed and ready to go on virtually every desktop PC on the planet. Think about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The LEAs of the world will never be satisified until they have access to every thought of every person in the world .
Those pushing for this nonsense have tunnel vision and lack a big picture understanding of the space.People are not sheep and they wo n't stand for the circumvention of their privacy .
Privacy is a mandatory ingrediant for any workable social contract amoung humans .
If you start logging we start encrypting and toring .
The more you push the more people push back.You already have virtually all unencrpyted links for e-mail , web traffic , IM , SMS and virtually all voice communication world-wide .
Keep pushing -- keep up your lazy antics of thinking technology over real world case work that can be done IN ANY MEDIUM within which humans participate will solve your problems and it will only make your jobs all the more difficult in the end when those logs or TAPs you previously relied on and already had access to been rendered meaningless due to the use of encryption and anonymization technologies.IPv4/6 IPSec with anon DH is enough to rain on your paradae .
Its already installed and ready to go on virtually every desktop PC on the planet .
Think about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The LEAs of the world will never be satisified until they have access to every thought of every person in the world.
Those pushing for this nonsense have tunnel vision and lack a big picture understanding of the space.People are not sheep and they won't stand for the circumvention of their privacy.
Privacy is a mandatory ingrediant for any workable social contract amoung humans.
If you start logging we start encrypting and toring.
The more you push the more people push back.You already have virtually all unencrpyted links for e-mail, web traffic, IM, SMS and virtually all voice communication world-wide.
Keep pushing -- keep up your lazy antics of thinking technology over real world case work that can be done IN ANY MEDIUM within which humans participate will solve your problems and it will only make your jobs all the more difficult in the end when those logs or TAPs you previously relied on and already had access to been rendered meaningless due to the use of encryption and anonymization technologies.IPv4/6 IPSec with anon DH is enough to rain on your paradae.
Its already installed and ready to go on virtually every desktop PC on the planet.
Think about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040054</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265367420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, now, don't forget "net neutrality."  With ISPs required to keep logs on everybody, and the government regulating Internet traffic, we could finally live safely in a warez-free, threat-free environment.  Thanks, big government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , now , do n't forget " net neutrality .
" With ISPs required to keep logs on everybody , and the government regulating Internet traffic , we could finally live safely in a warez-free , threat-free environment .
Thanks , big government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, now, don't forget "net neutrality.
"  With ISPs required to keep logs on everybody, and the government regulating Internet traffic, we could finally live safely in a warez-free, threat-free environment.
Thanks, big government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040206</id>
	<title>"the Internet protocol (IP) address"</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265368080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the Internet protocol (IP) address</p></div><p>Really? Explaining what &ldquo;IP address&rdquo; means? Are Cnet reader really <em>that</em> stupid?<br>Every child knows what that is. Hell, even my grandma knows it from crossword puzzles.</p><p>I call &ldquo;intentional dumbing down of humanity&rdquo; on that one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Internet protocol ( IP ) addressReally ?
Explaining what    IP address    means ?
Are Cnet reader really that stupid ? Every child knows what that is .
Hell , even my grandma knows it from crossword puzzles.I call    intentional dumbing down of humanity    on that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Internet protocol (IP) addressReally?
Explaining what “IP address” means?
Are Cnet reader really that stupid?Every child knows what that is.
Hell, even my grandma knows it from crossword puzzles.I call “intentional dumbing down of humanity” on that one.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044254</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1265452200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>That gave me an idea for an album cover! This   [WARNING. Possibly NSFW: article includes an image of an album cover featuring a prepubescent girl, naked, in a vaguely suggestive pose.] isn't enough anymore. We need a picture of a naked child, drawn, not a photo of a real child, smoking pot, holding a stick of dynamite in one hand, and picture of Stalin in the other. The album title? How about "Censor This!"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>That gave me an idea for an album cover !
This [ WARNING .
Possibly NSFW : article includes an image of an album cover featuring a prepubescent girl , naked , in a vaguely suggestive pose .
] is n't enough anymore .
We need a picture of a naked child , drawn , not a photo of a real child , smoking pot , holding a stick of dynamite in one hand , and picture of Stalin in the other .
The album title ?
How about " Censor This !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That gave me an idea for an album cover!
This   [WARNING.
Possibly NSFW: article includes an image of an album cover featuring a prepubescent girl, naked, in a vaguely suggestive pose.
] isn't enough anymore.
We need a picture of a naked child, drawn, not a photo of a real child, smoking pot, holding a stick of dynamite in one hand, and picture of Stalin in the other.
The album title?
How about "Censor This!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044622</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265458380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're really struggling to fit this into two neat options, even though you're not phrasing them as such. Not only that, but you go on to say that there's no "good answer", which is patently false. It may be correct for your stupid little either or list, but not in general. The third 'question', out of countless others I could come up with:</p><p>- How much money will you invest in keeping Haitian children that cross the border safe?</p><p>See, what you're basically implying is that either we let them die in Haiti to protect them from traffickers or we let them suffer to traffickers in order to get them out of Haiti. As I pointed out above, a third option is to simply get them out of Haiti AND protect them from traffickers. You've literally just assumed that getting them out of Haiti will result in some of them being taken for nefarious reasons. It may be true, but it may also not be true. But forcing people to pick from only two options based on that silly assumption is just wrong, and really skewing the argument in your favor.</p><p>
&nbsp; - XcepticZP</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're really struggling to fit this into two neat options , even though you 're not phrasing them as such .
Not only that , but you go on to say that there 's no " good answer " , which is patently false .
It may be correct for your stupid little either or list , but not in general .
The third 'question ' , out of countless others I could come up with : - How much money will you invest in keeping Haitian children that cross the border safe ? See , what you 're basically implying is that either we let them die in Haiti to protect them from traffickers or we let them suffer to traffickers in order to get them out of Haiti .
As I pointed out above , a third option is to simply get them out of Haiti AND protect them from traffickers .
You 've literally just assumed that getting them out of Haiti will result in some of them being taken for nefarious reasons .
It may be true , but it may also not be true .
But forcing people to pick from only two options based on that silly assumption is just wrong , and really skewing the argument in your favor .
  - XcepticZP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're really struggling to fit this into two neat options, even though you're not phrasing them as such.
Not only that, but you go on to say that there's no "good answer", which is patently false.
It may be correct for your stupid little either or list, but not in general.
The third 'question', out of countless others I could come up with:- How much money will you invest in keeping Haitian children that cross the border safe?See, what you're basically implying is that either we let them die in Haiti to protect them from traffickers or we let them suffer to traffickers in order to get them out of Haiti.
As I pointed out above, a third option is to simply get them out of Haiti AND protect them from traffickers.
You've literally just assumed that getting them out of Haiti will result in some of them being taken for nefarious reasons.
It may be true, but it may also not be true.
But forcing people to pick from only two options based on that silly assumption is just wrong, and really skewing the argument in your favor.
  - XcepticZP</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041538</id>
	<title>What are the logistics of this for a big site?</title>
	<author>Muerte2</author>
	<datestamp>1265376300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's pretend you're a moderately large site getting a couple million hits a day. I'm guessing you don't have logging turned on because</p><p>#1) You'd have huge log files<br>#2) Your disk throughput/server load is going to suffer<br>#3) You don't even use logs for doing statistical analysis<br>#4) You have lots of servers and would have to aggregate all the logs into one</p><p>Whose going to pay for the disks I'll need just to store the logs if the FBI wants to look at them? It's not going to be the FBI that's for sure. The logistics of storing that much data are insane on the Facebook/Google/Digg scale get pretty insane pretty quick.</p><p>My small server farm (three servers) does 1.5G of logs per day. Multiply that by two years and that's a 1095 gigs of logs!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's pretend you 're a moderately large site getting a couple million hits a day .
