<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_17_2033247</id>
	<title>Mock Cyber Attack Shows US Unpreparedness</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266396240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes with word that the outcome of the <a href="https://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/02/11/1413258/Simulated-Hack-To-Test-US-Government-Response">large-scale cyberattack simulation promised a few days ago</a> isn't too rosy. From the Help Net Security article: <i>"During the simulated cyber attack that took place yesterday in Washington and was recorded by CNN, one thing became clear: the US are still <a href="http://net-security.org/secworld.php?id=8878">not ready to deflect or mitigate such an attack</a> to an extent that would not affect considerably the everyday life of its citizens. The ballroom of the Washington's Mandarin Oriental Hotel was for this event transformed into the White House Situation Room, complete with three video screens displaying maps of the country, simulated updates and broadcasts by 'GNN,' an imaginary television network 'covering'
 the crisis."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes with word that the outcome of the large-scale cyberattack simulation promised a few days ago is n't too rosy .
From the Help Net Security article : " During the simulated cyber attack that took place yesterday in Washington and was recorded by CNN , one thing became clear : the US are still not ready to deflect or mitigate such an attack to an extent that would not affect considerably the everyday life of its citizens .
The ballroom of the Washington 's Mandarin Oriental Hotel was for this event transformed into the White House Situation Room , complete with three video screens displaying maps of the country , simulated updates and broadcasts by 'GNN, ' an imaginary television network 'covering ' the crisis .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes with word that the outcome of the large-scale cyberattack simulation promised a few days ago isn't too rosy.
From the Help Net Security article: "During the simulated cyber attack that took place yesterday in Washington and was recorded by CNN, one thing became clear: the US are still not ready to deflect or mitigate such an attack to an extent that would not affect considerably the everyday life of its citizens.
The ballroom of the Washington's Mandarin Oriental Hotel was for this event transformed into the White House Situation Room, complete with three video screens displaying maps of the country, simulated updates and broadcasts by 'GNN,' an imaginary television network 'covering'
 the crisis.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31178760</id>
	<title>Re:Duh!</title>
	<author>\_Sprocket\_</author>
	<datestamp>1265031720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Security is almost by definition an illusion - by making information accessible to someone, you make it potentially available to anyone.  Completely enforcing security ideals to a logical extreme would result in complete paralysis, depleting enormous resources along the way (see: the cold war).  If you want to keep anything secret, you have to limit its use, and limit the amount of things you  keep secret - otherwise the cost of maintaining that secret status becomes prohibitive and unrealistic.</p><p>...</p><p>Then again - security always seems to be a 'temporary' thing, that happens to almost always be escalating.  Don't you love your family enough to own the latest and greatest killing machine?  Inside most real life monsters lies the desire for securing safety for one's interests - with the lines of priorities drawn right through the property/face of someone else.  That's not something we're likely to be getting over anytime soon, conflicting interests, and aggressive 'defense'.</p></div><p>The problem is the mis-perception that security is a final goal or destination; that one becomes "secure".  The reality is that security is a process.  Key parts of that process is identifying threats, determining the level of risk attributed to a threat, determining which threats can be mitigated, and then doing so.  The trouble is that we generally aren't very good at this.  We don't always continually look for threats.  We have a hard time identifying real risk.  And in doing so, we often either ignore real risks or take drastic steps to mitigate unlikely risks.  And even if you've done a good job identifying and mitigating real risks, that doesn't mean you don't have to deal with new threats and/or changing risks... or that a low level risk won't strike home.  Which is fine if you understand the nature of security.  Most people don't.</p><p>No, security is not in itself an illusion but the perception that one is absolutely "secure" is.  And yes, security is a constantly shifting process - or at least it should be.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's the same thing with 'virtual borders' as it is with real borders - you can't keep eyes, or even cameras, or even CPU cycles going on all potential borders.  It just won't work - you have to observe effects and target responses, use honeypots and similar tactics, and marshal your resources to minimize the effects of breaches.  Better yet, improve relations and economies on both sides of the border, and make such breaches meaningless while still enforcing your limited security goals - you'll be serving all your underlying motivations at the same time.</p></div><p>I'd note that physical security and information security overlap but they are not the same.  One should not compare physical borders with digital boundaries.  One has little control over physical borders or the laws of physics but one has complete control over digital boundaries and use of protocols.  It's more complex than that, of course.  And there ARE occasional similarities.  But there are fundamental differences that make a lot of these cross-over comparisons wildly inaccurate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Security is almost by definition an illusion - by making information accessible to someone , you make it potentially available to anyone .
Completely enforcing security ideals to a logical extreme would result in complete paralysis , depleting enormous resources along the way ( see : the cold war ) .
If you want to keep anything secret , you have to limit its use , and limit the amount of things you keep secret - otherwise the cost of maintaining that secret status becomes prohibitive and unrealistic....Then again - security always seems to be a 'temporary ' thing , that happens to almost always be escalating .
