<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_13_0256202</id>
	<title>Google Tweaks Buzz To Tackle Privacy Concerns</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266085200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"Just two days <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9154478/Google\_Buzz\_takes\_the\_fight\_to\_Facebook">after launching</a> its Buzz social networking tools, Google said Thursday night that it had <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9156178/Google\_tweaks\_Buzz\_to\_address\_privacy\_concerns">tweaked the technology to address early privacy concerns</a>. Google <a href="http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/millions-of-buzz-users-and-improvements.html">said in a blog post</a> that the quick updates makes it easier for users to block access to their pages and eases the path to finding two privacy features. 'We've had plenty of feature requests, and some direct feedback,'  wrote Todd Jackson, a product manager for Gmail and Google Buzz, in the blog post. 'In particular there's been concern from some people who thought their contacts were being made public without their knowledge (in particular the lists of people they follow, and the people following them). In addition, others felt they had too little control over who could follow them and were upset that they lacked the ability to block people who didn't yet have public profiles from following them.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Just two days after launching its Buzz social networking tools , Google said Thursday night that it had tweaked the technology to address early privacy concerns .
Google said in a blog post that the quick updates makes it easier for users to block access to their pages and eases the path to finding two privacy features .
'We 've had plenty of feature requests , and some direct feedback, ' wrote Todd Jackson , a product manager for Gmail and Google Buzz , in the blog post .
'In particular there 's been concern from some people who thought their contacts were being made public without their knowledge ( in particular the lists of people they follow , and the people following them ) .
In addition , others felt they had too little control over who could follow them and were upset that they lacked the ability to block people who did n't yet have public profiles from following them .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Just two days after launching its Buzz social networking tools, Google said Thursday night that it had tweaked the technology to address early privacy concerns.
Google said in a blog post that the quick updates makes it easier for users to block access to their pages and eases the path to finding two privacy features.
'We've had plenty of feature requests, and some direct feedback,'  wrote Todd Jackson, a product manager for Gmail and Google Buzz, in the blog post.
'In particular there's been concern from some people who thought their contacts were being made public without their knowledge (in particular the lists of people they follow, and the people following them).
In addition, others felt they had too little control over who could follow them and were upset that they lacked the ability to block people who didn't yet have public profiles from following them.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31129860</id>
	<title>Re:Google is orthogonal to privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266055200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>anti-parallel. not orthogonal. if it was orthogonal, it would not affect their business model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>anti-parallel .
not orthogonal .
if it was orthogonal , it would not affect their business model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anti-parallel.
not orthogonal.
if it was orthogonal, it would not affect their business model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126184</id>
	<title>Re:Admit it, this is exemplary customer service.</title>
	<author>azenpunk</author>
	<datestamp>1266069000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I'll give you the prompt customer service point.  I think the thing to watch with Google from now on will be whether or not they will adopt a more responsible position regarding user privacy from the very first release of a new product or service or if they will continually test the waters each time, waiting for a lapse of public diligence.  Right now many people distrust Google as they would distrust a carelessly immature individual, starting now (or possibly a while ago) it will take a concerted effort on Google's part simply to maintain that perception.  If with each new service from here on out they continue to neglect the privacy of users I think the perception will shift to one of deliberate passive aggression, and rightfully so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I 'll give you the prompt customer service point .
I think the thing to watch with Google from now on will be whether or not they will adopt a more responsible position regarding user privacy from the very first release of a new product or service or if they will continually test the waters each time , waiting for a lapse of public diligence .
Right now many people distrust Google as they would distrust a carelessly immature individual , starting now ( or possibly a while ago ) it will take a concerted effort on Google 's part simply to maintain that perception .
If with each new service from here on out they continue to neglect the privacy of users I think the perception will shift to one of deliberate passive aggression , and rightfully so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I'll give you the prompt customer service point.
I think the thing to watch with Google from now on will be whether or not they will adopt a more responsible position regarding user privacy from the very first release of a new product or service or if they will continually test the waters each time, waiting for a lapse of public diligence.
Right now many people distrust Google as they would distrust a carelessly immature individual, starting now (or possibly a while ago) it will take a concerted effort on Google's part simply to maintain that perception.
If with each new service from here on out they continue to neglect the privacy of users I think the perception will shift to one of deliberate passive aggression, and rightfully so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127860</id>
	<title>Re:The real story</title>
	<author>seanmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1266083580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree about the importance of privacy regardless of where you register on the something-to-hide-o-meter, and I agree that Google really dropped the ball on Buzz's privacy settings, but at the same time you really need to question the wisdom of using a "private Gmail account" for anything other than Gmail. Google's been ladling the social sauce on to all of their services over the past couple of years, so it's not like that person didn't have the opportunity to see this coming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree about the importance of privacy regardless of where you register on the something-to-hide-o-meter , and I agree that Google really dropped the ball on Buzz 's privacy settings , but at the same time you really need to question the wisdom of using a " private Gmail account " for anything other than Gmail .
Google 's been ladling the social sauce on to all of their services over the past couple of years , so it 's not like that person did n't have the opportunity to see this coming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree about the importance of privacy regardless of where you register on the something-to-hide-o-meter, and I agree that Google really dropped the ball on Buzz's privacy settings, but at the same time you really need to question the wisdom of using a "private Gmail account" for anything other than Gmail.
Google's been ladling the social sauce on to all of their services over the past couple of years, so it's not like that person didn't have the opportunity to see this coming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31130176</id>
	<title>Re:Google is orthogonal to privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266057960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They bought 127.0.0.1?!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They bought 127.0.0.1 ? !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They bought 127.0.0.1?!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125928</id>
	<title>Re:People don't read.</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1266064140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never got a page instructing me on anything.</p><p>Is it something to do with using Gmail Notifier to log in?</p><p>I clicked, my mail popped up, and there was this dang coloured round thing on the left, and when I clicked on it it told me I was following a bunch of people and some other crap. I just finished unfollowing and deleting. I don't need all that spam. I'm not even interested in any of the people it auto-followed...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never got a page instructing me on anything.Is it something to do with using Gmail Notifier to log in ? I clicked , my mail popped up , and there was this dang coloured round thing on the left , and when I clicked on it it told me I was following a bunch of people and some other crap .
I just finished unfollowing and deleting .
I do n't need all that spam .
I 'm not even interested in any of the people it auto-followed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never got a page instructing me on anything.Is it something to do with using Gmail Notifier to log in?I clicked, my mail popped up, and there was this dang coloured round thing on the left, and when I clicked on it it told me I was following a bunch of people and some other crap.
I just finished unfollowing and deleting.
I don't need all that spam.
I'm not even interested in any of the people it auto-followed...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125050</id>
	<title>Re:The real story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266091200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the fact is that this person, who is clearly non-technical, was misinterpreting what she was seeing.  This is the fault of the engineers for writing a crappy UI (it's called "consensus presentation" in UI class guys) but no actual harm was done.  None of her private Reader posts were delivered to her abusive ex-husband or the stalkers who email her - it just looked that way because she assumed that if its in her buzz feed then it's in theirs, cause that's the way it works on Twitter/Facebook.  Actually, that's not precisely true, she also confused 'follower' and 'following' in a way that makes no sense for those other two services too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the fact is that this person , who is clearly non-technical , was misinterpreting what she was seeing .
This is the fault of the engineers for writing a crappy UI ( it 's called " consensus presentation " in UI class guys ) but no actual harm was done .
None of her private Reader posts were delivered to her abusive ex-husband or the stalkers who email her - it just looked that way because she assumed that if its in her buzz feed then it 's in theirs , cause that 's the way it works on Twitter/Facebook .
Actually , that 's not precisely true , she also confused 'follower ' and 'following ' in a way that makes no sense for those other two services too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the fact is that this person, who is clearly non-technical, was misinterpreting what she was seeing.
This is the fault of the engineers for writing a crappy UI (it's called "consensus presentation" in UI class guys) but no actual harm was done.
None of her private Reader posts were delivered to her abusive ex-husband or the stalkers who email her - it just looked that way because she assumed that if its in her buzz feed then it's in theirs, cause that's the way it works on Twitter/Facebook.
Actually, that's not precisely true, she also confused 'follower' and 'following' in a way that makes no sense for those other two services too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124946</id>
	<title>Buzz saw</title>
	<author>joelsanda</author>
	<datestamp>1266003240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Best option for Google user privacy can be found here:

<a href="http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=32046" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=32046</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Best option for Google user privacy can be found here : http : //www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py ? hl = en&amp;answer = 32046 [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best option for Google user privacy can be found here:

http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=32046 [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126034</id>
	<title>They should have talked with Nokia</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1266066060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nokia which is generally ignored by American public/tech community is testing such "inventions" for years in a real beta form. This far, and let me remind you, Nokia doesn't really make anyone paranoid as Google, nothing they tried has taken off although they have very clever touches for privacy and human emotions.</p><p>For example, their IM app (beta, real beta!) has ability to show generic names for your position only to your friends. Even that thing (like @cafe) bothered people. <a href="http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/news/item/7637\_Nokia\_Chat-IM\_with\_location\_fe.php" title="allaboutsymbian.com">http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/news/item/7637\_Nokia\_Chat-IM\_with\_location\_fe.php</a> [allaboutsymbian.com]</p><p>I have installed Google Maps V4 for Symbian S60V3 having "buzz", all the feedback I checked was people who got seriously alerted about their privacy after they posted "buzz" for testing. People having facebook accounts, tweets everything they do got alerted. Not really tin foil heads like Google CEO suggested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia which is generally ignored by American public/tech community is testing such " inventions " for years in a real beta form .
This far , and let me remind you , Nokia does n't really make anyone paranoid as Google , nothing they tried has taken off although they have very clever touches for privacy and human emotions.For example , their IM app ( beta , real beta !
) has ability to show generic names for your position only to your friends .
Even that thing ( like @ cafe ) bothered people .
http : //www.allaboutsymbian.com/news/item/7637 \ _Nokia \ _Chat-IM \ _with \ _location \ _fe.php [ allaboutsymbian.com ] I have installed Google Maps V4 for Symbian S60V3 having " buzz " , all the feedback I checked was people who got seriously alerted about their privacy after they posted " buzz " for testing .
People having facebook accounts , tweets everything they do got alerted .
Not really tin foil heads like Google CEO suggested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia which is generally ignored by American public/tech community is testing such "inventions" for years in a real beta form.
This far, and let me remind you, Nokia doesn't really make anyone paranoid as Google, nothing they tried has taken off although they have very clever touches for privacy and human emotions.For example, their IM app (beta, real beta!
) has ability to show generic names for your position only to your friends.
Even that thing (like @cafe) bothered people.
http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/news/item/7637\_Nokia\_Chat-IM\_with\_location\_fe.php [allaboutsymbian.com]I have installed Google Maps V4 for Symbian S60V3 having "buzz", all the feedback I checked was people who got seriously alerted about their privacy after they posted "buzz" for testing.
People having facebook accounts, tweets everything they do got alerted.
Not really tin foil heads like Google CEO suggested.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126894</id>
	<title>What about POP and IMAP users?</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1266076020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how many people that do not use the web interface, but have gmail accounts, will not even know they are exposed.</p><p>Going back to using only my own email servers because who knows what stupid thing they are going to dump on the web next.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how many people that do not use the web interface , but have gmail accounts , will not even know they are exposed.Going back to using only my own email servers because who knows what stupid thing they are going to dump on the web next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how many people that do not use the web interface, but have gmail accounts, will not even know they are exposed.Going back to using only my own email servers because who knows what stupid thing they are going to dump on the web next.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124966</id>
	<title>People don't read.</title>
	<author>MBoffin</author>
	<datestamp>1266003480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess this whole privacy snafu wasn't a big deal to me <i>because I actually read their instructions</i>.</p><p>No, the information about which settings do what weren't in 72pt type, but it's not like they were unintelligible or not there, or not presented to the user right away. But since I actually read the instructions they gave and read the dialog boxes that came up, I didn't lose any privacy I didn't want to lose (or hadn't already given up through other channels).</p><p>People just don't read. Ask any program designer. You know why so many programs have terrible help menus and help files? Because writing them is a thankless job. A fraction of a percent will actually look at the information you give them about how your program works and how to make it do what you want. If they do somehow get around to looking at the information you provide, they don't read it; they skim it for keywords and then barely read enough to try something else.</p><p>So, yes, Google could have made it more clear what was happening when you set up Buzz, but it's not like they yanked your pants down when you weren't looking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess this whole privacy snafu was n't a big deal to me because I actually read their instructions.No , the information about which settings do what were n't in 72pt type , but it 's not like they were unintelligible or not there , or not presented to the user right away .