I 'm guessing you do n't have logging turned on because # 1 ) You 'd have huge log files # 2 ) Your disk throughput/server load is going to suffer # 3 ) You do n't even use logs for doing statistical analysis # 4 ) You have lots of servers and would have to aggregate all the logs into oneWhose going to pay for the disks I 'll need just to store the logs if the FBI wants to look at them ?
It 's not going to be the FBI that 's for sure .
The logistics of storing that much data are insane on the Facebook/Google/Digg scale get pretty insane pretty quick.My small server farm ( three servers ) does 1.5G of logs per day .
Multiply that by two years and that 's a 1095 gigs of logs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's pretend you're a moderately large site getting a couple million hits a day.
I'm guessing you don't have logging turned on because#1) You'd have huge log files#2) Your disk throughput/server load is going to suffer#3) You don't even use logs for doing statistical analysis#4) You have lots of servers and would have to aggregate all the logs into oneWhose going to pay for the disks I'll need just to store the logs if the FBI wants to look at them?
It's not going to be the FBI that's for sure.
The logistics of storing that much data are insane on the Facebook/Google/Digg scale get pretty insane pretty quick.My small server farm (three servers) does 1.5G of logs per day.
Multiply that by two years and that's a 1095 gigs of logs!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039538</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1265365020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Welcome to the world of politics...<br> <br>Seriously though, what happens when you don't use the dns provider of the ISP (either running your own, or using a 3pd DNS provider)?  Would that make anyone running their own DNS server (or an alternate third party) a suspicious person?  They would only be able to log IP addresses then, and given the proliferation of mass shared hosts, how is this helpful?  If a child porn site was on a godaddy server, and you go to another site on the same server, would you have to prove you went to the other site?  More guilty until proven innocent...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the world of politics... Seriously though , what happens when you do n't use the dns provider of the ISP ( either running your own , or using a 3pd DNS provider ) ?
Would that make anyone running their own DNS server ( or an alternate third party ) a suspicious person ?
They would only be able to log IP addresses then , and given the proliferation of mass shared hosts , how is this helpful ?
If a child porn site was on a godaddy server , and you go to another site on the same server , would you have to prove you went to the other site ?
More guilty until proven innocent.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the world of politics... Seriously though, what happens when you don't use the dns provider of the ISP (either running your own, or using a 3pd DNS provider)?
Would that make anyone running their own DNS server (or an alternate third party) a suspicious person?
They would only be able to log IP addresses then, and given the proliferation of mass shared hosts, how is this helpful?
If a child porn site was on a godaddy server, and you go to another site on the same server, would you have to prove you went to the other site?
More guilty until proven innocent...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044672</id>
	<title>TINHC: There is no HDD/tape cabal</title>
	<author>Philip\_the\_physicist</author>
	<datestamp>1265459160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just so you know.</p><p>Also, this is not the time to buy shares in the mass storage manufacturers, and you shouldn't check which influential DC people own shares in them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just so you know.Also , this is not the time to buy shares in the mass storage manufacturers , and you should n't check which influential DC people own shares in them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just so you know.Also, this is not the time to buy shares in the mass storage manufacturers, and you shouldn't check which influential DC people own shares in them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041618</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265376900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously is child pornography going to be trotted out for EVERY encroachment on privacy that we have to endure year after year?<br>It's getting so old.</p></div><p>I believe the principle is that children should also be able to get old.  Preferably without the traumas of abuse, and knowing their image was shared globally on the internet.</p><p>If you honestly think that the same amount of child pornography would exist if nobody tried to purchase it, please try to apply that same argument to spammers.<br>The only difference is you are unlikely to be ostracized by society if someone finds out you always wanted to have your own Rolex.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously is child pornography going to be trotted out for EVERY encroachment on privacy that we have to endure year after year ? It 's getting so old.I believe the principle is that children should also be able to get old .
Preferably without the traumas of abuse , and knowing their image was shared globally on the internet.If you honestly think that the same amount of child pornography would exist if nobody tried to purchase it , please try to apply that same argument to spammers.The only difference is you are unlikely to be ostracized by society if someone finds out you always wanted to have your own Rolex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously is child pornography going to be trotted out for EVERY encroachment on privacy that we have to endure year after year?It's getting so old.I believe the principle is that children should also be able to get old.
Preferably without the traumas of abuse, and knowing their image was shared globally on the internet.If you honestly think that the same amount of child pornography would exist if nobody tried to purchase it, please try to apply that same argument to spammers.The only difference is you are unlikely to be ostracized by society if someone finds out you always wanted to have your own Rolex.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31043784</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265398500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, if they are not recording what the actual website looked like <em>when you visited it</em> what is to keep the IP address from changing to something naughty two years from now? After all IP addresses change all the time, and what was...say some stupid fan site a year ago...who knows what it will be two years from now?</p><p>And how would you "prove" your innocence? They show up with a list of IP addresses from a year and a half ago, how do I prove they are/aren't mine? How do I prove where I did/didn't go a year and a half ago? Hell I don't even have the same PC I did a year and a half ago as it finally gave up the ghost!</p><p>

This smells a little too much to me like a "bust anyone you don't like for free" card as defending yourself against some list held in a cop's hand will prove damned near impossible. What's next? "Oh he used <a href="http://ninite.com/" title="ninite.com">CCleaner</a> [ninite.com] to empty his temp files and Defraggler to defragment his hard drive, which just proves he was destroying evidence!". Give me a fricking break! How come we supposedly won the cold war and now I have the urge to do "
In Soviet Amerika" jokes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , if they are not recording what the actual website looked like when you visited it what is to keep the IP address from changing to something naughty two years from now ?
After all IP addresses change all the time , and what was...say some stupid fan site a year ago...who knows what it will be two years from now ? And how would you " prove " your innocence ?
They show up with a list of IP addresses from a year and a half ago , how do I prove they are/are n't mine ?
How do I prove where I did/did n't go a year and a half ago ?
Hell I do n't even have the same PC I did a year and a half ago as it finally gave up the ghost !
This smells a little too much to me like a " bust anyone you do n't like for free " card as defending yourself against some list held in a cop 's hand will prove damned near impossible .
What 's next ?
" Oh he used CCleaner [ ninite.com ] to empty his temp files and Defraggler to defragment his hard drive , which just proves he was destroying evidence ! " .
Give me a fricking break !
How come we supposedly won the cold war and now I have the urge to do " In Soviet Amerika " jokes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, if they are not recording what the actual website looked like when you visited it what is to keep the IP address from changing to something naughty two years from now?
After all IP addresses change all the time, and what was...say some stupid fan site a year ago...who knows what it will be two years from now?And how would you "prove" your innocence?
They show up with a list of IP addresses from a year and a half ago, how do I prove they are/aren't mine?
How do I prove where I did/didn't go a year and a half ago?
Hell I don't even have the same PC I did a year and a half ago as it finally gave up the ghost!
This smells a little too much to me like a "bust anyone you don't like for free" card as defending yourself against some list held in a cop's hand will prove damned near impossible.
What's next?
"Oh he used CCleaner [ninite.com] to empty his temp files and Defraggler to defragment his hard drive, which just proves he was destroying evidence!".
Give me a fricking break!