Do n't you love your family enough to own the latest and greatest killing machine ?
Inside most real life monsters lies the desire for securing safety for one 's interests - with the lines of priorities drawn right through the property/face of someone else .
That 's not something we 're likely to be getting over anytime soon , conflicting interests , and aggressive 'defense'.The problem is the mis-perception that security is a final goal or destination ; that one becomes " secure " .
The reality is that security is a process .
Key parts of that process is identifying threats , determining the level of risk attributed to a threat , determining which threats can be mitigated , and then doing so .
The trouble is that we generally are n't very good at this .
We do n't always continually look for threats .
We have a hard time identifying real risk .
And in doing so , we often either ignore real risks or take drastic steps to mitigate unlikely risks .
And even if you 've done a good job identifying and mitigating real risks , that does n't mean you do n't have to deal with new threats and/or changing risks... or that a low level risk wo n't strike home .
Which is fine if you understand the nature of security .
Most people do n't.No , security is not in itself an illusion but the perception that one is absolutely " secure " is .
And yes , security is a constantly shifting process - or at least it should be.It 's the same thing with 'virtual borders ' as it is with real borders - you ca n't keep eyes , or even cameras , or even CPU cycles going on all potential borders .
It just wo n't work - you have to observe effects and target responses , use honeypots and similar tactics , and marshal your resources to minimize the effects of breaches .
Better yet , improve relations and economies on both sides of the border , and make such breaches meaningless while still enforcing your limited security goals - you 'll be serving all your underlying motivations at the same time.I 'd note that physical security and information security overlap but they are not the same .
One should not compare physical borders with digital boundaries .
One has little control over physical borders or the laws of physics but one has complete control over digital boundaries and use of protocols .
It 's more complex than that , of course .
And there ARE occasional similarities .
But there are fundamental differences that make a lot of these cross-over comparisons wildly inaccurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security is almost by definition an illusion - by making information accessible to someone, you make it potentially available to anyone.
Completely enforcing security ideals to a logical extreme would result in complete paralysis, depleting enormous resources along the way (see: the cold war).
If you want to keep anything secret, you have to limit its use, and limit the amount of things you  keep secret - otherwise the cost of maintaining that secret status becomes prohibitive and unrealistic....Then again - security always seems to be a 'temporary' thing, that happens to almost always be escalating.
Don't you love your family enough to own the latest and greatest killing machine?
Inside most real life monsters lies the desire for securing safety for one's interests - with the lines of priorities drawn right through the property/face of someone else.
That's not something we're likely to be getting over anytime soon, conflicting interests, and aggressive 'defense'.The problem is the mis-perception that security is a final goal or destination; that one becomes "secure".
The reality is that security is a process.
Key parts of that process is identifying threats, determining the level of risk attributed to a threat, determining which threats can be mitigated, and then doing so.
The trouble is that we generally aren't very good at this.
We don't always continually look for threats.
We have a hard time identifying real risk.
And in doing so, we often either ignore real risks or take drastic steps to mitigate unlikely risks.
And even if you've done a good job identifying and mitigating real risks, that doesn't mean you don't have to deal with new threats and/or changing risks... or that a low level risk won't strike home.
Which is fine if you understand the nature of security.
Most people don't.No, security is not in itself an illusion but the perception that one is absolutely "secure" is.
And yes, security is a constantly shifting process - or at least it should be.It's the same thing with 'virtual borders' as it is with real borders - you can't keep eyes, or even cameras, or even CPU cycles going on all potential borders.
It just won't work - you have to observe effects and target responses, use honeypots and similar tactics, and marshal your resources to minimize the effects of breaches.
Better yet, improve relations and economies on both sides of the border, and make such breaches meaningless while still enforcing your limited security goals - you'll be serving all your underlying motivations at the same time.I'd note that physical security and information security overlap but they are not the same.
One should not compare physical borders with digital boundaries.
One has little control over physical borders or the laws of physics but one has complete control over digital boundaries and use of protocols.
It's more complex than that, of course.
And there ARE occasional similarities.
But there are fundamental differences that make a lot of these cross-over comparisons wildly inaccurate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175776</id>
	<title>I hate to say but this is where your money is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265018040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GOING!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GOING !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GOING!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176912</id>
	<title>Honeypot?</title>
	<author>adosch</author>
	<datestamp>1265022360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTFA, it's clear that the powers-that-be in charge are incapable with dealing with the scenario properly, what I didn't see covered is anything about "could we handle an attack" from a real infrastructure and mitigation standpoint.  IMHO, who gives a flaming rip that some congressional desk monkey can't follow the very policies and procedures they wrote themselves.  We all know IT people like me, you and the rest of the InfoSec world are going to have to deal with it and if I noticed it on a national, federal, state or private sector level on my watch, I wouldn't wait for someone to bark an order from up high to try and do something about it.</p><p>For all I know, it could be a big U.S. government social propaganda honey-pot to lure attacks to learn from them or see which country "jumps first".  I think I just gave my own government WAY too much credit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA , it 's clear that the powers-that-be in charge are incapable with dealing with the scenario properly , what I did n't see covered is anything about " could we handle an attack " from a real infrastructure and mitigation standpoint .