But since I actually read the instructions they gave and read the dialog boxes that came up , I did n't lose any privacy I did n't want to lose ( or had n't already given up through other channels ) .People just do n't read .
Ask any program designer .
You know why so many programs have terrible help menus and help files ?
Because writing them is a thankless job .
A fraction of a percent will actually look at the information you give them about how your program works and how to make it do what you want .
If they do somehow get around to looking at the information you provide , they do n't read it ; they skim it for keywords and then barely read enough to try something else.So , yes , Google could have made it more clear what was happening when you set up Buzz , but it 's not like they yanked your pants down when you were n't looking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess this whole privacy snafu wasn't a big deal to me because I actually read their instructions.No, the information about which settings do what weren't in 72pt type, but it's not like they were unintelligible or not there, or not presented to the user right away.
But since I actually read the instructions they gave and read the dialog boxes that came up, I didn't lose any privacy I didn't want to lose (or hadn't already given up through other channels).People just don't read.
Ask any program designer.
You know why so many programs have terrible help menus and help files?
Because writing them is a thankless job.
A fraction of a percent will actually look at the information you give them about how your program works and how to make it do what you want.
If they do somehow get around to looking at the information you provide, they don't read it; they skim it for keywords and then barely read enough to try something else.So, yes, Google could have made it more clear what was happening when you set up Buzz, but it's not like they yanked your pants down when you weren't looking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125106</id>
	<title>Re:Tutorial about privacy before activating Buzz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266092280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A brief tutorial about privacy settings and how to do it before letting one activate Buzz would have worked well to stifle such privacy outcries.</p></div> </blockquote><p>And would have annoyed users that don't like to be treated like infants.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A brief tutorial about privacy settings and how to do it before letting one activate Buzz would have worked well to stifle such privacy outcries .
And would have annoyed users that do n't like to be treated like infants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A brief tutorial about privacy settings and how to do it before letting one activate Buzz would have worked well to stifle such privacy outcries.
And would have annoyed users that don't like to be treated like infants.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124990</id>
	<title>NO MORE!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266003780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please,</p><p>We do not want! I already don't update my Twitter and Facebook feeds nearly enough. What the hell were you thinking Google? Did you think that Buzz would be widely adopted? No, it will FAIL. Badly, just like your stupid chat product has failed. I do not need yet another even listing in Tweetdeck. Please, kill Buzz. Murder it and throw it into a black hole.</p><p>Cheers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please,We do not want !
I already do n't update my Twitter and Facebook feeds nearly enough .
What the hell were you thinking Google ?
Did you think that Buzz would be widely adopted ?
No , it will FAIL .
Badly , just like your stupid chat product has failed .
I do not need yet another even listing in Tweetdeck .
Please , kill Buzz .
Murder it and throw it into a black hole.Cheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please,We do not want!
I already don't update my Twitter and Facebook feeds nearly enough.
What the hell were you thinking Google?
Did you think that Buzz would be widely adopted?
No, it will FAIL.
Badly, just like your stupid chat product has failed.
I do not need yet another even listing in Tweetdeck.
Please, kill Buzz.
Murder it and throw it into a black hole.Cheers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127726</id>
	<title>Re:When you can stare down China...</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1266082560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You have to be at least a tiny bit careful about how you use your power. How is it that Spider-Man figured this out in his first comic, and Google's not figured it out after several years?</p></div><p>Because Google doesn't have an Uncle Ben?  Google's a little closer to MPD like Norman and Harry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to be at least a tiny bit careful about how you use your power .
How is it that Spider-Man figured this out in his first comic , and Google 's not figured it out after several years ? Because Google does n't have an Uncle Ben ?
Google 's a little closer to MPD like Norman and Harry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to be at least a tiny bit careful about how you use your power.
How is it that Spider-Man figured this out in his first comic, and Google's not figured it out after several years?Because Google doesn't have an Uncle Ben?
Google's a little closer to MPD like Norman and Harry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127326</id>
	<title>DID they fix the problem?</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1266079800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the problems, so far as I can tell from the back-and-forth:</p><p>1. Google Buzz is opt-out.<br>2. Google Buzz treats gmail contacts as "friends".<br>3. Google Buzz exposes "friends" in your profile. This is also opt-out.</p><p>This means that people who have never interacted with Buzz at all *already* have had their privacy exposed. And people who *have* interacted with buzz may not know about the problem.</p><p>How do you fix this? Well, you can't "unsee" things on the Internet, so they can't undo any compromises that have happened as a result of this exposure, but they could block everyone's friends lists and make everyone opt in again. Have they done that? I still see Buzz showing up in my list of filters, and the option to display friends is still opt-out. Making it more obvious IF YOU GO LOOKING FOR IT doesn't change the fact that it's on by default.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the problems , so far as I can tell from the back-and-forth : 1 .
Google Buzz is opt-out.2 .
Google Buzz treats gmail contacts as " friends " .3 .
Google Buzz exposes " friends " in your profile .
This is also opt-out.This means that people who have never interacted with Buzz at all * already * have had their privacy exposed .
And people who * have * interacted with buzz may not know about the problem.How do you fix this ?
Well , you ca n't " unsee " things on the Internet , so they ca n't undo any compromises that have happened as a result of this exposure , but they could block everyone 's friends lists and make everyone opt in again .
Have they done that ?
I still see Buzz showing up in my list of filters , and the option to display friends is still opt-out .
Making it more obvious IF YOU GO LOOKING FOR IT does n't change the fact that it 's on by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the problems, so far as I can tell from the back-and-forth:1.
Google Buzz is opt-out.2.
Google Buzz treats gmail contacts as "friends".3.
Google Buzz exposes "friends" in your profile.
This is also opt-out.This means that people who have never interacted with Buzz at all *already* have had their privacy exposed.
And people who *have* interacted with buzz may not know about the problem.How do you fix this?
Well, you can't "unsee" things on the Internet, so they can't undo any compromises that have happened as a result of this exposure, but they could block everyone's friends lists and make everyone opt in again.
Have they done that?
I still see Buzz showing up in my list of filters, and the option to display friends is still opt-out.
Making it more obvious IF YOU GO LOOKING FOR IT doesn't change the fact that it's on by default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125072</id>
	<title>Initially Dismissed Buzz but..</title>
	<author>Skythe</author>
	<datestamp>1266091680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It has caught my interest after browsing to it on my phone. The "Local" feature is something quite interesting, bringing up a list of posts in my suburb, although i was a bit concerned after it posted my full address following a post i made. I'd prefer it to just say my suburb!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has caught my interest after browsing to it on my phone .
The " Local " feature is something quite interesting , bringing up a list of posts in my suburb , although i was a bit concerned after it posted my full address following a post i made .
I 'd prefer it to just say my suburb !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has caught my interest after browsing to it on my phone.
The "Local" feature is something quite interesting, bringing up a list of posts in my suburb, although i was a bit concerned after it posted my full address following a post i made.
I'd prefer it to just say my suburb!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125086</id>
	<title>The problem with Google</title>
	<author>CuteSteveJobs</author>
	<datestamp>1266092040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's that they just don't get Privacy. Yes, we love Google search, GMail and that Beta stuff they do. But they just don't get privacy. To quote Google Executive Eric Schmidt: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."<br>
<br>
The trouble is, as the very first post described, we all do things in everyday life we don't want the world to know. Things we're perfectly entitled to do. But Google don't get it. I haven't used Google Docs because I'm scared there's some setting somewhere I won't know to turn off which will expose my documents to the world. Same concerns with GMail. Yahoo might hand your details over to the Chinese Government, but at least you don't need to worry about them telling *everyone* you've ever e-mailed! If a company ever did that, of course it would be Google.<br>
<br>
Google is the sort of company that would break into your house and stick a webcam in your toilet "So you can socialize with your friends when you're sitting on the can." And they would be shocked when the people who find out about it object to it. The public is still largely ignorant about privacy, but with incidents like this slowly they will wake up. Google really needs to hire some serious Privacy experts to counterbalance people like Schmidt who can only see the dollars and not the bigger picture. Right now the best way for an upstart to beat Google is to offer everything they do but with the Privacy settings on max.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's that they just do n't get Privacy .
Yes , we love Google search , GMail and that Beta stuff they do .
But they just do n't get privacy .
To quote Google Executive Eric Schmidt : " If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place .
" The trouble is , as the very first post described , we all do things in everyday life we do n't want the world to know .
Things we 're perfectly entitled to do .
But Google do n't get it .
I have n't used Google Docs because I 'm scared there 's some setting somewhere I wo n't know to turn off which will expose my documents to the world .
Same concerns with GMail .
Yahoo might hand your details over to the Chinese Government , but at least you do n't need to worry about them telling * everyone * you 've ever e-mailed !
If a company ever did that , of course it would be Google .
Google is the sort of company that would break into your house and stick a webcam in your toilet " So you can socialize with your friends when you 're sitting on the can .
" And they would be shocked when the people who find out about it object to it .
The public is still largely ignorant about privacy , but with incidents like this slowly they will wake up .
Google really needs to hire some serious Privacy experts to counterbalance people like Schmidt who can only see the dollars and not the bigger picture .
Right now the best way for an upstart to beat Google is to offer everything they do but with the Privacy settings on max .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's that they just don't get Privacy.
Yes, we love Google search, GMail and that Beta stuff they do.
But they just don't get privacy.
To quote Google Executive Eric Schmidt: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
"

The trouble is, as the very first post described, we all do things in everyday life we don't want the world to know.
Things we're perfectly entitled to do.
But Google don't get it.
I haven't used Google Docs because I'm scared there's some setting somewhere I won't know to turn off which will expose my documents to the world.
Same concerns with GMail.
Yahoo might hand your details over to the Chinese Government, but at least you don't need to worry about them telling *everyone* you've ever e-mailed!
If a company ever did that, of course it would be Google.
Google is the sort of company that would break into your house and stick a webcam in your toilet "So you can socialize with your friends when you're sitting on the can.
" And they would be shocked when the people who find out about it object to it.
The public is still largely ignorant about privacy, but with incidents like this slowly they will wake up.
Google really needs to hire some serious Privacy experts to counterbalance people like Schmidt who can only see the dollars and not the bigger picture.
Right now the best way for an upstart to beat Google is to offer everything they do but with the Privacy settings on max.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128056</id>
	<title>Re:The real story</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1266085140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>He may have found my public profile (which lists two websites, both business-related), but I certainly didn't give him permission to follow me</i></p><p>I think you fail in comprehending the meaning of the word "public".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He may have found my public profile ( which lists two websites , both business-related ) , but I certainly did n't give him permission to follow meI think you fail in comprehending the meaning of the word " public " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He may have found my public profile (which lists two websites, both business-related), but I certainly didn't give him permission to follow meI think you fail in comprehending the meaning of the word "public".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128514</id>
	<title>I don't need more social networking crap</title>
	<author>dindi</author>
	<datestamp>1266088440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I must say, it is a nice feature for many, I was really happy with Gmail as it was, with as little added useless crap and blinking ads and all that what ruins other free mail providers.</p><p>I suspended my Facebook, do not use Twitter, and closed several social networking accounts to escape people bugging me. Now I have this thing popup saying that I am connected and following a bunch of people I do not even want to hear about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>Argh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I think it would have been a nice way to put a popup, a mail or something to inform you, that BUZZ was available and that you can sign-up  or enable it. I really wasn't happy to see myself suckered into the crap I am trying to avoid.</p><p>Then again : credit to google for the new feature, but please next time offer it, so it is an option, not something I have to opt-out form after I am already part of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I must say , it is a nice feature for many , I was really happy with Gmail as it was , with as little added useless crap and blinking ads and all that what ruins other free mail providers.I suspended my Facebook , do not use Twitter , and closed several social networking accounts to escape people bugging me .