How come we supposedly won the cold war and now I have the urge to do "
In Soviet Amerika" jokes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039924</id>
	<title>Host names</title>
	<author>unix1</author>
	<datestamp>1265366880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Host names cannot be logged without packet inspection unless they assume that a corresponding request against the ISP's DNS services constitutes to "visiting" the resolved host name. You are also free to use DNS servers of your choice that are different from your ISP's. You can run your own DNS server too.</p><p>When a client "visits" a URI it:</p><p>1. resolves the host name to IP address via a DNS service<br>2. makes a connection to the said IP address<br>3. if connection uses SSL, proceeds with the "handshake"<br>4. sends host name, URI, and other request info via the above connection</p><p>ISPs can log #2, but cannot log #4 without packet inspection. It's even more complicated if the connection is encrypted (e.g. https).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Host names can not be logged without packet inspection unless they assume that a corresponding request against the ISP 's DNS services constitutes to " visiting " the resolved host name .
You are also free to use DNS servers of your choice that are different from your ISP 's .
You can run your own DNS server too.When a client " visits " a URI it : 1. resolves the host name to IP address via a DNS service2 .
makes a connection to the said IP address3 .
if connection uses SSL , proceeds with the " handshake " 4. sends host name , URI , and other request info via the above connectionISPs can log # 2 , but can not log # 4 without packet inspection .
It 's even more complicated if the connection is encrypted ( e.g .
https ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Host names cannot be logged without packet inspection unless they assume that a corresponding request against the ISP's DNS services constitutes to "visiting" the resolved host name.
You are also free to use DNS servers of your choice that are different from your ISP's.
You can run your own DNS server too.When a client "visits" a URI it:1. resolves the host name to IP address via a DNS service2.
makes a connection to the said IP address3.
if connection uses SSL, proceeds with the "handshake"4. sends host name, URI, and other request info via the above connectionISPs can log #2, but cannot log #4 without packet inspection.
It's even more complicated if the connection is encrypted (e.g.
https).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044356</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>dreamchaser</author>
	<datestamp>1265454180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The people downloading "kitty porn" for free are doing nothing to encourage the creation of more of it. </i></p><p>Bullshit.  If nobody consumed it nobody would bother publishing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people downloading " kitty porn " for free are doing nothing to encourage the creation of more of it .
Bullshit. If nobody consumed it nobody would bother publishing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people downloading "kitty porn" for free are doing nothing to encourage the creation of more of it.
Bullshit.  If nobody consumed it nobody would bother publishing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044982</id>
	<title>What right to anonymous travel?</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1265464800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where is this right written down?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is this right written down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is this right written down?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040830</id>
	<title>Re:Deep Packet Inspection for URL Not Required...</title>
	<author>CSMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1265371500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That may be how they'll rope websites, and other types of internet services for that matter, into complying with log retention.</p></div><p>That is, until they move overseas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That may be how they 'll rope websites , and other types of internet services for that matter , into complying with log retention.That is , until they move overseas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That may be how they'll rope websites, and other types of internet services for that matter, into complying with log retention.That is, until they move overseas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039676</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265365680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That and terrorism.  TERRORISM!!!  What about TERRORPORN!  Naked children with BOMBS!      Won't someone please think of the photographs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That and terrorism .
TERRORISM ! ! ! What about TERRORPORN !
Naked children with BOMBS !
Wo n't someone please think of the photographs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That and terrorism.
TERRORISM!!!  What about TERRORPORN!
Naked children with BOMBS!
Won't someone please think of the photographs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042888</id>
	<title>They will start keeping data AFTER</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1265387520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They will start keeping data AFTER they get a search warrant and after the courts allow them to start collecting that data.How many times must law enforcement waste our tax-payers money to get spanked in the courts for the same reasons every 10 years. This is the biggest reason to stop search company's from  keeping our data in the first place. Advertisers are not above the spying laws,and thats all google,yahoo and the rest are after the dust has been removed,Advertisers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They will start keeping data AFTER they get a search warrant and after the courts allow them to start collecting that data.How many times must law enforcement waste our tax-payers money to get spanked in the courts for the same reasons every 10 years .
This is the biggest reason to stop search company 's from keeping our data in the first place .
Advertisers are not above the spying laws,and thats all google,yahoo and the rest are after the dust has been removed,Advertisers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They will start keeping data AFTER they get a search warrant and after the courts allow them to start collecting that data.How many times must law enforcement waste our tax-payers money to get spanked in the courts for the same reasons every 10 years.
This is the biggest reason to stop search company's from  keeping our data in the first place.
Advertisers are not above the spying laws,and thats all google,yahoo and the rest are after the dust has been removed,Advertisers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039880</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1265366700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Seriously though, what happens when you don't use the dns provider of the ISP (either running your own, or using a 3pd DNS provider)?</i>

</p><p>I'm using Google's open DNS, but the ISP could still figure out where I was going.  Which means the FBI can track anyone who doesn't know how to use TOR.  And I'm guessing one of those three letter agencies figured out a man-in-middle type attack for that.  So I guess that means you'll have to do the really nasty surfing at McDonald's, Starbucks or some other unsecured wi-fi connection.

</p><p>Whew, that was tough.  I'm sure some of you could come up with even better alternatives.  And to put people through that meager effort they're going to require your ISP to keep massive volumes of individually identifiable information for two years.

</p><p>Time for the FBI to face up to the fact they're only going to catch the stupid ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously though , what happens when you do n't use the dns provider of the ISP ( either running your own , or using a 3pd DNS provider ) ?
I 'm using Google 's open DNS , but the ISP could still figure out where I was going .
Which means the FBI can track anyone who does n't know how to use TOR .
And I 'm guessing one of those three letter agencies figured out a man-in-middle type attack for that .
So I guess that means you 'll have to do the really nasty surfing at McDonald 's , Starbucks or some other unsecured wi-fi connection .
Whew , that was tough .
I 'm sure some of you could come up with even better alternatives .
And to put people through that meager effort they 're going to require your ISP to keep massive volumes of individually identifiable information for two years .
Time for the FBI to face up to the fact they 're only going to catch the stupid ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Seriously though, what happens when you don't use the dns provider of the ISP (either running your own, or using a 3pd DNS provider)?
I'm using Google's open DNS, but the ISP could still figure out where I was going.
Which means the FBI can track anyone who doesn't know how to use TOR.
And I'm guessing one of those three letter agencies figured out a man-in-middle type attack for that.
So I guess that means you'll have to do the really nasty surfing at McDonald's, Starbucks or some other unsecured wi-fi connection.
Whew, that was tough.
I'm sure some of you could come up with even better alternatives.
And to put people through that meager effort they're going to require your ISP to keep massive volumes of individually identifiable information for two years.
Time for the FBI to face up to the fact they're only going to catch the stupid ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31043292</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265391300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to wonder is there any evidence that Tor is broken? People suggest that it is all the time. I tend to doubt though. Everything suggests otherwise. The attacks are all theoretical and those that aren't would be apparent if attempted. Evidence has been seen of any attacks on the network. Show me the evidence please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to wonder is there any evidence that Tor is broken ?
People suggest that it is all the time .
I tend to doubt though .
Everything suggests otherwise .
The attacks are all theoretical and those that are n't would be apparent if attempted .
Evidence has been seen of any attacks on the network .
Show me the evidence please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to wonder is there any evidence that Tor is broken?
People suggest that it is all the time.
I tend to doubt though.
Everything suggests otherwise.
The attacks are all theoretical and those that aren't would be apparent if attempted.
Evidence has been seen of any attacks on the network.
Show me the evidence please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042178</id>
	<title>Government does more harm to Children...</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1265381160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government does more harm to children than any boogieman child molester EVER has.</p><p>When will this boogieman child molester be put to rest? When will we stop terrorizing our own people with nonsense? Not to mention the terrorizing we do of innocent people in foreign countries with our stupid war efforts chasing a different boogieman that we created and funded.</p><p>We're fucked as people. You're all nuts<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government does more harm to children than any boogieman child molester EVER has.When will this boogieman child molester be put to rest ?