IMHO , who gives a flaming rip that some congressional desk monkey ca n't follow the very policies and procedures they wrote themselves .
We all know IT people like me , you and the rest of the InfoSec world are going to have to deal with it and if I noticed it on a national , federal , state or private sector level on my watch , I would n't wait for someone to bark an order from up high to try and do something about it.For all I know , it could be a big U.S. government social propaganda honey-pot to lure attacks to learn from them or see which country " jumps first " .
I think I just gave my own government WAY too much credit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA, it's clear that the powers-that-be in charge are incapable with dealing with the scenario properly, what I didn't see covered is anything about "could we handle an attack" from a real infrastructure and mitigation standpoint.
IMHO, who gives a flaming rip that some congressional desk monkey can't follow the very policies and procedures they wrote themselves.
We all know IT people like me, you and the rest of the InfoSec world are going to have to deal with it and if I noticed it on a national, federal, state or private sector level on my watch, I wouldn't wait for someone to bark an order from up high to try and do something about it.For all I know, it could be a big U.S. government social propaganda honey-pot to lure attacks to learn from them or see which country "jumps first".
I think I just gave my own government WAY too much credit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176402</id>
	<title>Authoritarian Theater</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1265020320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Regarding a possible shutdown of the cell phone and Internet service to prevent a cascading effect, the group found out that federal agencies actually don't have the authority to do so, and that companies providing these services might be unwilling to do it when asked.</i></p><p><i>Another thing that might prove to be an issue is the Governors' reluctancy to put their power in the hands of the federal government, which would possibly lead to a nationalization of the National Guard.</i></p><p><i>Federal Times reports that "Attorney general" Gorelick mused on the idea of introducing laws that would allow the government to seize broader power for the time it takes to suppress a nation-wide cyber attack.</i></p><p>A simple two step plan for advancing authoritarianism:</p><p>1. Scare People<br>2. Seize More Power</p><p>What, precisely, would lead us to believe that the Federal government is sufficiently adept at cyber-security to improve upon the staged outcome of this theatrical "attack"? I want better cyber-security and think it is important, much like health care. I do not, however, believe that our government has the skills, the lack of corruption, the honor, or the honesty to do it well. Much like health care.</p><p>Tell me, fear-mongers, what you are going to do to solve the problem. Not just a thousand pages of blather within which to hide giveaways to key lobbying groups. Real solutions that the information science and economics communities can scrutinize. If you cannot provide that, you are just asking for power. You are taking liberty with a vapid hint that maybe it will help security. Nay, not even that -- you are taking liberty by shouting fire in a crowded theater.</p><p>Bullshit. Start by presenting the solution. Shove your fear-mongering up your ass.</p><p>And as for you CNN: You should be ashamed for being their puppet. Sacrificing your journalistic integrity at the alter of the exclusive. What will your pretty shock-graphic story title say? How about: "Cyberwar: Public at Peril"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regarding a possible shutdown of the cell phone and Internet service to prevent a cascading effect , the group found out that federal agencies actually do n't have the authority to do so , and that companies providing these services might be unwilling to do it when asked.Another thing that might prove to be an issue is the Governors ' reluctancy to put their power in the hands of the federal government , which would possibly lead to a nationalization of the National Guard.Federal Times reports that " Attorney general " Gorelick mused on the idea of introducing laws that would allow the government to seize broader power for the time it takes to suppress a nation-wide cyber attack.A simple two step plan for advancing authoritarianism : 1 .
Scare People2 .
Seize More PowerWhat , precisely , would lead us to believe that the Federal government is sufficiently adept at cyber-security to improve upon the staged outcome of this theatrical " attack " ?
I want better cyber-security and think it is important , much like health care .
I do not , however , believe that our government has the skills , the lack of corruption , the honor , or the honesty to do it well .
Much like health care.Tell me , fear-mongers , what you are going to do to solve the problem .
Not just a thousand pages of blather within which to hide giveaways to key lobbying groups .
Real solutions that the information science and economics communities can scrutinize .
If you can not provide that , you are just asking for power .
You are taking liberty with a vapid hint that maybe it will help security .
Nay , not even that -- you are taking liberty by shouting fire in a crowded theater.Bullshit .
Start by presenting the solution .
Shove your fear-mongering up your ass.And as for you CNN : You should be ashamed for being their puppet .