Now I have this thing popup saying that I am connected and following a bunch of people I do not even want to hear about : ( Argh ... I think it would have been a nice way to put a popup , a mail or something to inform you , that BUZZ was available and that you can sign-up or enable it .
I really was n't happy to see myself suckered into the crap I am trying to avoid.Then again : credit to google for the new feature , but please next time offer it , so it is an option , not something I have to opt-out form after I am already part of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I must say, it is a nice feature for many, I was really happy with Gmail as it was, with as little added useless crap and blinking ads and all that what ruins other free mail providers.I suspended my Facebook, do not use Twitter, and closed several social networking accounts to escape people bugging me.
Now I have this thing popup saying that I am connected and following a bunch of people I do not even want to hear about :(Argh ... I think it would have been a nice way to put a popup, a mail or something to inform you, that BUZZ was available and that you can sign-up  or enable it.
I really wasn't happy to see myself suckered into the crap I am trying to avoid.Then again : credit to google for the new feature, but please next time offer it, so it is an option, not something I have to opt-out form after I am already part of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127164</id>
	<title>Google 'Stumble' With Buzz??? Are You Delusional?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266078600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every major blogger or online media person has made the jump to Google's Buzz and some of them are already reporting to have more followers in just a few days they they had built up on Twitter and Facebook for months or years.</p><p>Hell the biggest complaint about Buzz is it has become so huge so quickly Google is scrambling to add tools to filter the massive flood of content being shared and generated the huge number of people leaving Twitter and Facebook for Buzz.</p><p>So yeah dipshit keep spouting your delusional crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every major blogger or online media person has made the jump to Google 's Buzz and some of them are already reporting to have more followers in just a few days they they had built up on Twitter and Facebook for months or years.Hell the biggest complaint about Buzz is it has become so huge so quickly Google is scrambling to add tools to filter the massive flood of content being shared and generated the huge number of people leaving Twitter and Facebook for Buzz.So yeah dipshit keep spouting your delusional crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every major blogger or online media person has made the jump to Google's Buzz and some of them are already reporting to have more followers in just a few days they they had built up on Twitter and Facebook for months or years.Hell the biggest complaint about Buzz is it has become so huge so quickly Google is scrambling to add tools to filter the massive flood of content being shared and generated the huge number of people leaving Twitter and Facebook for Buzz.So yeah dipshit keep spouting your delusional crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127804</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266083100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem here is that your interpretation of Schmidt's quote could apply to that same toilet: If you're doing something in the toilet you don't want anyone else to know about, you shouldn't be doing it.  That's what he said, right?  Of course that's completely absurd.  But maybe there's another interpretation behind what he said?  The interview was about online behavior, right?  Maybe he was talking about doing things <em>online</em>?  When law enforcement can subpoena your searches, your Facebook posts, etc., and some online companies will happily offer these things up even without a subpoena, how much privacy do you really think you have online?  If you want to post something online, but you want to keep it a secret, maybe you shouldn't post it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem here is that your interpretation of Schmidt 's quote could apply to that same toilet : If you 're doing something in the toilet you do n't want anyone else to know about , you should n't be doing it .
That 's what he said , right ?
Of course that 's completely absurd .
But maybe there 's another interpretation behind what he said ?
The interview was about online behavior , right ?
Maybe he was talking about doing things online ?
When law enforcement can subpoena your searches , your Facebook posts , etc. , and some online companies will happily offer these things up even without a subpoena , how much privacy do you really think you have online ?
If you want to post something online , but you want to keep it a secret , maybe you should n't post it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem here is that your interpretation of Schmidt's quote could apply to that same toilet: If you're doing something in the toilet you don't want anyone else to know about, you shouldn't be doing it.
That's what he said, right?
Of course that's completely absurd.
But maybe there's another interpretation behind what he said?
The interview was about online behavior, right?
Maybe he was talking about doing things online?
When law enforcement can subpoena your searches, your Facebook posts, etc., and some online companies will happily offer these things up even without a subpoena, how much privacy do you really think you have online?
If you want to post something online, but you want to keep it a secret, maybe you shouldn't post it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126232</id>
	<title>Re:Admit it, this is exemplary customer service.</title>
	<author>nawitus</author>
	<datestamp>1266069600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, they forced a product to people who never wanted it. Then they made it *by default* to leak out private details. Then they made the "turn off buzz" option not really working.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they forced a product to people who never wanted it .
Then they made it * by default * to leak out private details .
Then they made the " turn off buzz " option not really working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they forced a product to people who never wanted it.
Then they made it *by default* to leak out private details.
Then they made the "turn off buzz" option not really working.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128854</id>
	<title>Blocking Bugs = Real Problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266090840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a stalker who was obsessed with me.  He found my buzz account and started following me.  I've blocked him 10 times now.<br>Either there is a bug with the system, or blocking doesn't have the same weight as it ought to (and does on other services).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a stalker who was obsessed with me .
He found my buzz account and started following me .
I 've blocked him 10 times now.Either there is a bug with the system , or blocking does n't have the same weight as it ought to ( and does on other services ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a stalker who was obsessed with me.
He found my buzz account and started following me.
I've blocked him 10 times now.Either there is a bug with the system, or blocking doesn't have the same weight as it ought to (and does on other services).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125178</id>
	<title>Re:The real story</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1266093420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If she enabled Buzz, I don't see it as necessarily the case that she's misinterpreting it. When I enabled Buzz, instantly I was following 8 people, and 7 of those people were following me back, based on the fact that we'd email a bunch. As I read it, that's what she thinks happened--- that Google had her ex-husband auto-follow her, because they'd exchanged emails. Unlike Facebook, you don't have to approve followers, either. <i>And</i>, your Google Reader comments are by default visible to your followers, something I also didn't realize until one of those 7 followers of mine commented on a post of mine.</p><p>Now in my case those 7 auto-followers are people I actually know and don't object to following me, and I had nothing particularly private in my Google Reader comments, but it was still quite surprising and felt a bit weird that it was all done automatically. I would've felt much more comfortable if Google used email history to <i>suggest</i> contacts, but I still had to approve people individually before they could get access to my stuff. It'd also be nice if it asked me explicitly if I wanted my Google Reader comments shared over Buzz.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If she enabled Buzz , I do n't see it as necessarily the case that she 's misinterpreting it .
When I enabled Buzz , instantly I was following 8 people , and 7 of those people were following me back , based on the fact that we 'd email a bunch .
As I read it , that 's what she thinks happened--- that Google had her ex-husband auto-follow her , because they 'd exchanged emails .
Unlike Facebook , you do n't have to approve followers , either .
And , your Google Reader comments are by default visible to your followers , something I also did n't realize until one of those 7 followers of mine commented on a post of mine.Now in my case those 7 auto-followers are people I actually know and do n't object to following me , and I had nothing particularly private in my Google Reader comments , but it was still quite surprising and felt a bit weird that it was all done automatically .
I would 've felt much more comfortable if Google used email history to suggest contacts , but I still had to approve people individually before they could get access to my stuff .
It 'd also be nice if it asked me explicitly if I wanted my Google Reader comments shared over Buzz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If she enabled Buzz, I don't see it as necessarily the case that she's misinterpreting it.
When I enabled Buzz, instantly I was following 8 people, and 7 of those people were following me back, based on the fact that we'd email a bunch.
As I read it, that's what she thinks happened--- that Google had her ex-husband auto-follow her, because they'd exchanged emails.
Unlike Facebook, you don't have to approve followers, either.
And, your Google Reader comments are by default visible to your followers, something I also didn't realize until one of those 7 followers of mine commented on a post of mine.Now in my case those 7 auto-followers are people I actually know and don't object to following me, and I had nothing particularly private in my Google Reader comments, but it was still quite surprising and felt a bit weird that it was all done automatically.
I would've felt much more comfortable if Google used email history to suggest contacts, but I still had to approve people individually before they could get access to my stuff.
It'd also be nice if it asked me explicitly if I wanted my Google Reader comments shared over Buzz.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126344</id>
	<title>Uh...a little help?</title>
	<author>Anubis IV</author>
	<datestamp>1266070620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, I looked at that blog post where they specify three points about changes they've made, but I'm stuck at #1. It says that you either need to set that preference when first creating a profile, or else from the Edit Profile page if you've already created a profile (I created a profile a year or two back, so I guess I have to do the latter). Only problem is, I can't find that checkbox anywhere. Can someone clue me in?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I looked at that blog post where they specify three points about changes they 've made , but I 'm stuck at # 1 .
It says that you either need to set that preference when first creating a profile , or else from the Edit Profile page if you 've already created a profile ( I created a profile a year or two back , so I guess I have to do the latter ) .
Only problem is , I ca n't find that checkbox anywhere .
Can someone clue me in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I looked at that blog post where they specify three points about changes they've made, but I'm stuck at #1.
It says that you either need to set that preference when first creating a profile, or else from the Edit Profile page if you've already created a profile (I created a profile a year or two back, so I guess I have to do the latter).
Only problem is, I can't find that checkbox anywhere.
Can someone clue me in?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31131404</id>
	<title>Re:The real story</title>
	<author>imhennessy</author>
	<datestamp>1266069840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After reading your post, I thought I'd check it out, since I had also said maybe later. Yep, I'm all signed up, with one follower, who seems to only write in spanish or portugese, and following seven people. The people I'm following, I'm actually, mostly interested in, but this follower, never heard of him.
<p>
I go to help, and look for a way to kill the buzz. It tells me to sign in and go to my account and click on edit next to the product I want to delete. Buzz is not listed. Buzz also persists in saying that I have one follower, although I just blocked him. When ever I check to see who it is, it tells me I don't have any followers. Then it goes back to saying, in two places on the page, that I have a follower.
</p><p>
Fortunately, there is a little teeny link in the middle of a bunch of other tiny text which offers to turn off Buzz.
</p><p>
ivan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading your post , I thought I 'd check it out , since I had also said maybe later .
Yep , I 'm all signed up , with one follower , who seems to only write in spanish or portugese , and following seven people .
The people I 'm following , I 'm actually , mostly interested in , but this follower , never heard of him .
I go to help , and look for a way to kill the buzz .
It tells me to sign in and go to my account and click on edit next to the product I want to delete .
Buzz is not listed .
Buzz also persists in saying that I have one follower , although I just blocked him .
When ever I check to see who it is , it tells me I do n't have any followers .
Then it goes back to saying , in two places on the page , that I have a follower .
Fortunately , there is a little teeny link in the middle of a bunch of other tiny text which offers to turn off Buzz .
ivan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading your post, I thought I'd check it out, since I had also said maybe later.
Yep, I'm all signed up, with one follower, who seems to only write in spanish or portugese, and following seven people.
The people I'm following, I'm actually, mostly interested in, but this follower, never heard of him.
I go to help, and look for a way to kill the buzz.
It tells me to sign in and go to my account and click on edit next to the product I want to delete.
Buzz is not listed.
Buzz also persists in saying that I have one follower, although I just blocked him.
When ever I check to see who it is, it tells me I don't have any followers.
Then it goes back to saying, in two places on the page, that I have a follower.