When will we stop terrorizing our own people with nonsense ?
Not to mention the terrorizing we do of innocent people in foreign countries with our stupid war efforts chasing a different boogieman that we created and funded.We 're fucked as people .
You 're all nuts : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government does more harm to children than any boogieman child molester EVER has.When will this boogieman child molester be put to rest?
When will we stop terrorizing our own people with nonsense?
Not to mention the terrorizing we do of innocent people in foreign countries with our stupid war efforts chasing a different boogieman that we created and funded.We're fucked as people.
You're all nuts :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31047042</id>
	<title>Re:What right to anonymous travel?</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1265485620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Constitution says that all rights not explicitly granted to the state are reserved for the people. There are many, many issues that are not explicitly addressed in the Constitution; there is no explicit Constitutional guarantee of privacy. However, we can infer original intent from the text of the Constitution and other documents of the time that the inalieanable right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" implies a right to privacy, since lack thereof would interfere with our liberty and our pursuit of happiness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Constitution says that all rights not explicitly granted to the state are reserved for the people .
There are many , many issues that are not explicitly addressed in the Constitution ; there is no explicit Constitutional guarantee of privacy .
However , we can infer original intent from the text of the Constitution and other documents of the time that the inalieanable right to " Life , liberty , and the pursuit of happiness " implies a right to privacy , since lack thereof would interfere with our liberty and our pursuit of happiness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Constitution says that all rights not explicitly granted to the state are reserved for the people.
There are many, many issues that are not explicitly addressed in the Constitution; there is no explicit Constitutional guarantee of privacy.
However, we can infer original intent from the text of the Constitution and other documents of the time that the inalieanable right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" implies a right to privacy, since lack thereof would interfere with our liberty and our pursuit of happiness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039870</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265366700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That gave me an idea for an album cover! <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin\_Killer" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">This</a> [wikipedia.org] [WARNING. Possibly NSFW: article includes an image of an album cover featuring a prepubescent girl, naked, in a vaguely suggestive pose.] isn't enough anymore. We need a picture of a naked child, drawn, not a photo of a real child, smoking pot, holding a stick of dynamite in one hand, and picture of Stalin in the other. The album title? How about "Censor This!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That gave me an idea for an album cover !
This [ wikipedia.org ] [ WARNING .
Possibly NSFW : article includes an image of an album cover featuring a prepubescent girl , naked , in a vaguely suggestive pose .
] is n't enough anymore .
We need a picture of a naked child , drawn , not a photo of a real child , smoking pot , holding a stick of dynamite in one hand , and picture of Stalin in the other .
The album title ?
How about " Censor This !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That gave me an idea for an album cover!
This [wikipedia.org] [WARNING.
Possibly NSFW: article includes an image of an album cover featuring a prepubescent girl, naked, in a vaguely suggestive pose.
] isn't enough anymore.
We need a picture of a naked child, drawn, not a photo of a real child, smoking pot, holding a stick of dynamite in one hand, and picture of Stalin in the other.
The album title?
How about "Censor This!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039648</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>InsaneProcessor</author>
	<datestamp>1265365620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The logs should be kept only for those willing to pay for it.  This is an unrealistic legal requirement that the ISPs have the right to refuse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The logs should be kept only for those willing to pay for it .
This is an unrealistic legal requirement that the ISPs have the right to refuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The logs should be kept only for those willing to pay for it.
This is an unrealistic legal requirement that the ISPs have the right to refuse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042658</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>glwtta</author>
	<datestamp>1265385180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>From a logical perspective, it's completely valid. From an ethical perspective, it's completely appalling.</i>
<br> <br>
From a pedophilia perspective, it's completely arousing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From a logical perspective , it 's completely valid .
From an ethical perspective , it 's completely appalling .
From a pedophilia perspective , it 's completely arousing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a logical perspective, it's completely valid.
From an ethical perspective, it's completely appalling.
From a pedophilia perspective, it's completely arousing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041920</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265379180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;If a child porn site was on a godaddy server, and....<br>Aren't all porn sites on godaddy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; If a child porn site was on a godaddy server , and....Are n't all porn sites on godaddy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;If a child porn site was on a godaddy server, and....Aren't all porn sites on godaddy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31043922</id>
	<title>Tor - ExcludeNodes Function is Useless and Flawed!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265487480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the news of Tor server(s) being hacked, with the latest version of Tor<br>as of this posting, v0.2.1.22, the ExcludeNodes function appears to have<br>been toyed with. Now if you use the ExcludeNodes command in your torrc<br>configuration file, it doesn't seem to care what node you exclude from<br>building tor circuits, it will go ahead and use them anyway. But of course,<br>this is just a bug (suuure it is - having popped up after this so called<br>hack was done, was it really a hack or a smoke filled backroom agreement?).</p><p>Note: Be sure to visit the onionforums<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.onion board for more discussion</p><p>Try it for yourself, add all of the washdc<br>tor nodes, along with the 149.* nodes and amazon nodes to your ExcludeNodes<br>listing within your torrc file and within a few hours of your tor surfing,<br>watch the following so called bug pop up as you are told the nodes you<br>excluded are being used regardless of your intention to not use them.<br>This behavior is recent with Tor and I don't consider it a bug, in<br>my opinion, but an intentional privacy violation. I encourage Tor users<br>to visit the tor node listings and try this themselves, add as many<br>nodes as you wish to your ExcludeNodes feature in torrc and reload<br>tor and surf for hours until the error pops up and it will pop up!<br>This feature of ExcludeNodes in Tor is now useless and flawed. The<br>high bandwidth tor nodes should all be considered suspect for reasons<br>published elsewhere by enlightened individuals documenting potential<br>and real attacks on onion routing.</p><p><a href="http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Feb-2010/msg00006.html" title="seul.org" rel="nofollow">http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Feb-2010/msg00006.html</a> [seul.org]</p><p>[warn] Requested exit node 'X' is in ExcludeNodes or ExcludeExitNodes.<br>Using anyway (circuit purpose Z)</p><p>Where X = Node and Z = #. Fingerprints of my chosen nodes to exclude<br>correctly set within torrc in ExcludeNodes.</p><p>Is this a bug?</p><p>Why is Tor, when using Bridges, overriding my ExcludeNodes setting?<br>Was Tor suddenly given Artificial Intelligence? (AI). I assumed<br>I was under control of my Tor client's functionality with ExcludeNodes.<br>I guess I should be grateful it reported this to me at all.</p><p>- the reply:</p><p>On 02/02/2010 02:14 AM, twinkletoedturtle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:<br>&gt; Is this a bug?</p><p>Yes, <a href="https://bugs.torproject.org/flyspray/index.php?do=details&amp;id=1090" title="torproject.org" rel="nofollow">https://bugs.torproject.org/flyspray/index.php?do=details&amp;id=1090</a> [torproject.org].<br>
&nbsp; We're still working on it.  In fact, we're working on rewriting the<br>entire codebase around {Exclude}{Entry|Exit}Nodes options.</p><p>--<br>Andrew Lewman<br>The Tor Project<br>pgp 0x31B0974B</p><p>Website: <a href="https://torproject.org/" title="torproject.org" rel="nofollow">https://torproject.org/</a> [torproject.org]<br>Blog: <a href="https://blog.torproject.org/" title="torproject.org" rel="nofollow">https://blog.torproject.org/</a> [torproject.org]<br>Identi.ca: torproject</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the news of Tor server ( s ) being hacked , with the latest version of Toras of this posting , v0.2.1.22 , the ExcludeNodes function appears to havebeen toyed with .