Sacrificing your journalistic integrity at the alter of the exclusive .
What will your pretty shock-graphic story title say ?
How about : " Cyberwar : Public at Peril "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regarding a possible shutdown of the cell phone and Internet service to prevent a cascading effect, the group found out that federal agencies actually don't have the authority to do so, and that companies providing these services might be unwilling to do it when asked.Another thing that might prove to be an issue is the Governors' reluctancy to put their power in the hands of the federal government, which would possibly lead to a nationalization of the National Guard.Federal Times reports that "Attorney general" Gorelick mused on the idea of introducing laws that would allow the government to seize broader power for the time it takes to suppress a nation-wide cyber attack.A simple two step plan for advancing authoritarianism:1.
Scare People2.
Seize More PowerWhat, precisely, would lead us to believe that the Federal government is sufficiently adept at cyber-security to improve upon the staged outcome of this theatrical "attack"?
I want better cyber-security and think it is important, much like health care.
I do not, however, believe that our government has the skills, the lack of corruption, the honor, or the honesty to do it well.
Much like health care.Tell me, fear-mongers, what you are going to do to solve the problem.
Not just a thousand pages of blather within which to hide giveaways to key lobbying groups.
Real solutions that the information science and economics communities can scrutinize.
If you cannot provide that, you are just asking for power.
You are taking liberty with a vapid hint that maybe it will help security.
Nay, not even that -- you are taking liberty by shouting fire in a crowded theater.Bullshit.
Start by presenting the solution.
Shove your fear-mongering up your ass.And as for you CNN: You should be ashamed for being their puppet.
Sacrificing your journalistic integrity at the alter of the exclusive.
What will your pretty shock-graphic story title say?
How about: "Cyberwar: Public at Peril"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177384</id>
	<title>Re:Duh!</title>
	<author>SlashDev</author>
	<datestamp>1265024400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"by making information accessible to someone, you make it potentially available to anyone" Anyone who has the equipment to access that information that is. The Internet was invented by DARPA and eventually given to mass population. The government needs to have their own private secure network that is only accessible with proprietary equipment and software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" by making information accessible to someone , you make it potentially available to anyone " Anyone who has the equipment to access that information that is .
The Internet was invented by DARPA and eventually given to mass population .
The government needs to have their own private secure network that is only accessible with proprietary equipment and software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"by making information accessible to someone, you make it potentially available to anyone" Anyone who has the equipment to access that information that is.
The Internet was invented by DARPA and eventually given to mass population.
The government needs to have their own private secure network that is only accessible with proprietary equipment and software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176406</id>
	<title>Re:Why.</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1265020320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"All warfare is based on deception."</p><p>-Sun Tzu</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" All warfare is based on deception .
" -Sun Tzu</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"All warfare is based on deception.
"-Sun Tzu</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176064</id>
	<title>creepy</title>
	<author>Sprouticus</author>
	<datestamp>1265019000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thinking that came out of this was creepy. giving the feds the ability to shut down cell phone network autonomously? Giving them the right to nationalize the national gaurd? I dont think so.</p><p>They cant be serious.</p><p>The only decent quesitons in the article was</p><p>1) How do you respond if the servers are foreign soil.<br>2) How likely is it to happen</p><p>the big one they failed to ask is</p><p>1) How the hell does a piece of malware jump from cell phones to cell NETWORK hardware to the internet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thinking that came out of this was creepy .
giving the feds the ability to shut down cell phone network autonomously ?
Giving them the right to nationalize the national gaurd ?
I dont think so.They cant be serious.The only decent quesitons in the article was1 ) How do you respond if the servers are foreign soil.2 ) How likely is it to happenthe big one they failed to ask is1 ) How the hell does a piece of malware jump from cell phones to cell NETWORK hardware to the internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thinking that came out of this was creepy.
giving the feds the ability to shut down cell phone network autonomously?
Giving them the right to nationalize the national gaurd?