Fortunately, there is a little teeny link in the middle of a bunch of other tiny text which offers to turn off Buzz.
ivan</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128106</id>
	<title>Re:The real story</title>
	<author>antibryce</author>
	<datestamp>1266085440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>by "cleansed" I assume you mean "clicked Block next to their name"?  It's a pretty simple system really, one that seems to show Google did think about how to block "stalkers, spammers and other assorted gentry".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>by " cleansed " I assume you mean " clicked Block next to their name " ?
It 's a pretty simple system really , one that seems to show Google did think about how to block " stalkers , spammers and other assorted gentry " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by "cleansed" I assume you mean "clicked Block next to their name"?
It's a pretty simple system really, one that seems to show Google did think about how to block "stalkers, spammers and other assorted gentry".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127912</id>
	<title>Google is hiring</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266084000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think you have a clue how much Google works to protect your privacy, and think you can do it better, Google is hiring: <a href="http://www.google.com/jobs" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/jobs</a> [google.com]</p><p>There are many people within Google that are even more passionate about user privacy as you are.  They'd love to have you on board.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think you have a clue how much Google works to protect your privacy , and think you can do it better , Google is hiring : http : //www.google.com/jobs [ google.com ] There are many people within Google that are even more passionate about user privacy as you are .
They 'd love to have you on board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think you have a clue how much Google works to protect your privacy, and think you can do it better, Google is hiring: http://www.google.com/jobs [google.com]There are many people within Google that are even more passionate about user privacy as you are.
They'd love to have you on board.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125426</id>
	<title>Google is orthogonal to privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266055320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google, the company that bought Double Click. Privacy is against their business model. Nuf sed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google , the company that bought Double Click .
Privacy is against their business model .
Nuf sed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google, the company that bought Double Click.
Privacy is against their business model.
Nuf sed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125438</id>
	<title>Re:The real story</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1266055740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>File this under fall-out from using real people for quality control.  Coincidentally, one of the most beneficial uses of Facebook is those extremely lame quizzes that replace paid census groups.</p><p>Beware the lab rat aspect of social networking.  It's pretty easy to avoid if you're not an incurable idiot.  Sometimes I can't help but be thankful there are so many stupider people out there to determine what's stupid for me.  I almost don't need to be smart anymore.</p><p>Yes, that was supposed to be creepy and self-deprecating.  So is the motivation behind the capitalism of social networking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>File this under fall-out from using real people for quality control .
Coincidentally , one of the most beneficial uses of Facebook is those extremely lame quizzes that replace paid census groups.Beware the lab rat aspect of social networking .
It 's pretty easy to avoid if you 're not an incurable idiot .
Sometimes I ca n't help but be thankful there are so many stupider people out there to determine what 's stupid for me .
I almost do n't need to be smart anymore.Yes , that was supposed to be creepy and self-deprecating .
So is the motivation behind the capitalism of social networking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>File this under fall-out from using real people for quality control.
Coincidentally, one of the most beneficial uses of Facebook is those extremely lame quizzes that replace paid census groups.Beware the lab rat aspect of social networking.
It's pretty easy to avoid if you're not an incurable idiot.
Sometimes I can't help but be thankful there are so many stupider people out there to determine what's stupid for me.
I almost don't need to be smart anymore.Yes, that was supposed to be creepy and self-deprecating.
So is the motivation behind the capitalism of social networking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125704</id>
	<title>So how do I turn this thing completely off?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266060480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a link on the bottom of my Gmail-page: "Turn off Buzz"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but I don't trust them. How do I turn this thing completely off?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a link on the bottom of my Gmail-page : " Turn off Buzz " ... but I do n't trust them .
How do I turn this thing completely off ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a link on the bottom of my Gmail-page: "Turn off Buzz" ... but I don't trust them.
How do I turn this thing completely off?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128326</id>
	<title>Funny thing about all this</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1266086940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny thing about all this,Google had a chance to do it right the first time by seeing the bad choices facebook,myspace,twitter have made. So in retrospect, its all about seeing what they can get away with,not by doing the right thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny thing about all this,Google had a chance to do it right the first time by seeing the bad choices facebook,myspace,twitter have made .
So in retrospect , its all about seeing what they can get away with,not by doing the right thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny thing about all this,Google had a chance to do it right the first time by seeing the bad choices facebook,myspace,twitter have made.
So in retrospect, its all about seeing what they can get away with,not by doing the right thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124906</id>
	<title>Tutorial about privacy before activating Buzz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266002760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A brief tutorial about privacy settings and how to do it before letting one activate Buzz would have worked well to stifle such privacy outcries. When I looked into Buzz, all the privacy controls were right there - nothing would be shared if I didn't want it to, and only what I wanted would be shared with only who I wanted to share it with. Very good and tight controls.<p>

But people are not generally patient enough to pay attention to such details when setting their google profiles and they are the ones who raise a big cry about privacy not being respected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A brief tutorial about privacy settings and how to do it before letting one activate Buzz would have worked well to stifle such privacy outcries .
When I looked into Buzz , all the privacy controls were right there - nothing would be shared if I did n't want it to , and only what I wanted would be shared with only who I wanted to share it with .
Very good and tight controls .
But people are not generally patient enough to pay attention to such details when setting their google profiles and they are the ones who raise a big cry about privacy not being respected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A brief tutorial about privacy settings and how to do it before letting one activate Buzz would have worked well to stifle such privacy outcries.
When I looked into Buzz, all the privacy controls were right there - nothing would be shared if I didn't want it to, and only what I wanted would be shared with only who I wanted to share it with.
Very good and tight controls.
But people are not generally patient enough to pay attention to such details when setting their google profiles and they are the ones who raise a big cry about privacy not being respected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125668</id>
	<title>What the hell is Buzz?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266060120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I logged into check my email, and it offered me buzz!</p><p>Why would I want something like that? I want control about what I send - that's why I use email.</p><p>Did they just do this because Wave failed, and are trying to leverage their gmail users to use their crap?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I logged into check my email , and it offered me buzz ! Why would I want something like that ?
I want control about what I send - that 's why I use email.Did they just do this because Wave failed , and are trying to leverage their gmail users to use their crap ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I logged into check my email, and it offered me buzz!Why would I want something like that?
I want control about what I send - that's why I use email.Did they just do this because Wave failed, and are trying to leverage their gmail users to use their crap?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127448</id>
	<title>Re:opt-out paradigm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266080460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the first thing that came to mind.  I can't get into Voice or Wave, but I have to opt-out of Buzz?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the first thing that came to mind .
I ca n't get into Voice or Wave , but I have to opt-out of Buzz ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the first thing that came to mind.
I can't get into Voice or Wave, but I have to opt-out of Buzz?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125696</id>
	<title>Another SNAFU that they haven't fixed yet</title>
	<author>Daetrin</author>
	<datestamp>1266060420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least it hadn't been fixed when i tested it a couple hours ago. If you go to the profile settings there is an option called "Display my full name so I can be found in search." If you uncheck that box and save it your profile will now say "visible to the public as [whatever your nickname is]." YOu'll also get a warning about how your profile won't be searchable as long as that option is disabled, which is exactly what one would expect from the description.<br>
<br>
However if you then try to do something with Buzz ("Like" a post or leave a comment) a browser-internal dialog will pop up asking "How do you want to appear to others?" It's a pretty small dialog with the only thing you can really select being if you want who you follow to be public or not, so clearly this is part of their solution to the complaints about privacy. However if you select "save profile and continue" you will then find that the "Display my full name" checkbox has been turned back on, without any notification at all! And of course if you uncheck it again, the next time you try to do anything with Buzz you'll have to go through the dialog again. There is an "edit" button on the dialog which opens up more options, but even under there there's no option to leave the "display full name" option unchecked. (Although it was hard to determine that since the dialog that pops up is taller than my browser window, so i had to maximize the window just to be able to see it all.)<br>
<br>
Note that you are never told "you must make your full name public in order to use Buzz" and the option itself says nothing about Buzz, just that your profile won't be searchable. It's not clear if that's the behaviour Google wanted (which would be stupid) and they're just not telling us about it (which would also be stupid) or if they just screwed up the dialog and settings in their rush to address the privacy concerns.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least it had n't been fixed when i tested it a couple hours ago .
If you go to the profile settings there is an option called " Display my full name so I can be found in search .
" If you uncheck that box and save it your profile will now say " visible to the public as [ whatever your nickname is ] .
" YOu 'll also get a warning about how your profile wo n't be searchable as long as that option is disabled , which is exactly what one would expect from the description .
However if you then try to do something with Buzz ( " Like " a post or leave a comment ) a browser-internal dialog will pop up asking " How do you want to appear to others ?
" It 's a pretty small dialog with the only thing you can really select being if you want who you follow to be public or not , so clearly this is part of their solution to the complaints about privacy .
However if you select " save profile and continue " you will then find that the " Display my full name " checkbox has been turned back on , without any notification at all !
And of course if you uncheck it again , the next time you try to do anything with Buzz you 'll have to go through the dialog again .
There is an " edit " button on the dialog which opens up more options , but even under there there 's no option to leave the " display full name " option unchecked .
( Although it was hard to determine that since the dialog that pops up is taller than my browser window , so i had to maximize the window just to be able to see it all .
) Note that you are never told " you must make your full name public in order to use Buzz " and the option itself says nothing about Buzz , just that your profile wo n't be searchable .
It 's not clear if that 's the behaviour Google wanted ( which would be stupid ) and they 're just not telling us about it ( which would also be stupid ) or if they just screwed up the dialog and settings in their rush to address the privacy concerns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least it hadn't been fixed when i tested it a couple hours ago.
If you go to the profile settings there is an option called "Display my full name so I can be found in search.
" If you uncheck that box and save it your profile will now say "visible to the public as [whatever your nickname is].
" YOu'll also get a warning about how your profile won't be searchable as long as that option is disabled, which is exactly what one would expect from the description.
However if you then try to do something with Buzz ("Like" a post or leave a comment) a browser-internal dialog will pop up asking "How do you want to appear to others?
" It's a pretty small dialog with the only thing you can really select being if you want who you follow to be public or not, so clearly this is part of their solution to the complaints about privacy.
However if you select "save profile and continue" you will then find that the "Display my full name" checkbox has been turned back on, without any notification at all!
And of course if you uncheck it again, the next time you try to do anything with Buzz you'll have to go through the dialog again.
There is an "edit" button on the dialog which opens up more options, but even under there there's no option to leave the "display full name" option unchecked.
(Although it was hard to determine that since the dialog that pops up is taller than my browser window, so i had to maximize the window just to be able to see it all.
)

Note that you are never told "you must make your full name public in order to use Buzz" and the option itself says nothing about Buzz, just that your profile won't be searchable.
It's not clear if that's the behaviour Google wanted (which would be stupid) and they're just not telling us about it (which would also be stupid) or if they just screwed up the dialog and settings in their rush to address the privacy concerns.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31133220</id>
	<title>Re:The real story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266140160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but the implication behind the phrase "you don't have anything to hide" is that there is nothing that it is legitimate to hide - that is, if you have something you want to hide, it must be illegal, immoral or shameful, and you "shouldn't be doing whatever it is you want hidden".  This is patently wrong.</p><p>This is what the GP was getting at.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but the implication behind the phrase " you do n't have anything to hide " is that there is nothing that it is legitimate to hide - that is , if you have something you want to hide , it must be illegal , immoral or shameful , and you " should n't be doing whatever it is you want hidden " .
This is patently wrong.This is what the GP was getting at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but the implication behind the phrase "you don't have anything to hide" is that there is nothing that it is legitimate to hide - that is, if you have something you want to hide, it must be illegal, immoral or shameful, and you "shouldn't be doing whatever it is you want hidden".