Now if you use the ExcludeNodes command in your torrcconfiguration file , it does n't seem to care what node you exclude frombuilding tor circuits , it will go ahead and use them anyway .
But of course,this is just a bug ( suuure it is - having popped up after this so calledhack was done , was it really a hack or a smoke filled backroom agreement ?
) .Note : Be sure to visit the onionforums .onion board for more discussionTry it for yourself , add all of the washdctor nodes , along with the 149 .
* nodes and amazon nodes to your ExcludeNodeslisting within your torrc file and within a few hours of your tor surfing,watch the following so called bug pop up as you are told the nodes youexcluded are being used regardless of your intention to not use them.This behavior is recent with Tor and I do n't consider it a bug , inmy opinion , but an intentional privacy violation .
I encourage Tor usersto visit the tor node listings and try this themselves , add as manynodes as you wish to your ExcludeNodes feature in torrc and reloadtor and surf for hours until the error pops up and it will pop up ! This feature of ExcludeNodes in Tor is now useless and flawed .
Thehigh bandwidth tor nodes should all be considered suspect for reasonspublished elsewhere by enlightened individuals documenting potentialand real attacks on onion routing.http : //archives.seul.org/or/talk/Feb-2010/msg00006.html [ seul.org ] [ warn ] Requested exit node 'X ' is in ExcludeNodes or ExcludeExitNodes.Using anyway ( circuit purpose Z ) Where X = Node and Z = # .
Fingerprints of my chosen nodes to excludecorrectly set within torrc in ExcludeNodes.Is this a bug ? Why is Tor , when using Bridges , overriding my ExcludeNodes setting ? Was Tor suddenly given Artificial Intelligence ?
( AI ) . I assumedI was under control of my Tor client 's functionality with ExcludeNodes.I guess I should be grateful it reported this to me at all.- the reply : On 02/02/2010 02 : 14 AM , twinkletoedturtle @ xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote : &gt; Is this a bug ? Yes , https : //bugs.torproject.org/flyspray/index.php ? do = details&amp;id = 1090 [ torproject.org ] .
  We 're still working on it .
In fact , we 're working on rewriting theentire codebase around { Exclude } { Entry | Exit } Nodes options.--Andrew LewmanThe Tor Projectpgp 0x31B0974BWebsite : https : //torproject.org/ [ torproject.org ] Blog : https : //blog.torproject.org/ [ torproject.org ] Identi.ca : torproject</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the news of Tor server(s) being hacked, with the latest version of Toras of this posting, v0.2.1.22, the ExcludeNodes function appears to havebeen toyed with.
Now if you use the ExcludeNodes command in your torrcconfiguration file, it doesn't seem to care what node you exclude frombuilding tor circuits, it will go ahead and use them anyway.
But of course,this is just a bug (suuure it is - having popped up after this so calledhack was done, was it really a hack or a smoke filled backroom agreement?
).Note: Be sure to visit the onionforums .onion board for more discussionTry it for yourself, add all of the washdctor nodes, along with the 149.
* nodes and amazon nodes to your ExcludeNodeslisting within your torrc file and within a few hours of your tor surfing,watch the following so called bug pop up as you are told the nodes youexcluded are being used regardless of your intention to not use them.This behavior is recent with Tor and I don't consider it a bug, inmy opinion, but an intentional privacy violation.
I encourage Tor usersto visit the tor node listings and try this themselves, add as manynodes as you wish to your ExcludeNodes feature in torrc and reloadtor and surf for hours until the error pops up and it will pop up!This feature of ExcludeNodes in Tor is now useless and flawed.
Thehigh bandwidth tor nodes should all be considered suspect for reasonspublished elsewhere by enlightened individuals documenting potentialand real attacks on onion routing.http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Feb-2010/msg00006.html [seul.org][warn] Requested exit node 'X' is in ExcludeNodes or ExcludeExitNodes.Using anyway (circuit purpose Z)Where X = Node and Z = #.
Fingerprints of my chosen nodes to excludecorrectly set within torrc in ExcludeNodes.Is this a bug?Why is Tor, when using Bridges, overriding my ExcludeNodes setting?Was Tor suddenly given Artificial Intelligence?
(AI). I assumedI was under control of my Tor client's functionality with ExcludeNodes.I guess I should be grateful it reported this to me at all.- the reply:On 02/02/2010 02:14 AM, twinkletoedturtle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:&gt; Is this a bug?Yes, https://bugs.torproject.org/flyspray/index.php?do=details&amp;id=1090 [torproject.org].
  We're still working on it.
In fact, we're working on rewriting theentire codebase around {Exclude}{Entry|Exit}Nodes options.--Andrew LewmanThe Tor Projectpgp 0x31B0974BWebsite: https://torproject.org/ [torproject.org]Blog: https://blog.torproject.org/ [torproject.org]Identi.ca: torproject</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041606</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Alinabi</author>
	<datestamp>1265376840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The ISPs won't have to pay for it. You will, through taxes. And most people will be happy to do so, although they would foam at the mouth if they were asked to pay for universal health care for their children.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ISPs wo n't have to pay for it .
You will , through taxes .
And most people will be happy to do so , although they would foam at the mouth if they were asked to pay for universal health care for their children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ISPs won't have to pay for it.
You will, through taxes.
And most people will be happy to do so, although they would foam at the mouth if they were asked to pay for universal health care for their children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31047258</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1265487540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You kid, but just the fact that they were talking about creating databases of kiddie porn a few years back is creepy and makes me really wonder about the mental stability of the person or people who first came up with that idea.  After all, it's generally believed that gay bashers are quite frequently closet homosexuals.  What does this imply about politicians who are constantly bashing pedophiles and harping about kiddie porn?</p><p>I wish everyone would use the word "pervert" to describe any politician who brings up such subjects without being explicitly asked about them.  It would be pretty accurate.  Even if they don't like kiddie porn, they obviously have deep-seated psychological issues or they wouldn't spend so many hours of their day thinking about it.   The same goes for the politicians jumping up and down about video game violence, sex on TV, etc.  Pretty much any desire to censor others is a telltale sign of self loathing and inner perversion.  Maybe if we started calling these politicians what they are, they'd crawl back under their rocks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You kid , but just the fact that they were talking about creating databases of kiddie porn a few years back is creepy and makes me really wonder about the mental stability of the person or people who first came up with that idea .
After all , it 's generally believed that gay bashers are quite frequently closet homosexuals .
What does this imply about politicians who are constantly bashing pedophiles and harping about kiddie porn ? I wish everyone would use the word " pervert " to describe any politician who brings up such subjects without being explicitly asked about them .
It would be pretty accurate .
Even if they do n't like kiddie porn , they obviously have deep-seated psychological issues or they would n't spend so many hours of their day thinking about it .
The same goes for the politicians jumping up and down about video game violence , sex on TV , etc .
Pretty much any desire to censor others is a telltale sign of self loathing and inner perversion .
Maybe if we started calling these politicians what they are , they 'd crawl back under their rocks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You kid, but just the fact that they were talking about creating databases of kiddie porn a few years back is creepy and makes me really wonder about the mental stability of the person or people who first came up with that idea.
After all, it's generally believed that gay bashers are quite frequently closet homosexuals.
What does this imply about politicians who are constantly bashing pedophiles and harping about kiddie porn?I wish everyone would use the word "pervert" to describe any politician who brings up such subjects without being explicitly asked about them.
It would be pretty accurate.
Even if they don't like kiddie porn, they obviously have deep-seated psychological issues or they wouldn't spend so many hours of their day thinking about it.