I dont think so.They cant be serious.The only decent quesitons in the article was1) How do you respond if the servers are foreign soil.2) How likely is it to happenthe big one they failed to ask is1) How the hell does a piece of malware jump from cell phones to cell NETWORK hardware to the internet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31191562</id>
	<title>Re:Mock cyber attack == Real media circus</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1266489600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When will we wake up and build a mesh network permitting an end-run around the Powers That Be?</p></div></blockquote><p>Unfortunately, only when the majority of the population has been forced off of the Internet by those Powers That Be.</p><p>Mesh networks require a minimum density to function, variable depending on the specific radio communication scheme.  Regardless of the hardware, they only work when a lot of people near each other want them, and when the mesh can be tied into the rest of the world.  So even more unfortunately, even when the majority of the population isn't allowed to use the Internet and establishes mesh networks, they can still be cut off from the rest of the net by finding their connection point(s) and disconnecting them.</p><p>The final unfortunate realization is there will never be such a mesh network established because the Powers That Be will never find it necessary to force the majority of the population off the Internet.  Only a minority thinks.  Only a minority questions.  Only a minority will ever be inconvenienced by draconian censorship.</p><p>The majority likes Britney Spears when they're told to like her, dislikes her when they're told to dislike her, and think that liking or disliking Britney Spears is actually important.</p><p>The rot has sunk so deep that in the story about the lawsuit in Pennsylvania over a school spying on students in their homes with laptop webcams, somebody actually posted to claim that 'freedom' and 'right-to-privacy' were bad reasons to file the lawsuit.  (And they used the scare quotes, too.)  How bad has it gotten when even people who can be bothered to post on Slashdot think wildly invasive policies are perfectly fine?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When will we wake up and build a mesh network permitting an end-run around the Powers That Be ? Unfortunately , only when the majority of the population has been forced off of the Internet by those Powers That Be.Mesh networks require a minimum density to function , variable depending on the specific radio communication scheme .
Regardless of the hardware , they only work when a lot of people near each other want them , and when the mesh can be tied into the rest of the world .
So even more unfortunately , even when the majority of the population is n't allowed to use the Internet and establishes mesh networks , they can still be cut off from the rest of the net by finding their connection point ( s ) and disconnecting them.The final unfortunate realization is there will never be such a mesh network established because the Powers That Be will never find it necessary to force the majority of the population off the Internet .
Only a minority thinks .
Only a minority questions .
Only a minority will ever be inconvenienced by draconian censorship.The majority likes Britney Spears when they 're told to like her , dislikes her when they 're told to dislike her , and think that liking or disliking Britney Spears is actually important.The rot has sunk so deep that in the story about the lawsuit in Pennsylvania over a school spying on students in their homes with laptop webcams , somebody actually posted to claim that 'freedom ' and 'right-to-privacy ' were bad reasons to file the lawsuit .
( And they used the scare quotes , too .
) How bad has it gotten when even people who can be bothered to post on Slashdot think wildly invasive policies are perfectly fine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When will we wake up and build a mesh network permitting an end-run around the Powers That Be?Unfortunately, only when the majority of the population has been forced off of the Internet by those Powers That Be.Mesh networks require a minimum density to function, variable depending on the specific radio communication scheme.
Regardless of the hardware, they only work when a lot of people near each other want them, and when the mesh can be tied into the rest of the world.
So even more unfortunately, even when the majority of the population isn't allowed to use the Internet and establishes mesh networks, they can still be cut off from the rest of the net by finding their connection point(s) and disconnecting them.The final unfortunate realization is there will never be such a mesh network established because the Powers That Be will never find it necessary to force the majority of the population off the Internet.
Only a minority thinks.
Only a minority questions.
Only a minority will ever be inconvenienced by draconian censorship.The majority likes Britney Spears when they're told to like her, dislikes her when they're told to dislike her, and think that liking or disliking Britney Spears is actually important.The rot has sunk so deep that in the story about the lawsuit in Pennsylvania over a school spying on students in their homes with laptop webcams, somebody actually posted to claim that 'freedom' and 'right-to-privacy' were bad reasons to file the lawsuit.
(And they used the scare quotes, too.
)  How bad has it gotten when even people who can be bothered to post on Slashdot think wildly invasive policies are perfectly fine?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31180002</id>
	<title>Re:Why.</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1265042340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Politics is the reason. It's hard to get funding (for something like increased IT spending) without politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Politics is the reason .
It 's hard to get funding ( for something like increased IT spending ) without politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politics is the reason.
It's hard to get funding (for something like increased IT spending) without politics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175770</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or, a nod to some future Google cable news channel, referenced by NSA employees "in the know" when they were writing the scenario? Hmm...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , a nod to some future Google cable news channel , referenced by NSA employees " in the know " when they were writing the scenario ?
Hmm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, a nod to some future Google cable news channel, referenced by NSA employees "in the know" when they were writing the scenario?
Hmm...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31180148</id>
	<title>Re:Duh!</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1265043720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Holy bad analogies, batman!</b></p><p>I know slashdot loves bad analogies, but this you the cake. IT security is most certainly not an illusion. It is very real. With no IT security, an kid halfway around the world could steal your data and sabotage your business on a whim. With well-funded, well-implemented, and fully-staffed IT security programs, it would take a dedicated, big-budget espionage operation to ruin you. And even then, such things would likely be detected and contained.</p><p>If you call that difference illusionary, you've got vision problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy bad analogies , batman ! I know slashdot loves bad analogies , but this you the cake .
IT security is most certainly not an illusion .
It is very real .
With no IT security , an kid halfway around the world could steal your data and sabotage your business on a whim .
With well-funded , well-implemented , and fully-staffed IT security programs , it would take a dedicated , big-budget espionage operation to ruin you .