This is patently wrong.This is what the GP was getting at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125056</id>
	<title>Re:People don't read.</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1266091380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually no.. this person just misunderstood what she was seeing, and then when she went to rectify the "problem" discovered that she couldn't.. rather than think that maybe she was just wrong in her initial assumption, and try to actually understand how the system works, she lashed out the way bloggers do - with uninformed, barely intelligible dribble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually no.. this person just misunderstood what she was seeing , and then when she went to rectify the " problem " discovered that she could n't.. rather than think that maybe she was just wrong in her initial assumption , and try to actually understand how the system works , she lashed out the way bloggers do - with uninformed , barely intelligible dribble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually no.. this person just misunderstood what she was seeing, and then when she went to rectify the "problem" discovered that she couldn't.. rather than think that maybe she was just wrong in her initial assumption, and try to actually understand how the system works, she lashed out the way bloggers do - with uninformed, barely intelligible dribble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125974</id>
	<title>Interesting really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266064980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every single Google issue, software, service comes with some serious, easily to abuse privacy leak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every single Google issue , software , service comes with some serious , easily to abuse privacy leak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every single Google issue, software, service comes with some serious, easily to abuse privacy leak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125672</id>
	<title>Google adopts new "Do, however, be stupid" policy</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1266060180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the wake of massive Buzz privacy problems, Google has announced that its slogan "Don't Be Evil" will be extended for the 2010s with <a href="http://newstechnica.com/2010/02/13/google-adopts-new-do-however-be-stupid-policy/" title="newstechnica.com">"But Do Be Stupid."</a> [newstechnica.com]</p><p>"I don't see how people could ever have thought it wasn't perfect," said Google marketing marketer Todd Jackson. "We tested it in-house for ages, and our test group of white male engineers all working inside a single corporation thought it was the best thing ever! So of course we didn't see the need for any user testing or opt-in."</p><p>Gmail users have been up in arms at their frequent email contacts and private addresses that forward to Gmail being publicly revealed, their precise GPS location being automatically posted with updates from their mobile phone and that switching off Buzz doesn't actually switch it off.</p><p>"We have heard of the case of the woman whose violent stalker could track her through the Buzz function she didn't actually switch on," said Bishop. "But should she actually be killed, we will of course apologise for her poor product experience. Though it's obvious it's her own fault for not having first found the function hidden behind three panels to untick 'KEEP MY STALKER UPDATED ON MY EVERY MOVE.' Some people just shouldn't be let near computers."</p><p>Jackson emphasised the non-evil nature of Google. "We are most definitely not evil. But if, y'know, evil just sorta <i>happens</i>, well. We just send the rockets up. It's not our job to think about where they land."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the wake of massive Buzz privacy problems , Google has announced that its slogan " Do n't Be Evil " will be extended for the 2010s with " But Do Be Stupid .
" [ newstechnica.com ] " I do n't see how people could ever have thought it was n't perfect , " said Google marketing marketer Todd Jackson .
" We tested it in-house for ages , and our test group of white male engineers all working inside a single corporation thought it was the best thing ever !
So of course we did n't see the need for any user testing or opt-in .
" Gmail users have been up in arms at their frequent email contacts and private addresses that forward to Gmail being publicly revealed , their precise GPS location being automatically posted with updates from their mobile phone and that switching off Buzz does n't actually switch it off .
" We have heard of the case of the woman whose violent stalker could track her through the Buzz function she did n't actually switch on , " said Bishop .
" But should she actually be killed , we will of course apologise for her poor product experience .
Though it 's obvious it 's her own fault for not having first found the function hidden behind three panels to untick 'KEEP MY STALKER UPDATED ON MY EVERY MOVE .
' Some people just should n't be let near computers .
" Jackson emphasised the non-evil nature of Google .
" We are most definitely not evil .
But if , y'know , evil just sorta happens , well .
We just send the rockets up .
It 's not our job to think about where they land .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the wake of massive Buzz privacy problems, Google has announced that its slogan "Don't Be Evil" will be extended for the 2010s with "But Do Be Stupid.
" [newstechnica.com]"I don't see how people could ever have thought it wasn't perfect," said Google marketing marketer Todd Jackson.
"We tested it in-house for ages, and our test group of white male engineers all working inside a single corporation thought it was the best thing ever!
So of course we didn't see the need for any user testing or opt-in.
"Gmail users have been up in arms at their frequent email contacts and private addresses that forward to Gmail being publicly revealed, their precise GPS location being automatically posted with updates from their mobile phone and that switching off Buzz doesn't actually switch it off.
"We have heard of the case of the woman whose violent stalker could track her through the Buzz function she didn't actually switch on," said Bishop.
"But should she actually be killed, we will of course apologise for her poor product experience.
Though it's obvious it's her own fault for not having first found the function hidden behind three panels to untick 'KEEP MY STALKER UPDATED ON MY EVERY MOVE.
' Some people just shouldn't be let near computers.
"Jackson emphasised the non-evil nature of Google.
"We are most definitely not evil.
But if, y'know, evil just sorta happens, well.
We just send the rockets up.
It's not our job to think about where they land.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874</id>
	<title>The real story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266002400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This <a href="http://fugitivus.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/fuck-you-google/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">blog</a> [wordpress.com] shows what really happened:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I use my private Gmail account to email my boyfriend and my mother.<br>There&rsquo;s a BIG drop-off between them and my other &ldquo;most frequent&rdquo; contacts.<br>You know who my third most frequent contact is?<br>My abusive ex-husband.<br>Which is why it&rsquo;s SO EXCITING, Google, that you AUTOMATICALLY allowed all my most frequent contacts access to my Reader, including all the comments I&rsquo;ve made on Reader items, usually shared with my boyfriend, who I had NO REASON to hide my current location or workplace from, and never did.</p></div><p>It shows more eloquently than any privacy advocate ever could why privacy is so important when "you don't have anything to hide."</p><p>--<br><a href="http://fairsoftware.net/" title="fairsoftware.net" rel="nofollow">find a co-founder</a> [fairsoftware.net]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This blog [ wordpress.com ] shows what really happened : I use my private Gmail account to email my boyfriend and my mother.There    s a BIG drop-off between them and my other    most frequent    contacts.You know who my third most frequent contact is ? My abusive ex-husband.Which is why it    s SO EXCITING , Google , that you AUTOMATICALLY allowed all my most frequent contacts access to my Reader , including all the comments I    ve made on Reader items , usually shared with my boyfriend , who I had NO REASON to hide my current location or workplace from , and never did.It shows more eloquently than any privacy advocate ever could why privacy is so important when " you do n't have anything to hide .
" --find a co-founder [ fairsoftware.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This blog [wordpress.com] shows what really happened:I use my private Gmail account to email my boyfriend and my mother.There’s a BIG drop-off between them and my other “most frequent” contacts.You know who my third most frequent contact is?My abusive ex-husband.Which is why it’s SO EXCITING, Google, that you AUTOMATICALLY allowed all my most frequent contacts access to my Reader, including all the comments I’ve made on Reader items, usually shared with my boyfriend, who I had NO REASON to hide my current location or workplace from, and never did.It shows more eloquently than any privacy advocate ever could why privacy is so important when "you don't have anything to hide.
"--find a co-founder [fairsoftware.net]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128992</id>
	<title>Re:opt-out paradigm</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1266091980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they aren't getting burned. the vast, vast majority of people don't have abusive ex-husbands, and don't have people stalking them and in general have nothing they want or need to hide from anyone. that's the average gmail user.</p><p>social networks work when they have critical mass<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and that would have been achieved with buzz only a long time from now or maybe even never if they had defaulted to having it off. google made a decision that the average user would be served better by having it on by default.</p><p>if you are one of the very few people that has chosen to build a life where you need to hide from people, that might upset you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but it works fine for almost everyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they are n't getting burned .
the vast , vast majority of people do n't have abusive ex-husbands , and do n't have people stalking them and in general have nothing they want or need to hide from anyone .
that 's the average gmail user.social networks work when they have critical mass ... and that would have been achieved with buzz only a long time from now or maybe even never if they had defaulted to having it off .
google made a decision that the average user would be served better by having it on by default.if you are one of the very few people that has chosen to build a life where you need to hide from people , that might upset you ... but it works fine for almost everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they aren't getting burned.
the vast, vast majority of people don't have abusive ex-husbands, and don't have people stalking them and in general have nothing they want or need to hide from anyone.
that's the average gmail user.social networks work when they have critical mass ... and that would have been achieved with buzz only a long time from now or maybe even never if they had defaulted to having it off.
google made a decision that the average user would be served better by having it on by default.if you are one of the very few people that has chosen to build a life where you need to hide from people, that might upset you ... but it works fine for almost everyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127036</id>
	<title>I Feel So Rejected!</title>
	<author>IonOtter</author>
	<datestamp>1266077580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm so upset I could just slit my wrists!</p><p>I don't put any critical details on my Google Profile, and Google hates me for it!  They <i>HATE</i> me!  Why do they hate me so much?!?  I'm not ugly or fat?  Well, maybe fat...</p><p>But yeah, I don't have my bio or any other crucial details, so Google says they don't want my profile to be public!  I tried making it public, but they wanted more details and won't let it go up on their list.  I email LOTS of people!  But when Buzz came along, it just, like, TOTALLY IGNORED ME!!</p><p>Oh, sure, it activated itself and everything, but because my profile wasn't public-hate you SO MUCH Google-I got no followers!  WHYYYYY?!?  I WANT people to follow meeee!</p><p>I see how they are.  I see!  "Do no evil", huh?  I'll show you!  Just because I don't post all of my life history on your stupid website doesn't mean you can't control MY SOCIAL LIFE!</p><p>JERKS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm so upset I could just slit my wrists ! I do n't put any critical details on my Google Profile , and Google hates me for it !
They HATE me !
Why do they hate me so much ? ! ?
I 'm not ugly or fat ?
Well , maybe fat...But yeah , I do n't have my bio or any other crucial details , so Google says they do n't want my profile to be public !
I tried making it public , but they wanted more details and wo n't let it go up on their list .
I email LOTS of people !
But when Buzz came along , it just , like , TOTALLY IGNORED ME !
! Oh , sure , it activated itself and everything , but because my profile was n't public-hate you SO MUCH Google-I got no followers !
WHYYYYY ? ! ? I WANT people to follow meeee ! I see how they are .
I see !
" Do no evil " , huh ?
I 'll show you !
Just because I do n't post all of my life history on your stupid website does n't mean you ca n't control MY SOCIAL LIFE ! JERKS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm so upset I could just slit my wrists!I don't put any critical details on my Google Profile, and Google hates me for it!
They HATE me!
Why do they hate me so much?!?
I'm not ugly or fat?
Well, maybe fat...But yeah, I don't have my bio or any other crucial details, so Google says they don't want my profile to be public!
I tried making it public, but they wanted more details and won't let it go up on their list.
I email LOTS of people!
But when Buzz came along, it just, like, TOTALLY IGNORED ME!
!Oh, sure, it activated itself and everything, but because my profile wasn't public-hate you SO MUCH Google-I got no followers!
WHYYYYY?!?  I WANT people to follow meeee!I see how they are.
I see!
"Do no evil", huh?
I'll show you!
Just because I don't post all of my life history on your stupid website doesn't mean you can't control MY SOCIAL LIFE!JERKS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31129708</id>
	<title>Re:The real story</title>
	<author>thesandtiger</author>
	<datestamp>1266054060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that is NOT the case. It automatically added a picassa album and a blog of mine - BOTH of which were set to "private" or "invite only" - and several people who were set to automatically follow me sent me emails about some of the pictures in my album and comments about the blog posts. I NEVER enabled Buzz (I said "Not right now" when it asked me if I wanted to do it) and I NEVER enabled either the blog or the album to be added.</p><p>This was a total clusterfuck on Google's part. Because of their stupid and thoughtless approach to implementing this - not even giving people a choice! - I will never, ever use a Google offering again. I nuked my blogs, removed 2 sites from their directory, closed AdSense, nuked my Gmail account, sold my few shares of GOOG, and will just use whatever other search engines out there.</p><p>Whoever was responsible for Buzz should be canned, and I mean from the lowest level implementation up to the people who approved it and their bosses for not providing proper oversight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that is NOT the case .