The same goes for the politicians jumping up and down about video game violence, sex on TV, etc.
Pretty much any desire to censor others is a telltale sign of self loathing and inner perversion.
Maybe if we started calling these politicians what they are, they'd crawl back under their rocks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040250</id>
	<title>Server logs?</title>
	<author>ylikone</author>
	<datestamp>1265368260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's what<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null is for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what /dev/null is for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what /dev/null is for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041744</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265377620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:</p><p> <i>If logs of Web sites visited began to be kept, they would be available only to local, state, and federal police with legal authorization such as a subpoena or search warrant</i> </p><p>Holy shit, is there a person on earth who believes this kind of tripe? The law has absolutely nothing to do with the implementation of anything that can possibly invade privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : If logs of Web sites visited began to be kept , they would be available only to local , state , and federal police with legal authorization such as a subpoena or search warrant Holy shit , is there a person on earth who believes this kind of tripe ?
The law has absolutely nothing to do with the implementation of anything that can possibly invade privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article: If logs of Web sites visited began to be kept, they would be available only to local, state, and federal police with legal authorization such as a subpoena or search warrant Holy shit, is there a person on earth who believes this kind of tripe?
The law has absolutely nothing to do with the implementation of anything that can possibly invade privacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040992</id>
	<title>Yes officer</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1265372520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have those log hard copies right here.
</p><p>Dammit! Who forgot to put a new ink cartrige in the printer last year?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have those log hard copies right here .
Dammit ! Who forgot to put a new ink cartrige in the printer last year ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have those log hard copies right here.
Dammit! Who forgot to put a new ink cartrige in the printer last year?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039646</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1265365620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>When the bread has gotten stale enough, the government will open up a new loaf.  This decade and the last were child porn, the decades before were drugs, the decades before those were communism.  Hitler was not a phenomenon.  He just knew how to keep the loaf fresher than most governments do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the bread has gotten stale enough , the government will open up a new loaf .
This decade and the last were child porn , the decades before were drugs , the decades before those were communism .
Hitler was not a phenomenon .
He just knew how to keep the loaf fresher than most governments do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the bread has gotten stale enough, the government will open up a new loaf.
This decade and the last were child porn, the decades before were drugs, the decades before those were communism.
Hitler was not a phenomenon.
He just knew how to keep the loaf fresher than most governments do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039742</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265365980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously is child pornography going to be trotted out for EVERY encroachment on privacy that we have to endure year after year?</p></div><p>Yes, because it works so well.  Just try passing "The Invasion of Privacy Act of 2010" and you'll get laughed off the Senate floor.  Present the exact same bill, only change the title to "Child Protection Against Predators Act of 2010" and it'll pass easily.  If you can link your bill to child porn, then everyone who even dares to say a word against it is instantly labeled as a supporter of the sexual abuse of children.  This is because whenever you say anything about child porn or child predators, the entire electorate completely loses the ability to think rationally and responds in a completely emotionally reactionary way.  Emotionally reactionary people are extremely easy to manipulate.
<br> <br>
It's sort of funny how so many people who decry the loss of civil liberties in the name of "socialism" will gladly give up their civil liberties in the name of "protecting children".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously is child pornography going to be trotted out for EVERY encroachment on privacy that we have to endure year after year ? Yes , because it works so well .
Just try passing " The Invasion of Privacy Act of 2010 " and you 'll get laughed off the Senate floor .
Present the exact same bill , only change the title to " Child Protection Against Predators Act of 2010 " and it 'll pass easily .
If you can link your bill to child porn , then everyone who even dares to say a word against it is instantly labeled as a supporter of the sexual abuse of children .
This is because whenever you say anything about child porn or child predators , the entire electorate completely loses the ability to think rationally and responds in a completely emotionally reactionary way .
Emotionally reactionary people are extremely easy to manipulate .
It 's sort of funny how so many people who decry the loss of civil liberties in the name of " socialism " will gladly give up their civil liberties in the name of " protecting children " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously is child pornography going to be trotted out for EVERY encroachment on privacy that we have to endure year after year?Yes, because it works so well.
Just try passing "The Invasion of Privacy Act of 2010" and you'll get laughed off the Senate floor.
Present the exact same bill, only change the title to "Child Protection Against Predators Act of 2010" and it'll pass easily.
If you can link your bill to child porn, then everyone who even dares to say a word against it is instantly labeled as a supporter of the sexual abuse of children.
This is because whenever you say anything about child porn or child predators, the entire electorate completely loses the ability to think rationally and responds in a completely emotionally reactionary way.
Emotionally reactionary people are extremely easy to manipulate.
It's sort of funny how so many people who decry the loss of civil liberties in the name of "socialism" will gladly give up their civil liberties in the name of "protecting children".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041396</id>
	<title>We finally have a reason to switch to IPv6</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1265375280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How nice of congress to consider doing something to finally mandate the switch to IPv6. I bet if this or anything similar became a law, millions of sites for all kinds of reason would switch to IPv6 overnight to take advantage of the millions of possible addresses. Not to mention ipsec and so on.</p><p>We would end up back with the problem of dynamic IP's for a whole different reason, because people would use it to rotate their servers through millions of addresses.  I bet web hosting providers would pop up that were like tor for web hosting, with thousands of ip addresses in a sort of random dynamic DNS rotating constantly.</p><p>Hell, I could see this move single handily curring numerous existing security problems on the internet that everyone is just to frigen lazy to fix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How nice of congress to consider doing something to finally mandate the switch to IPv6 .
I bet if this or anything similar became a law , millions of sites for all kinds of reason would switch to IPv6 overnight to take advantage of the millions of possible addresses .
Not to mention ipsec and so on.We would end up back with the problem of dynamic IP 's for a whole different reason , because people would use it to rotate their servers through millions of addresses .
I bet web hosting providers would pop up that were like tor for web hosting , with thousands of ip addresses in a sort of random dynamic DNS rotating constantly.Hell , I could see this move single handily curring numerous existing security problems on the internet that everyone is just to frigen lazy to fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How nice of congress to consider doing something to finally mandate the switch to IPv6.
I bet if this or anything similar became a law, millions of sites for all kinds of reason would switch to IPv6 overnight to take advantage of the millions of possible addresses.
Not to mention ipsec and so on.We would end up back with the problem of dynamic IP's for a whole different reason, because people would use it to rotate their servers through millions of addresses.
I bet web hosting providers would pop up that were like tor for web hosting, with thousands of ip addresses in a sort of random dynamic DNS rotating constantly.Hell, I could see this move single handily curring numerous existing security problems on the internet that everyone is just to frigen lazy to fix.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042104</id>
	<title>Why not track EVERYTHING?</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1265380500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets track everything such as movement, actions, thoughts... Not just on the net, but in real life. Every human needs to have a chip implanted because it would help the government know if you were committing crimes.</p><p>Thats the world I want.</p><p>I want a microchip that reports everything you do to the government via gps/satellite data link.</p><p>This chip will count every batch of cum you drop, when and where.. and why.</p><p>YOU WILL BE A SLAVE.</p><p>America... America... God is a fucking lie.... weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee</p><p>Kill me</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets track everything such as movement , actions , thoughts... Not just on the net , but in real life .
Every human needs to have a chip implanted because it would help the government know if you were committing crimes.Thats the world I want.I want a microchip that reports everything you do to the government via gps/satellite data link.This chip will count every batch of cum you drop , when and where.. and why.YOU WILL BE A SLAVE.America... America... God is a fucking lie.... weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeKill me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets track everything such as movement, actions, thoughts... Not just on the net, but in real life.