And even then , such things would likely be detected and contained.If you call that difference illusionary , you 've got vision problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy bad analogies, batman!I know slashdot loves bad analogies, but this you the cake.
IT security is most certainly not an illusion.
It is very real.
With no IT security, an kid halfway around the world could steal your data and sabotage your business on a whim.
With well-funded, well-implemented, and fully-staffed IT security programs, it would take a dedicated, big-budget espionage operation to ruin you.
And even then, such things would likely be detected and contained.If you call that difference illusionary, you've got vision problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31179794</id>
	<title>Re:Authoritarian Theater</title>
	<author>dachshund</author>
	<datestamp>1265040540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I do not, however, believe that our government has the skills, the lack of corruption, the honor, or the honesty to do it well. Much like health care.</i> </p><p>Just to clarify, the government isn't proposing to offer health care--- it's proposing to mandate people to buy insurance policies from private insurers, who will in turn be limited in who they can reject.  There will also be some subsidies involved.</p><p>Cyber security, on the other hand, requires the government to do a lot more than write a check.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not , however , believe that our government has the skills , the lack of corruption , the honor , or the honesty to do it well .
Much like health care .
Just to clarify , the government is n't proposing to offer health care--- it 's proposing to mandate people to buy insurance policies from private insurers , who will in turn be limited in who they can reject .
There will also be some subsidies involved.Cyber security , on the other hand , requires the government to do a lot more than write a check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not, however, believe that our government has the skills, the lack of corruption, the honor, or the honesty to do it well.
Much like health care.
Just to clarify, the government isn't proposing to offer health care--- it's proposing to mandate people to buy insurance policies from private insurers, who will in turn be limited in who they can reject.
There will also be some subsidies involved.Cyber security, on the other hand, requires the government to do a lot more than write a check.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176714</id>
	<title>[TinfoilHat]</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265021520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't you see?!?  This is just a ploy.  You "admit" you are unprepared for an attack to provoke an attack, so you can track the attackers back to their home base and destroy them.  And to think some of you consider yourselves intelligent, observant people.

[/TinfoilHat]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you see ? ! ?
This is just a ploy .
You " admit " you are unprepared for an attack to provoke an attack , so you can track the attackers back to their home base and destroy them .
And to think some of you consider yourselves intelligent , observant people .
[ /TinfoilHat ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you see?!?
This is just a ploy.
You "admit" you are unprepared for an attack to provoke an attack, so you can track the attackers back to their home base and destroy them.
And to think some of you consider yourselves intelligent, observant people.
[/TinfoilHat]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175704</id>
	<title>Ree Tar Did</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it's good "the CNN" was able to cover it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's good " the CNN " was able to cover it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's good "the CNN" was able to cover it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31180836</id>
	<title>Blissful Ignorance</title>
	<author>Newer Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1265051460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The United States lives in clueless blissful ignorance of things such as this. We don't care either-all we want are things to be 'taken care of for us'. Bill Maher said something on Larry King last night that really hit home. He stated that the average American is completely clueless-but does know when their leaders aren't leading (as Obama has been doing the past few months-he reminds me more of a college professor then our President).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The United States lives in clueless blissful ignorance of things such as this .
We do n't care either-all we want are things to be 'taken care of for us' .
Bill Maher said something on Larry King last night that really hit home .
He stated that the average American is completely clueless-but does know when their leaders are n't leading ( as Obama has been doing the past few months-he reminds me more of a college professor then our President ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The United States lives in clueless blissful ignorance of things such as this.
We don't care either-all we want are things to be 'taken care of for us'.
Bill Maher said something on Larry King last night that really hit home.
He stated that the average American is completely clueless-but does know when their leaders aren't leading (as Obama has been doing the past few months-he reminds me more of a college professor then our President).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177960</id>
	<title>Re:Led by Negroponte and Chertoff? Pass the salt.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265026500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are a professional fucking idiot. Do the Internet a favor and save your rubbish for your World of Warcraft buddies.</p><p>Let the rest of us handle your security. The least you could do is shut the fuck up while other people protect your ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are a professional fucking idiot .
Do the Internet a favor and save your rubbish for your World of Warcraft buddies.Let the rest of us handle your security .
The least you could do is shut the fuck up while other people protect your ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are a professional fucking idiot.
Do the Internet a favor and save your rubbish for your World of Warcraft buddies.Let the rest of us handle your security.
The least you could do is shut the fuck up while other people protect your ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176048</id>
	<title>Re:Why.</title>
	<author>mypalmike</author>
	<datestamp>1265019000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why.... would the U.S. Government release results of an attack simulation is beyond me....</i></p><p>The U.S. government was not involved.  The "simulated attack" was essentially a play put on by a non-profit organization, the "Bipartisan Policy Center".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why.... would the U.S. Government release results of an attack simulation is beyond me....The U.S. government was not involved .