It automatically added a picassa album and a blog of mine - BOTH of which were set to " private " or " invite only " - and several people who were set to automatically follow me sent me emails about some of the pictures in my album and comments about the blog posts .
I NEVER enabled Buzz ( I said " Not right now " when it asked me if I wanted to do it ) and I NEVER enabled either the blog or the album to be added.This was a total clusterfuck on Google 's part .
Because of their stupid and thoughtless approach to implementing this - not even giving people a choice !
- I will never , ever use a Google offering again .
I nuked my blogs , removed 2 sites from their directory , closed AdSense , nuked my Gmail account , sold my few shares of GOOG , and will just use whatever other search engines out there.Whoever was responsible for Buzz should be canned , and I mean from the lowest level implementation up to the people who approved it and their bosses for not providing proper oversight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that is NOT the case.
It automatically added a picassa album and a blog of mine - BOTH of which were set to "private" or "invite only" - and several people who were set to automatically follow me sent me emails about some of the pictures in my album and comments about the blog posts.
I NEVER enabled Buzz (I said "Not right now" when it asked me if I wanted to do it) and I NEVER enabled either the blog or the album to be added.This was a total clusterfuck on Google's part.
Because of their stupid and thoughtless approach to implementing this - not even giving people a choice!
- I will never, ever use a Google offering again.
I nuked my blogs, removed 2 sites from their directory, closed AdSense, nuked my Gmail account, sold my few shares of GOOG, and will just use whatever other search engines out there.Whoever was responsible for Buzz should be canned, and I mean from the lowest level implementation up to the people who approved it and their bosses for not providing proper oversight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127116</id>
	<title>Automatic opt-in</title>
	<author>savvyart</author>
	<datestamp>1266078180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the worst things about Buzz is, even if you opt not to get started with Buzz, you are still drafted in, and all your contacts with Gmail addresses are your followers. The user is specifically opting not to try the feature, but it is still activated with broad privacy implications. And, there are no clear guidelines on how to make sure your contacts are private again, after turning off buzz from the gmail footer. I guess, its time for me to switch over to some other email provider.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the worst things about Buzz is , even if you opt not to get started with Buzz , you are still drafted in , and all your contacts with Gmail addresses are your followers .
The user is specifically opting not to try the feature , but it is still activated with broad privacy implications .
And , there are no clear guidelines on how to make sure your contacts are private again , after turning off buzz from the gmail footer .
I guess , its time for me to switch over to some other email provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the worst things about Buzz is, even if you opt not to get started with Buzz, you are still drafted in, and all your contacts with Gmail addresses are your followers.
The user is specifically opting not to try the feature, but it is still activated with broad privacy implications.
And, there are no clear guidelines on how to make sure your contacts are private again, after turning off buzz from the gmail footer.
I guess, its time for me to switch over to some other email provider.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125724</id>
	<title>Google looks Reeeeally Desperate...</title>
	<author>viraltus</author>
	<datestamp>1266060960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to get a piece of the cake. There were two girls, one fat with a beautiful \_face\_ and one simple with beautiful \_tweeting\_ voice, now it seems Google wanted the perfect mixture of beautiful face and tweeting voice but instead is getting the simple fat one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to get a piece of the cake .
There were two girls , one fat with a beautiful \ _face \ _ and one simple with beautiful \ _tweeting \ _ voice , now it seems Google wanted the perfect mixture of beautiful face and tweeting voice but instead is getting the simple fat one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to get a piece of the cake.
There were two girls, one fat with a beautiful \_face\_ and one simple with beautiful \_tweeting\_ voice, now it seems Google wanted the perfect mixture of beautiful face and tweeting voice but instead is getting the simple fat one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128136</id>
	<title>I read it, understood it....</title>
	<author>SilverJets</author>
	<datestamp>1266085680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it still did something that completely stunned me.</p><p>I didn't want buzz.  I don't like Facebook, Myspace, or Twitter.  I just want a damn e-mail account that just sends e-mail.  So when it popped up and asked if I wanted to use Buzz, I clicked No.<br>Small point here that is important later...I have never created nor set up a Google Profile.</p><p>So, a friend whom I e-mail quite regularly buzzed a few things.  I was automatically set up to follow him.  Why?  I said, "I don't want Buzz, take me to my inbox."</p><p>Then a few friends of his, who I know of but I have never exchanged e-mails with, replied to his buzz.  *This becomes "interesting" in a second. *</p><p>So today, I read through Slashdot and find a link explaining how to truly turn off buzz.  One step is to look at your profile.  I don't have a profile I says to myself.  So I go to the Google profile page and log in, not Create a Profile, but log in.  Oh look, a skeleton profile, with a big blue Create Profile button at the bottom.  I click the "Contacts" tab at the top and there are a bunch of contacts that are not mine. People I have never e-mailed, at all.  I look at the names and recognize them as friends of my friend.  I may have received some e-mails in the past with them in the Cc field, but I never e-mailed these people.  And here they are as part of my contacts all because they replied to my friend's Buzz.</p><p>WTF?  Why do I then have to explicitly remove them as contacts?  I never explicitly added them, Google made that decision without asking me.  It was a shitty implementation and a complete failure at security and privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it still did something that completely stunned me.I did n't want buzz .
I do n't like Facebook , Myspace , or Twitter .
I just want a damn e-mail account that just sends e-mail .
So when it popped up and asked if I wanted to use Buzz , I clicked No.Small point here that is important later...I have never created nor set up a Google Profile.So , a friend whom I e-mail quite regularly buzzed a few things .
I was automatically set up to follow him .
Why ? I said , " I do n't want Buzz , take me to my inbox .
" Then a few friends of his , who I know of but I have never exchanged e-mails with , replied to his buzz .
* This becomes " interesting " in a second .
* So today , I read through Slashdot and find a link explaining how to truly turn off buzz .
One step is to look at your profile .
I do n't have a profile I says to myself .
So I go to the Google profile page and log in , not Create a Profile , but log in .
Oh look , a skeleton profile , with a big blue Create Profile button at the bottom .
I click the " Contacts " tab at the top and there are a bunch of contacts that are not mine .
People I have never e-mailed , at all .
I look at the names and recognize them as friends of my friend .
I may have received some e-mails in the past with them in the Cc field , but I never e-mailed these people .
And here they are as part of my contacts all because they replied to my friend 's Buzz.WTF ?
Why do I then have to explicitly remove them as contacts ?
I never explicitly added them , Google made that decision without asking me .
It was a shitty implementation and a complete failure at security and privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it still did something that completely stunned me.I didn't want buzz.
I don't like Facebook, Myspace, or Twitter.
I just want a damn e-mail account that just sends e-mail.
So when it popped up and asked if I wanted to use Buzz, I clicked No.Small point here that is important later...I have never created nor set up a Google Profile.So, a friend whom I e-mail quite regularly buzzed a few things.
I was automatically set up to follow him.
Why?  I said, "I don't want Buzz, take me to my inbox.
"Then a few friends of his, who I know of but I have never exchanged e-mails with, replied to his buzz.
*This becomes "interesting" in a second.
*So today, I read through Slashdot and find a link explaining how to truly turn off buzz.
One step is to look at your profile.
I don't have a profile I says to myself.
So I go to the Google profile page and log in, not Create a Profile, but log in.
Oh look, a skeleton profile, with a big blue Create Profile button at the bottom.
I click the "Contacts" tab at the top and there are a bunch of contacts that are not mine.
People I have never e-mailed, at all.
I look at the names and recognize them as friends of my friend.
I may have received some e-mails in the past with them in the Cc field, but I never e-mailed these people.
And here they are as part of my contacts all because they replied to my friend's Buzz.WTF?
Why do I then have to explicitly remove them as contacts?
I never explicitly added them, Google made that decision without asking me.
It was a shitty implementation and a complete failure at security and privacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126710</id>
	<title>Weak Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266074220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't just "tweak" something and get solid privacy. If it only takes a "tweak" to make Buzz private, then it's really not private at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't just " tweak " something and get solid privacy .
If it only takes a " tweak " to make Buzz private , then it 's really not private at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't just "tweak" something and get solid privacy.
If it only takes a "tweak" to make Buzz private, then it's really not private at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125504</id>
	<title>opt-out paradigm</title>
	<author>underwhelm</author>
	<datestamp>1266057360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, I'm amazed that Google would stumble out of the blocks like this. Isn't this the same company that keeps things in "beta" and "labs" for years and years? Had this "feature" been available for the general public to play with for a month or three before bringing out the "big guns"--opt-out implementation for all gmail users--these shortcomings would have been caught and remedied before they were inflicted on unsuspecting non-power-users.</p><p>Second, I can certainly appreciate the difficulty of creating the spark of life in a new social network platform. Ordinary players in the market have to hope that lightning strikes. As Google already has learned with Orkut, if lightning doesn't strike, maybe your product can find a niche somewhere in the long tail. Or it will never come to life at all. With Buzz, Google decided they didn't want to risk a sunny day, and chose instead to play with the high voltage line. Insta-social network by compelling everyone to connect with their personal email addresses. Deservedly, they're now getting burned--Gmail was many people's default "real" personal email site. Compelling a connection between people's real personal email address to a social network (on an opt-out basis) might shake people free of that preference...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , I 'm amazed that Google would stumble out of the blocks like this .
Is n't this the same company that keeps things in " beta " and " labs " for years and years ?
Had this " feature " been available for the general public to play with for a month or three before bringing out the " big guns " --opt-out implementation for all gmail users--these shortcomings would have been caught and remedied before they were inflicted on unsuspecting non-power-users.Second , I can certainly appreciate the difficulty of creating the spark of life in a new social network platform .
Ordinary players in the market have to hope that lightning strikes .
As Google already has learned with Orkut , if lightning does n't strike , maybe your product can find a niche somewhere in the long tail .
Or it will never come to life at all .
With Buzz , Google decided they did n't want to risk a sunny day , and chose instead to play with the high voltage line .
Insta-social network by compelling everyone to connect with their personal email addresses .
Deservedly , they 're now getting burned--Gmail was many people 's default " real " personal email site .
Compelling a connection between people 's real personal email address to a social network ( on an opt-out basis ) might shake people free of that preference.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, I'm amazed that Google would stumble out of the blocks like this.
Isn't this the same company that keeps things in "beta" and "labs" for years and years?
Had this "feature" been available for the general public to play with for a month or three before bringing out the "big guns"--opt-out implementation for all gmail users--these shortcomings would have been caught and remedied before they were inflicted on unsuspecting non-power-users.Second, I can certainly appreciate the difficulty of creating the spark of life in a new social network platform.
Ordinary players in the market have to hope that lightning strikes.
As Google already has learned with Orkut, if lightning doesn't strike, maybe your product can find a niche somewhere in the long tail.
Or it will never come to life at all.
With Buzz, Google decided they didn't want to risk a sunny day, and chose instead to play with the high voltage line.
Insta-social network by compelling everyone to connect with their personal email addresses.
Deservedly, they're now getting burned--Gmail was many people's default "real" personal email site.
Compelling a connection between people's real personal email address to a social network (on an opt-out basis) might shake people free of that preference...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125804</id>
	<title>Re:Google is orthogonal to privacy</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1266062340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Orthogonal? As in Google's interests being equally fulfilled regardless of the privacy situation? Orthogonal is 90', you're looking for "diametrically opposite".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Orthogonal ?
As in Google 's interests being equally fulfilled regardless of the privacy situation ?
Orthogonal is 90 ' , you 're looking for " diametrically opposite " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Orthogonal?
As in Google's interests being equally fulfilled regardless of the privacy situation?
Orthogonal is 90', you're looking for "diametrically opposite".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126422</id>
	<title>Business model?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1266071520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am afraid the entire business model of them are based on the fact that people doesn't read. It is just like spyware (oh sorry, potentially unwanted software!) company who relies on a huge EULA which people will just click "I agree" before it is rendered on screen.</p><p>Their bread and butter is petabytes of personal information, if they really harvest it for their lame/uncontrolled ads, it is the good scenario. If they have another plan, it is even worse.</p><p>The entire income of mainstream media and some popular blogs relies on Google/Doubleclick duopoly. If there is something really wrong going on, you won't be able to hear about it anyway...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am afraid the entire business model of them are based on the fact that people does n't read .