Every human needs to have a chip implanted because it would help the government know if you were committing crimes.Thats the world I want.I want a microchip that reports everything you do to the government via gps/satellite data link.This chip will count every batch of cum you drop, when and where.. and why.YOU WILL BE A SLAVE.America... America... God is a fucking lie.... weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeKill me</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041888</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>happyslayer</author>
	<datestamp>1265378820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good "think of the children" dilemma for Haiti:</p><p>Human trafficking, sex slavery, and other forms of abuse happen.  When you start transporting large numbers of people over borders, it's pretty much inevitable that <em>some</em> are going to end up in a living hell.</p><p>OTOH, kids in Haiti have lost parents, government has pretty much collapsed, and there will probably be plenty of horror stories of infection, disease, and abuse for the kids stuck in Haiti...in other words, children <strong>denied</strong> the opportunity to get out of the country will end up in a living hell.</p><p>So here's the question for all those 'think of the children' moralizers out there:</p><ul>
<li>How many children are you going to condemn to die <em>in</em> Haiti to protect those who would end up abused by human traffickers and their customers?</li><li>How many children are you going to condemn to suffering and abuse at the hands of the worst of humanity in order to save those who would die or suffer horribly otherwise?</li></ul><p>There is no good answer--"think of the children" is usually an excuse to get what you want anyways--without considering the consequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good " think of the children " dilemma for Haiti : Human trafficking , sex slavery , and other forms of abuse happen .
When you start transporting large numbers of people over borders , it 's pretty much inevitable that some are going to end up in a living hell.OTOH , kids in Haiti have lost parents , government has pretty much collapsed , and there will probably be plenty of horror stories of infection , disease , and abuse for the kids stuck in Haiti...in other words , children denied the opportunity to get out of the country will end up in a living hell.So here 's the question for all those 'think of the children ' moralizers out there : How many children are you going to condemn to die in Haiti to protect those who would end up abused by human traffickers and their customers ? How many children are you going to condemn to suffering and abuse at the hands of the worst of humanity in order to save those who would die or suffer horribly otherwise ? There is no good answer-- " think of the children " is usually an excuse to get what you want anyways--without considering the consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good "think of the children" dilemma for Haiti:Human trafficking, sex slavery, and other forms of abuse happen.
When you start transporting large numbers of people over borders, it's pretty much inevitable that some are going to end up in a living hell.OTOH, kids in Haiti have lost parents, government has pretty much collapsed, and there will probably be plenty of horror stories of infection, disease, and abuse for the kids stuck in Haiti...in other words, children denied the opportunity to get out of the country will end up in a living hell.So here's the question for all those 'think of the children' moralizers out there:
How many children are you going to condemn to die in Haiti to protect those who would end up abused by human traffickers and their customers?How many children are you going to condemn to suffering and abuse at the hands of the worst of humanity in order to save those who would die or suffer horribly otherwise?There is no good answer--"think of the children" is usually an excuse to get what you want anyways--without considering the consequences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31043758</id>
	<title>lol, wut.</title>
	<author>Noitatsidem</author>
	<datestamp>1265398140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey guys, I have an idea... let's make child pornography illegal- that will stop people from making it, and watching it (I mean, hell the prohibition was successful, right?) then, let's continually lower the rights of the people to ensure it's properly enforced-- for the peoples protection of course. Besides, looking at child porn is very harmful to that child, the actual event is virtually nothing in comparison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey guys , I have an idea... let 's make child pornography illegal- that will stop people from making it , and watching it ( I mean , hell the prohibition was successful , right ?
) then , let 's continually lower the rights of the people to ensure it 's properly enforced-- for the peoples protection of course .
Besides , looking at child porn is very harmful to that child , the actual event is virtually nothing in comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey guys, I have an idea... let's make child pornography illegal- that will stop people from making it, and watching it (I mean, hell the prohibition was successful, right?
) then, let's continually lower the rights of the people to ensure it's properly enforced-- for the peoples protection of course.
Besides, looking at child porn is very harmful to that child, the actual event is virtually nothing in comparison.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044188</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265450940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I had 10K a month I could mitm TOR easily.<br>Yes for that price tor can easily be compromised<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I had 10K a month I could mitm TOR easily.Yes for that price tor can easily be compromised : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I had 10K a month I could mitm TOR easily.Yes for that price tor can easily be compromised :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039878</id>
	<title>Monitoring is good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265366700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have an even better idea.  Let's have all law enforcement officials be required to wear audio and video recording equipment at all times, which are available for all citizens to watch.  They do work for us, after all, and I think this would help curb police brutality.  I know that most officers are good people, but there <i>are</i> a few bad apples, so we can't be too vigilant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an even better idea .
Let 's have all law enforcement officials be required to wear audio and video recording equipment at all times , which are available for all citizens to watch .
They do work for us , after all , and I think this would help curb police brutality .
I know that most officers are good people , but there are a few bad apples , so we ca n't be too vigilant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an even better idea.
Let's have all law enforcement officials be required to wear audio and video recording equipment at all times, which are available for all citizens to watch.
They do work for us, after all, and I think this would help curb police brutality.
I know that most officers are good people, but there are a few bad apples, so we can't be too vigilant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040134</id>
	<title>The 4th ammendment weeps.</title>
	<author>Trerro</author>
	<datestamp>1265367720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 4th amendment is supposed to require a warrant to BEGIN surveillance. The law doesn't say "they can tap your phones and record all of your conversations, but they can't actually listen to them until a warrant is issued against you." No, they can't tap until they have the warrant.</p><p>This shouldn't be any different.</p><p>Then again, we all know the results of the last large-scale warrantless wiretapping incident (no one was punished, and it's likely still occurring), so I guess it is, in fact, not any different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 4th amendment is supposed to require a warrant to BEGIN surveillance .
The law does n't say " they can tap your phones and record all of your conversations , but they ca n't actually listen to them until a warrant is issued against you .
" No , they ca n't tap until they have the warrant.This should n't be any different.Then again , we all know the results of the last large-scale warrantless wiretapping incident ( no one was punished , and it 's likely still occurring ) , so I guess it is , in fact , not any different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 4th amendment is supposed to require a warrant to BEGIN surveillance.
The law doesn't say "they can tap your phones and record all of your conversations, but they can't actually listen to them until a warrant is issued against you.
" No, they can't tap until they have the warrant.This shouldn't be any different.Then again, we all know the results of the last large-scale warrantless wiretapping incident (no one was punished, and it's likely still occurring), so I guess it is, in fact, not any different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039854</id>
	<title>Deep Packet Inspection for URL Not Required...</title>
	<author>Ron Bennett</author>
	<datestamp>1265366640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Deep packet inspection for URL not required, in theory, if the U.S. government mandates both ISPs *and* websites to maintain logs.</p><p>That may be how they'll rope websites, and other types of internet services for that matter, into complying with log retention.</p><p>Another route, though I've never seen it mentioned in context to log retention laws, is to require web browsers to log the information in tamper-resistant (think DRM) hidden files. MSIE, in a matter of speaking, already does with index.dat files (some suggest their real purpose is, in large part, to help law enforcement), which the regular computer user has no clue of, let alone know how to get rid of, since Windows makes it difficult to delete them.</p><p>Ron</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Deep packet inspection for URL not required , in theory , if the U.S. government mandates both ISPs * and * websites to maintain logs.That may be how they 'll rope websites , and other types of internet services for that matter , into complying with log retention.Another route , though I 've never seen it mentioned in context to log retention laws , is to require web browsers to log the information in tamper-resistant ( think DRM ) hidden files .