The " simulated attack " was essentially a play put on by a non-profit organization , the " Bipartisan Policy Center " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why.... would the U.S. Government release results of an attack simulation is beyond me....The U.S. government was not involved.
The "simulated attack" was essentially a play put on by a non-profit organization, the "Bipartisan Policy Center".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175906</id>
	<title>Why.</title>
	<author>SlashDev</author>
	<datestamp>1265018400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>.. would the U.S. Government release results of an attack simulation is beyond me....</htmltext>
<tokenext>.. would the U.S. Government release results of an attack simulation is beyond me... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. would the U.S. Government release results of an attack simulation is beyond me....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175692</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1265017740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Galaxy News Network, with Three Dog HOOOOWWWWWL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Galaxy News Network , with Three Dog HOOOOWWWWWL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Galaxy News Network, with Three Dog HOOOOWWWWWL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176024</id>
	<title>I'm Not Worried</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1265018880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody who does anything remotely important or meaningful with computers would ever use the prefix "cyber" in any shape or form.  It's clearly just some misdirection being carried out by a D.C. PR/Marketing firm retained by the DoD to keep the Chinese off-balance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody who does anything remotely important or meaningful with computers would ever use the prefix " cyber " in any shape or form .
It 's clearly just some misdirection being carried out by a D.C. PR/Marketing firm retained by the DoD to keep the Chinese off-balance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody who does anything remotely important or meaningful with computers would ever use the prefix "cyber" in any shape or form.
It's clearly just some misdirection being carried out by a D.C. PR/Marketing firm retained by the DoD to keep the Chinese off-balance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31178252</id>
	<title>Mock Earth Ending Asteroid Attack</title>
	<author>abbynormal brain</author>
	<datestamp>1265028180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... shows US preparedness. Bruce Willis and crew on standby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... shows US preparedness .
Bruce Willis and crew on standby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... shows US preparedness.
Bruce Willis and crew on standby.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175712</id>
	<title>Admin password</title>
	<author>Deflagro</author>
	<datestamp>1265017800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did they change the admin password on the NT boxes they use yet?  Doesn't the gov't have an I/T czar or something now?  Good job sir.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they change the admin password on the NT boxes they use yet ?
Does n't the gov't have an I/T czar or something now ?
Good job sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they change the admin password on the NT boxes they use yet?
Doesn't the gov't have an I/T czar or something now?
Good job sir.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176280</id>
	<title>Not Too Rosy</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1265019780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's good.  If it was too rosy that would be a bad thing.  Just like we don't want pizza that is too hot or too cold.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's good .
If it was too rosy that would be a bad thing .
Just like we do n't want pizza that is too hot or too cold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's good.
If it was too rosy that would be a bad thing.
Just like we don't want pizza that is too hot or too cold.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31179132</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Grouch News Network</p><p>http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2009/11/09/2009-11-09\_conservatives\_grouchy\_over\_sesame\_streets\_fox\_news\_jibe.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Grouch News Networkhttp : //www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2009/11/09/2009-11-09 \ _conservatives \ _grouchy \ _over \ _sesame \ _streets \ _fox \ _news \ _jibe.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Grouch News Networkhttp://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2009/11/09/2009-11-09\_conservatives\_grouchy\_over\_sesame\_streets\_fox\_news\_jibe.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176438</id>
	<title>moSd up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265020440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">So that the1r a deAad man walking.</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>So that the1r a deAad man walking .
[ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that the1r a deAad man walking.
[goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31178522</id>
	<title>Fire Sale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265029800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey nobody mentioned anything about a fire sale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey nobody mentioned anything about a fire sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey nobody mentioned anything about a fire sale.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176070</id>
	<title>Led by Negroponte and Chertoff?  Pass the salt.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I don't disagree that we could do more in the area of computer security, one needs to look closely at the affiliations of the people running this "exercise."</p><p>They're both loyal Neocon insiders.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John\_Negroponte" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">John Negroponte</a> [wikipedia.org] is the former Bush Director of National Intelligence.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael\_Chertoff" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Michael Chertoff</a> [wikipedia.org] is the former Director of Homeland Security, and co-author of the Patriot Act.  And both of these positions were just the last in a string of appointments by Bush/Cheney.</p><p>And as career neoconservatives, they've been at the forefront of fearmongering and prevarication in order to lead the US to war and erode civil liberties.  These are not opinions, these are <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=vyap3KAb2AIC&amp;dq=bush+administration+lies&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=in&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=H1p8S8GMMYHAsgOC\_qHLCA&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book\_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=12&amp;ved=0CCkQ6AEwCw#v=onepage&amp;q=&amp;f=false" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">well-documented facts</a> [google.com].</p><p>The neocons are a one trick circus; this is just their newest pony.  If you've been paying attention the past nine years, how can you possibly doubt that this is anything else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do n't disagree that we could do more in the area of computer security , one needs to look closely at the affiliations of the people running this " exercise .