It is just like spyware ( oh sorry , potentially unwanted software !
) company who relies on a huge EULA which people will just click " I agree " before it is rendered on screen.Their bread and butter is petabytes of personal information , if they really harvest it for their lame/uncontrolled ads , it is the good scenario .
If they have another plan , it is even worse.The entire income of mainstream media and some popular blogs relies on Google/Doubleclick duopoly .
If there is something really wrong going on , you wo n't be able to hear about it anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am afraid the entire business model of them are based on the fact that people doesn't read.
It is just like spyware (oh sorry, potentially unwanted software!
) company who relies on a huge EULA which people will just click "I agree" before it is rendered on screen.Their bread and butter is petabytes of personal information, if they really harvest it for their lame/uncontrolled ads, it is the good scenario.
If they have another plan, it is even worse.The entire income of mainstream media and some popular blogs relies on Google/Doubleclick duopoly.
If there is something really wrong going on, you won't be able to hear about it anyway...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128956</id>
	<title>Re:The real story</title>
	<author>Urza9814</author>
	<datestamp>1266091680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buzz is like Twitter with privacy settings. If you post a public buzz, it is \_public\_ - even people who don't even have gmail accounts can read it. And yes, everyone following you gets your public buzzes. Just like everyone following you gets your twitter messages. And everyone on your friend lists gets everything you do on Facebook, even if you're posting on someone else's page. Welcome to social networking. If you don't like how that works, either use the privacy settings, which at least on Buzz are fairly obvious, or don't use it at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buzz is like Twitter with privacy settings .
If you post a public buzz , it is \ _public \ _ - even people who do n't even have gmail accounts can read it .
And yes , everyone following you gets your public buzzes .
Just like everyone following you gets your twitter messages .
And everyone on your friend lists gets everything you do on Facebook , even if you 're posting on someone else 's page .
Welcome to social networking .
If you do n't like how that works , either use the privacy settings , which at least on Buzz are fairly obvious , or do n't use it at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buzz is like Twitter with privacy settings.
If you post a public buzz, it is \_public\_ - even people who don't even have gmail accounts can read it.
And yes, everyone following you gets your public buzzes.
Just like everyone following you gets your twitter messages.
And everyone on your friend lists gets everything you do on Facebook, even if you're posting on someone else's page.
Welcome to social networking.
If you don't like how that works, either use the privacy settings, which at least on Buzz are fairly obvious, or don't use it at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31130356</id>
	<title>Re:The real story</title>
	<author>Colz Grigor</author>
	<datestamp>1266059400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I totally agree.  The guy who designed that Buzz icon totally needs to be punished for contributing to the project.  He had a responsibility to make sure that the launch went off without a hitch and in accordance with your desires that he didn't live up to.  He definitely needs to lose his job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I totally agree .
The guy who designed that Buzz icon totally needs to be punished for contributing to the project .
He had a responsibility to make sure that the launch went off without a hitch and in accordance with your desires that he did n't live up to .
He definitely needs to lose his job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I totally agree.
The guy who designed that Buzz icon totally needs to be punished for contributing to the project.
He had a responsibility to make sure that the launch went off without a hitch and in accordance with your desires that he didn't live up to.
He definitely needs to lose his job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31129708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125222</id>
	<title>Re:The real story</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1266094080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm.. that's the same on Twitter, where only if you have a private profile do you need to specifically "allow" followers.. by default, anyone can follow anyone, and if you don't like someone, you block them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm.. that 's the same on Twitter , where only if you have a private profile do you need to specifically " allow " followers.. by default , anyone can follow anyone , and if you do n't like someone , you block them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm.. that's the same on Twitter, where only if you have a private profile do you need to specifically "allow" followers.. by default, anyone can follow anyone, and if you don't like someone, you block them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125670</id>
	<title>Re:The real story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266060120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is another aspect to the lack of privacy that is slightly more subtle than people seeing someone's contacts on their own profile page.</p><p><i>Even if you have no public profile and have Buzz "turned off"</i>, people you follow / are followed by can still see your following status on others' profiles if you have a follow / followed relationship with that person as well.</p><p>Example: Person A has no public profile, and has Buzz "turned off." Person A follows / is followed by Persons B and C because of the [ridiculous] Buzz defaults or choices on behalf of B and C. Despite A's attempts to preserve their privacy, if B looks at C's public profile, B is alerted to the relationship between A and C.</p><p>This is not quite as bad as all the info being displayed to the world in one place, but still warrants concern in the same type of examples that are being brought up by so many people. If an (abusive husband / employer / nosy neighbor) suspects their (wife / employee / neighbor) is (seeking help / negotiating a job offer / whatever) from a particular person, it's still possible that Google will leak that sensitive information to the other party.</p><p>As far as I can tell, there is no way to set up Buzz so that no one is able to follow you. So even if you stop following everyone and block everyone that's currently following you (at the risk of seeming rude and offending acquaintances), new people could still decide to follow you. Of course, if you have Buzz "turned off," you have no way of knowing that it has even happened. And if you do have Buzz on, it will require constant attention to immediately reject anyone that tries.</p><p>There should definitely be a way to opt out of the Buzz system and database completely and permanently. It is not right that one has to reject and block followers individually if they want to opt out of the service. The root of the problem, of course, is that the service should be opt-in from the beginning, with Gmail users out of the system by default and able to fully remove themselves after opting in.</p><p>Personally, I'm considering moving my email away from Gmail as a result of this whole incident, and I've read <a href="http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/gmail/label?lid=3a63236689cf8dbd&amp;hl=en" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Google's "Gmail &gt; Buzz and Contacts" help forum</a> [google.com] enough to know that I'm far from the only one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is another aspect to the lack of privacy that is slightly more subtle than people seeing someone 's contacts on their own profile page.Even if you have no public profile and have Buzz " turned off " , people you follow / are followed by can still see your following status on others ' profiles if you have a follow / followed relationship with that person as well.Example : Person A has no public profile , and has Buzz " turned off .
" Person A follows / is followed by Persons B and C because of the [ ridiculous ] Buzz defaults or choices on behalf of B and C. Despite A 's attempts to preserve their privacy , if B looks at C 's public profile , B is alerted to the relationship between A and C.This is not quite as bad as all the info being displayed to the world in one place , but still warrants concern in the same type of examples that are being brought up by so many people .
If an ( abusive husband / employer / nosy neighbor ) suspects their ( wife / employee / neighbor ) is ( seeking help / negotiating a job offer / whatever ) from a particular person , it 's still possible that Google will leak that sensitive information to the other party.As far as I can tell , there is no way to set up Buzz so that no one is able to follow you .
So even if you stop following everyone and block everyone that 's currently following you ( at the risk of seeming rude and offending acquaintances ) , new people could still decide to follow you .
Of course , if you have Buzz " turned off , " you have no way of knowing that it has even happened .
And if you do have Buzz on , it will require constant attention to immediately reject anyone that tries.There should definitely be a way to opt out of the Buzz system and database completely and permanently .
It is not right that one has to reject and block followers individually if they want to opt out of the service .
The root of the problem , of course , is that the service should be opt-in from the beginning , with Gmail users out of the system by default and able to fully remove themselves after opting in.Personally , I 'm considering moving my email away from Gmail as a result of this whole incident , and I 've read Google 's " Gmail &gt; Buzz and Contacts " help forum [ google.com ] enough to know that I 'm far from the only one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is another aspect to the lack of privacy that is slightly more subtle than people seeing someone's contacts on their own profile page.Even if you have no public profile and have Buzz "turned off", people you follow / are followed by can still see your following status on others' profiles if you have a follow / followed relationship with that person as well.Example: Person A has no public profile, and has Buzz "turned off.
" Person A follows / is followed by Persons B and C because of the [ridiculous] Buzz defaults or choices on behalf of B and C. Despite A's attempts to preserve their privacy, if B looks at C's public profile, B is alerted to the relationship between A and C.This is not quite as bad as all the info being displayed to the world in one place, but still warrants concern in the same type of examples that are being brought up by so many people.
If an (abusive husband / employer / nosy neighbor) suspects their (wife / employee / neighbor) is (seeking help / negotiating a job offer / whatever) from a particular person, it's still possible that Google will leak that sensitive information to the other party.As far as I can tell, there is no way to set up Buzz so that no one is able to follow you.
So even if you stop following everyone and block everyone that's currently following you (at the risk of seeming rude and offending acquaintances), new people could still decide to follow you.
Of course, if you have Buzz "turned off," you have no way of knowing that it has even happened.
And if you do have Buzz on, it will require constant attention to immediately reject anyone that tries.There should definitely be a way to opt out of the Buzz system and database completely and permanently.
It is not right that one has to reject and block followers individually if they want to opt out of the service.
The root of the problem, of course, is that the service should be opt-in from the beginning, with Gmail users out of the system by default and able to fully remove themselves after opting in.Personally, I'm considering moving my email away from Gmail as a result of this whole incident, and I've read Google's "Gmail &gt; Buzz and Contacts" help forum [google.com] enough to know that I'm far from the only one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125108</id>
	<title>Re:The real story</title>
	<author>beadfulthings</author>
	<datestamp>1266092340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't even have to have an abusive ex-husband. I found I had acquired a follower with the unlikely name of "Kleetman Nissanka." Our buddy Kleetman seems to have assembled a collection of people to follow--all of whom are women, and all of whom have the same first name as mine. He may have found my public profile (which lists two websites, both business-related), but I certainly didn't give him permission to follow me. I have now cleansed Kleetman from my profile and re-disabled Buzz. I guess people at Google don't have to worry about stalkers, spammers, and other assorted gentry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't even have to have an abusive ex-husband .
I found I had acquired a follower with the unlikely name of " Kleetman Nissanka .
" Our buddy Kleetman seems to have assembled a collection of people to follow--all of whom are women , and all of whom have the same first name as mine .
He may have found my public profile ( which lists two websites , both business-related ) , but I certainly did n't give him permission to follow me .
I have now cleansed Kleetman from my profile and re-disabled Buzz .
I guess people at Google do n't have to worry about stalkers , spammers , and other assorted gentry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't even have to have an abusive ex-husband.
I found I had acquired a follower with the unlikely name of "Kleetman Nissanka.
" Our buddy Kleetman seems to have assembled a collection of people to follow--all of whom are women, and all of whom have the same first name as mine.
He may have found my public profile (which lists two websites, both business-related), but I certainly didn't give him permission to follow me.
I have now cleansed Kleetman from my profile and re-disabled Buzz.
I guess people at Google don't have to worry about stalkers, spammers, and other assorted gentry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126690</id>
	<title>Re:The real story</title>
	<author>liquidpele</author>
	<datestamp>1266074160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>When it popped up asking if I wanted to use Buzz, I said "no, not right now" and it still enabled it and auto-set me as following people and being followed.  So then I said okay, fine, I'll set it up.  So I told it to stop following certain people and made certain people not follow me.  Next thing I know, it's "found" the people I just said I didn't want to follow anymore and asking me if I want to follow them.  I also found people I set to not follow me were following me again and had to block them again.  At this point I gave up.
<br> <br>
So yea, fuck google on this one.  They screwed up big time on this feature release.  I've blocked everyone and turned it off now, no idea if that's actually doing anything or not though.  Thank god I never filled out my google profile or linked it to another account of any kind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When it popped up asking if I wanted to use Buzz , I said " no , not right now " and it still enabled it and auto-set me as following people and being followed .
So then I said okay , fine , I 'll set it up .
So I told it to stop following certain people and made certain people not follow me .
Next thing I know , it 's " found " the people I just said I did n't want to follow anymore and asking me if I want to follow them .
I also found people I set to not follow me were following me again and had to block them again .