MSIE , in a matter of speaking , already does with index.dat files ( some suggest their real purpose is , in large part , to help law enforcement ) , which the regular computer user has no clue of , let alone know how to get rid of , since Windows makes it difficult to delete them.Ron</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deep packet inspection for URL not required, in theory, if the U.S. government mandates both ISPs *and* websites to maintain logs.That may be how they'll rope websites, and other types of internet services for that matter, into complying with log retention.Another route, though I've never seen it mentioned in context to log retention laws, is to require web browsers to log the information in tamper-resistant (think DRM) hidden files.
MSIE, in a matter of speaking, already does with index.dat files (some suggest their real purpose is, in large part, to help law enforcement), which the regular computer user has no clue of, let alone know how to get rid of, since Windows makes it difficult to delete them.Ron</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041102</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265373120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if it has the old "If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" line somewhere in there as well</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if it has the old " If you 're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about " line somewhere in there as well</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if it has the old "If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" line somewhere in there as well</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040566</id>
	<title>4chan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265369940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>shit, reminds me I haven't checked 4chan in like 10 minutes!  brb</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>shit , reminds me I have n't checked 4chan in like 10 minutes !
brb</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shit, reminds me I haven't checked 4chan in like 10 minutes!
brb</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040774</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Sam36</author>
	<datestamp>1265371140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>please, think of the children</htmltext>
<tokenext>please , think of the children</tokentext>
<sentencetext>please, think of the children</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041160</id>
	<title>Re:The 4th ammendment weeps.</title>
	<author>ISoldat53</author>
	<datestamp>1265373600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who knows what the 4th Amendment means anymore? With this Supreme Court any Constitutional Law you may have learned is useless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who knows what the 4th Amendment means anymore ?
With this Supreme Court any Constitutional Law you may have learned is useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who knows what the 4th Amendment means anymore?
With this Supreme Court any Constitutional Law you may have learned is useless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040318</id>
	<title>Don't you need to log the data as well?</title>
	<author>joeflies</author>
	<datestamp>1265368560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What good is it to log a URL without logging what data was at the URL at that point in time.  The content at a URL can change dynamically, so it doesn't matter what the URL says unless you actually know what data was actually retrieved at that point in time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What good is it to log a URL without logging what data was at the URL at that point in time .
The content at a URL can change dynamically , so it does n't matter what the URL says unless you actually know what data was actually retrieved at that point in time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What good is it to log a URL without logging what data was at the URL at that point in time.
The content at a URL can change dynamically, so it doesn't matter what the URL says unless you actually know what data was actually retrieved at that point in time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042126</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>dimeglio</author>
	<datestamp>1265380680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let straighten things up here.</p><p>I think the parents are the ones are should think of the children. Not the FBI. Give parents the tools they need to make sure their children are safe. You buy a webcam to your teenage daughter, she unknowingly (right), displays more than she should to her boyfriend on the net - who tapes it - and boom. Child porn! Webcam manufacturers must display their logo on the image. Then FBI could maybe go after Logitech and MS for selling webcams that encourage child porn.</p><p>Mom and dad, watch your kids!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let straighten things up here.I think the parents are the ones are should think of the children .
Not the FBI .
Give parents the tools they need to make sure their children are safe .
You buy a webcam to your teenage daughter , she unknowingly ( right ) , displays more than she should to her boyfriend on the net - who tapes it - and boom .
Child porn !
Webcam manufacturers must display their logo on the image .
Then FBI could maybe go after Logitech and MS for selling webcams that encourage child porn.Mom and dad , watch your kids !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let straighten things up here.I think the parents are the ones are should think of the children.
Not the FBI.
Give parents the tools they need to make sure their children are safe.
You buy a webcam to your teenage daughter, she unknowingly (right), displays more than she should to her boyfriend on the net - who tapes it - and boom.
Child porn!
Webcam manufacturers must display their logo on the image.
Then FBI could maybe go after Logitech and MS for selling webcams that encourage child porn.Mom and dad, watch your kids!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039740</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265365980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because crying "kiddie porn" makes an easy kill. Ask any defense attorney and they'll advise accepting a plea. Parents on juries are not rational people, and the fact that your 'puter has a virus/trojan/IE that was used to hijack your system is irrelevant.</p><p>The elected prosecutor gets another campaign bullet for "protecting" kids from those bad computer users. We're so smart. Is it any wonder Asia is taking over?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because crying " kiddie porn " makes an easy kill .
Ask any defense attorney and they 'll advise accepting a plea .
Parents on juries are not rational people , and the fact that your 'puter has a virus/trojan/IE that was used to hijack your system is irrelevant.The elected prosecutor gets another campaign bullet for " protecting " kids from those bad computer users .
We 're so smart .
Is it any wonder Asia is taking over ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because crying "kiddie porn" makes an easy kill.
Ask any defense attorney and they'll advise accepting a plea.
Parents on juries are not rational people, and the fact that your 'puter has a virus/trojan/IE that was used to hijack your system is irrelevant.The elected prosecutor gets another campaign bullet for "protecting" kids from those bad computer users.
We're so smart.
Is it any wonder Asia is taking over?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039890</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>pilgrim23</author>
	<datestamp>1265366760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so old it has now come of age...</htmltext>
<tokenext>so old it has now come of age.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so old it has now come of age...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044546</id>
	<title>lookin' for a new internet...</title>
	<author>playcat</author>
	<datestamp>1265457360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>soon enough there will be no freefom, even online, in a virtual world. Who wanna buy a new internet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>soon enough there will be no freefom , even online , in a virtual world .
Who wan na buy a new internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>soon enough there will be no freefom, even online, in a virtual world.
Who wanna buy a new internet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041148</id>
	<title>Effective</title>
	<author>RedTeflon</author>
	<datestamp>1265373480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would this really be effective even if they have a year old log where you went?  <br>
So it told you I went to website.com/kiddyporn.html<br>
You go look at that exact site now and it could have unicorns on it.  <br>
Just knowing where someone goes is useless unless you log all the data they saw when they were there not what is there now.<br>
Of course you could store all data but good luck with that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would this really be effective even if they have a year old log where you went ?
So it told you I went to website.com/kiddyporn.html You go look at that exact site now and it could have unicorns on it .
Just knowing where someone goes is useless unless you log all the data they saw when they were there not what is there now .
Of course you could store all data but good luck with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would this really be effective even if they have a year old log where you went?
So it told you I went to website.com/kiddyporn.html
You go look at that exact site now and it could have unicorns on it.
Just knowing where someone goes is useless unless you log all the data they saw when they were there not what is there now.
Of course you could store all data but good luck with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31053926</id>
	<title>Re:Won't someone please think of the children</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1265573700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed... and occurs to me that the content owners of the "illicit" material could set up a system of rotating mirrors and redirectors and whatever else is used to mask IP addresses, then shuffle stuff about at random. So you'd never really know what was where in the first place. NOW try to prove your innocence!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed... and occurs to me that the content owners of the " illicit " material could set up a system of rotating mirrors and redirectors and whatever else is used to mask IP addresses , then shuffle stuff about at random .
So you 'd never really know what was where in the first place .
NOW try to prove your innocence !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed... and occurs to me that the content owners of the "illicit" material could set up a system of rotating mirrors and redirectors and whatever else is used to mask IP addresses, then shuffle stuff about at random.
So you'd never really know what was where in the first place.
NOW try to prove your innocence!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31043784</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31043292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31047042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31043922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31053926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31043784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31047258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2015205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2015205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2015205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2015205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2015205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042658
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31047258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039880
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31043922
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044188
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31043292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31043784
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31053926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041888
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044356
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044982
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31047042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2015205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2015205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2015205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31041160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2015205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2015205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2015205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31040204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2015205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31039878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31044602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2015205.31042608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