At this point I gave up .
So yea , fuck google on this one .
They screwed up big time on this feature release .
I 've blocked everyone and turned it off now , no idea if that 's actually doing anything or not though .
Thank god I never filled out my google profile or linked it to another account of any kind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it popped up asking if I wanted to use Buzz, I said "no, not right now" and it still enabled it and auto-set me as following people and being followed.
So then I said okay, fine, I'll set it up.
So I told it to stop following certain people and made certain people not follow me.
Next thing I know, it's "found" the people I just said I didn't want to follow anymore and asking me if I want to follow them.
I also found people I set to not follow me were following me again and had to block them again.
At this point I gave up.
So yea, fuck google on this one.
They screwed up big time on this feature release.
I've blocked everyone and turned it off now, no idea if that's actually doing anything or not though.
Thank god I never filled out my google profile or linked it to another account of any kind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127334</id>
	<title>Re:The real story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266079920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"private Gmail" -- a new oxymoron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" private Gmail " -- a new oxymoron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"private Gmail" -- a new oxymoron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126392</id>
	<title>Re:Admit it, this is exemplary customer service.</title>
	<author>Anubis IV</author>
	<datestamp>1266071160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Imagine if I was a friend of yours and I walked into your home, saw a priceless antique, and figured I'd move it into another room without consulting you or ensuring that it would arrive safely. Along the way, it breaks because I didn't take proper precautions. I then rush to superglue it back together while you ask me what just happened. I may be taking the appropriate action <em>after the fact</em>, but the initial action was wrong and cannot be undone because something was fundamentally lost in the process.
<br>
<br>
They betrayed a trust that millions of people had in them by divulging private information that they were privy to. Shame on them, I say, and this is coming from someone who is normally a Google lover and early adopter of their technologies. This whole thing just left a sour taste in my mouth. There is no defense for what they did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine if I was a friend of yours and I walked into your home , saw a priceless antique , and figured I 'd move it into another room without consulting you or ensuring that it would arrive safely .
Along the way , it breaks because I did n't take proper precautions .
I then rush to superglue it back together while you ask me what just happened .
I may be taking the appropriate action after the fact , but the initial action was wrong and can not be undone because something was fundamentally lost in the process .
They betrayed a trust that millions of people had in them by divulging private information that they were privy to .
Shame on them , I say , and this is coming from someone who is normally a Google lover and early adopter of their technologies .
This whole thing just left a sour taste in my mouth .
There is no defense for what they did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine if I was a friend of yours and I walked into your home, saw a priceless antique, and figured I'd move it into another room without consulting you or ensuring that it would arrive safely.
Along the way, it breaks because I didn't take proper precautions.
I then rush to superglue it back together while you ask me what just happened.
I may be taking the appropriate action after the fact, but the initial action was wrong and cannot be undone because something was fundamentally lost in the process.
They betrayed a trust that millions of people had in them by divulging private information that they were privy to.
Shame on them, I say, and this is coming from someone who is normally a Google lover and early adopter of their technologies.
This whole thing just left a sour taste in my mouth.
There is no defense for what they did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125606</id>
	<title>Guess what I did when GMail offered it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266059100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I selected the 'go away, I just want my email' link (whatever it was called on that page). Later I found the option to disable this new toy so it stopped showing up in my already crowded list of filters. That was about it. Nobody ever bothered to tell me what the hell this tool was supposed to do and why I might want it. Yes, it is possible that I missed out on a great opportunity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I selected the 'go away , I just want my email ' link ( whatever it was called on that page ) .
Later I found the option to disable this new toy so it stopped showing up in my already crowded list of filters .
That was about it .
Nobody ever bothered to tell me what the hell this tool was supposed to do and why I might want it .
Yes , it is possible that I missed out on a great opportunity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I selected the 'go away, I just want my email' link (whatever it was called on that page).
Later I found the option to disable this new toy so it stopped showing up in my already crowded list of filters.
That was about it.
Nobody ever bothered to tell me what the hell this tool was supposed to do and why I might want it.
Yes, it is possible that I missed out on a great opportunity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31129186</id>
	<title>Re:Admit it, this is exemplary customer service.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266093660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They forced it on nobody - there was a specific opt-in screen that you had to click "yes, sign me up!" on before anything was activated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They forced it on nobody - there was a specific opt-in screen that you had to click " yes , sign me up !
" on before anything was activated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They forced it on nobody - there was a specific opt-in screen that you had to click "yes, sign me up!
" on before anything was activated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128322</id>
	<title>Re:The real story</title>
	<author>CPE1704TKS</author>
	<datestamp>1266086880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THE POINT IS IF YOU SIGNED UP FOR TWITTER YOU KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.</p><p>When I signed up for Gmail, I didn't expect to have all this crap about people following me, seeing my Google Reader posts, etc.</p><p>People signed up to Gmail for EMAIL.  Now, they're are mixing Twitter functionality with something that I don't want associated with it, AND I HAVE NO CONTROL.</p><p>Too bad they fucked up their initial launch.  Because of my privacy concerns, I have shut it off completely, and I will NEVER revisit Buzz again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THE POINT IS IF YOU SIGNED UP FOR TWITTER YOU KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.When I signed up for Gmail , I did n't expect to have all this crap about people following me , seeing my Google Reader posts , etc.People signed up to Gmail for EMAIL .
Now , they 're are mixing Twitter functionality with something that I do n't want associated with it , AND I HAVE NO CONTROL.Too bad they fucked up their initial launch .
Because of my privacy concerns , I have shut it off completely , and I will NEVER revisit Buzz again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THE POINT IS IF YOU SIGNED UP FOR TWITTER YOU KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.When I signed up for Gmail, I didn't expect to have all this crap about people following me, seeing my Google Reader posts, etc.People signed up to Gmail for EMAIL.
Now, they're are mixing Twitter functionality with something that I don't want associated with it, AND I HAVE NO CONTROL.Too bad they fucked up their initial launch.
Because of my privacy concerns, I have shut it off completely, and I will NEVER revisit Buzz again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125000</id>
	<title>When you can stare down China...</title>
	<author>seebs</author>
	<datestamp>1266003840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to be at least a <b>tiny</b> bit careful about how you use your power.  How is it that Spider-Man figured this out in his first comic, and Google's not figured it out after several years?</p><p><a href="http://www.seebs.net/log/articles/469/hey-google-being-evil-is-not-just-doing-evil" title="seebs.net">"Don't be evil" is more complicated than just not being actively malicious.</a> [seebs.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to be at least a tiny bit careful about how you use your power .
How is it that Spider-Man figured this out in his first comic , and Google 's not figured it out after several years ?
" Do n't be evil " is more complicated than just not being actively malicious .
[ seebs.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to be at least a tiny bit careful about how you use your power.
How is it that Spider-Man figured this out in his first comic, and Google's not figured it out after several years?
"Don't be evil" is more complicated than just not being actively malicious.
[seebs.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31129142</id>
	<title>Political dissidents?</title>
	<author>AbyssWyrm</author>
	<datestamp>1266093300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this isn't being blown out of proportion much, then the worst potential consequence I've thought of so far is political dissidents having their network exposed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is n't being blown out of proportion much , then the worst potential consequence I 've thought of so far is political dissidents having their network exposed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this isn't being blown out of proportion much, then the worst potential consequence I've thought of so far is political dissidents having their network exposed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125112</id>
	<title>Admit it, this is exemplary customer service.</title>
	<author>mano.m</author>
	<datestamp>1266092400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They released a product. They got feedback from the people who use it. They acted swiftly and concretely, fixing the product by listening to the feedback and making the user experience more relevant and comfortable. I for one wouldn't mind more companies doing the same, and not just in software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They released a product .
They got feedback from the people who use it .
They acted swiftly and concretely , fixing the product by listening to the feedback and making the user experience more relevant and comfortable .
I for one would n't mind more companies doing the same , and not just in software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They released a product.
They got feedback from the people who use it.
They acted swiftly and concretely, fixing the product by listening to the feedback and making the user experience more relevant and comfortable.
I for one wouldn't mind more companies doing the same, and not just in software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125066</id>
	<title>Re:People don't read.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266091560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading instructions has nothing to do with it. As it stands, your information is leaked even if you block follows/followed from being posted, make your profile private, and disable buzz.  A gmail user who does this still shows up in the follows/followed lists of the people they contact and who contact them most. Not an issue<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Unless your an attorney, a psychotherapist, the ex-spouse of an abusive husband, etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  It's a problem when information was leaked before you enabled buzz and is still leaked after you do everything in your power to disable the service.  I am a fan of what google is attempting, but the approach has serious flaws with serious implications. Please explain to me how reading the f-ing manual resolves this issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading instructions has nothing to do with it .
As it stands , your information is leaked even if you block follows/followed from being posted , make your profile private , and disable buzz .
A gmail user who does this still shows up in the follows/followed lists of the people they contact and who contact them most .
Not an issue ... Unless your an attorney , a psychotherapist , the ex-spouse of an abusive husband , etc ... It 's a problem when information was leaked before you enabled buzz and is still leaked after you do everything in your power to disable the service .
I am a fan of what google is attempting , but the approach has serious flaws with serious implications .
Please explain to me how reading the f-ing manual resolves this issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading instructions has nothing to do with it.
As it stands, your information is leaked even if you block follows/followed from being posted, make your profile private, and disable buzz.
A gmail user who does this still shows up in the follows/followed lists of the people they contact and who contact them most.
Not an issue ... Unless your an attorney, a psychotherapist, the ex-spouse of an abusive husband, etc ...  It's a problem when information was leaked before you enabled buzz and is still leaked after you do everything in your power to disable the service.
I am a fan of what google is attempting, but the approach has serious flaws with serious implications.
Please explain to me how reading the f-ing manual resolves this issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124978</id>
	<title>Re:People don't read.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266003660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the "fuck you google" blog post.  If you said *no* to buzz, it could get set up in a harmful way, which you couldn't configure or change because you had it disabled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the " fuck you google " blog post .
If you said * no * to buzz , it could get set up in a harmful way , which you could n't configure or change because you had it disabled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the "fuck you google" blog post.
If you said *no* to buzz, it could get set up in a harmful way, which you couldn't configure or change because you had it disabled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125168</id>
	<title>Re:The real story</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1266093180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It shows more eloquently than any privacy advocate ever could why privacy is so important when "you don't have anything to hide."</p></div></blockquote><p>No, it doesn't. Because it specifically deals with a case where someone does have something to hide. (Also, it doesn't make sense, since, even with the way Buzz was set up before these change, had to be manually added and prominently displayed its sharing settings. And, further, it seems to be based on faulty assumptions about what the meaning of someone being a "follower" are and what they could see, anyhow.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It shows more eloquently than any privacy advocate ever could why privacy is so important when " you do n't have anything to hide .
" No , it does n't .
Because it specifically deals with a case where someone does have something to hide .
( Also , it does n't make sense , since , even with the way Buzz was set up before these change , had to be manually added and prominently displayed its sharing settings .
And , further , it seems to be based on faulty assumptions about what the meaning of someone being a " follower " are and what they could see , anyhow .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It shows more eloquently than any privacy advocate ever could why privacy is so important when "you don't have anything to hide.
"No, it doesn't.
Because it specifically deals with a case where someone does have something to hide.
(Also, it doesn't make sense, since, even with the way Buzz was set up before these change, had to be manually added and prominently displayed its sharing settings.
And, further, it seems to be based on faulty assumptions about what the meaning of someone being a "follower" are and what they could see, anyhow.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31130176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31129186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31130356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31129708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31133220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31129860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31131404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_0256202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_0256202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_0256202.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_0256202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31130176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31129860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_0256202.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_0256202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31129186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_0256202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_0256202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_0256202.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_0256202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_0256202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_0256202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_0256202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31124874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31129708
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31130356
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31133220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125108
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125222
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31127334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31125178
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31128956
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31126690
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_0256202.31131404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