" They 're both loyal Neocon insiders .
John Negroponte [ wikipedia.org ] is the former Bush Director of National Intelligence .
Michael Chertoff [ wikipedia.org ] is the former Director of Homeland Security , and co-author of the Patriot Act .
And both of these positions were just the last in a string of appointments by Bush/Cheney.And as career neoconservatives , they 've been at the forefront of fearmongering and prevarication in order to lead the US to war and erode civil liberties .
These are not opinions , these are well-documented facts [ google.com ] .The neocons are a one trick circus ; this is just their newest pony .
If you 've been paying attention the past nine years , how can you possibly doubt that this is anything else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I don't disagree that we could do more in the area of computer security, one needs to look closely at the affiliations of the people running this "exercise.
"They're both loyal Neocon insiders.
John Negroponte [wikipedia.org] is the former Bush Director of National Intelligence.
Michael Chertoff [wikipedia.org] is the former Director of Homeland Security, and co-author of the Patriot Act.
And both of these positions were just the last in a string of appointments by Bush/Cheney.And as career neoconservatives, they've been at the forefront of fearmongering and prevarication in order to lead the US to war and erode civil liberties.
These are not opinions, these are well-documented facts [google.com].The neocons are a one trick circus; this is just their newest pony.
If you've been paying attention the past nine years, how can you possibly doubt that this is anything else?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176488</id>
	<title>Re:Oh - of course its not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265020620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bingo. That's all it was, an attempt to convince us all of the importance of handing the federal government the keys to all internet activity in the name of "security". If you feel safer now because of the TSA, you're going to love our new, improved, secured intarwebz!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bingo .
That 's all it was , an attempt to convince us all of the importance of handing the federal government the keys to all internet activity in the name of " security " .
If you feel safer now because of the TSA , you 're going to love our new , improved , secured intarwebz !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bingo.
That's all it was, an attempt to convince us all of the importance of handing the federal government the keys to all internet activity in the name of "security".
If you feel safer now because of the TSA, you're going to love our new, improved, secured intarwebz!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176464</id>
	<title>Re:Duh!</title>
	<author>Mashdar</author>
	<datestamp>1265020560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time\_pad" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">One. Time. Pad.</a> [wikipedia.org] Seriously, though. That's truly secure. Unless you catch the guy with the other pad before he burns it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One .
Time. Pad .
[ wikipedia.org ] Seriously , though .
That 's truly secure .
Unless you catch the guy with the other pad before he burns it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One.
Time. Pad.
[wikipedia.org] Seriously, though.
That's truly secure.
Unless you catch the guy with the other pad before he burns it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175856</id>
	<title>I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265018280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seeing all of the politics inside several government agencies, including DOI, EPA, and a few others, it's not unreasonable to see Facebook and the like not being blocked.   Too many self-important people working in these places, and since IT is outsourced, no one in IT has the authority to shut down this kind of non-sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing all of the politics inside several government agencies , including DOI , EPA , and a few others , it 's not unreasonable to see Facebook and the like not being blocked .
Too many self-important people working in these places , and since IT is outsourced , no one in IT has the authority to shut down this kind of non-sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeing all of the politics inside several government agencies, including DOI, EPA, and a few others, it's not unreasonable to see Facebook and the like not being blocked.
Too many self-important people working in these places, and since IT is outsourced, no one in IT has the authority to shut down this kind of non-sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175646</id>
	<title>I personally prefer to get my news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from the GNAA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from the GNAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from the GNAA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177716</id>
	<title>Re:Authoritarian Theater</title>
	<author>bughunter</author>
	<datestamp>1265025480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You deserve the +6 mod, friend.  Not I.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You deserve the + 6 mod , friend .
Not I .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You deserve the +6 mod, friend.
Not I.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177424</id>
	<title>Mock cyber attack == Real media circus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was not a mock cyber attack, but in fact it was a media event hosted by the U.S. government.</p><ol><li>"The entire scenario was thought up by Michael Hayden, the former CIA Director" &mdash; 'nuff said.</li><li>"A bevy of former top US officials were given various roles to play" &mdash; note that none of these people were the <em>actual</em> officials playing <em>themselves</em>. Thus this "test" proves <em>nothing</em>.</li><li>"a free March Madness application for smartphones. Once activated, it spread fast and first incapacitated cellphone networks, then landlines" &mdash; You shut off the cellphone networks and this problem ends. And given how crap they are, they'll probably go down by themselves before they actually take out the land lines. Further, military communications (including governmental backups) are not dependent on either.</li><li>"aided by mock bombs exploding in a couple of gas pipelines and power stations" &mdash; What does this sentence even <em>mean</em>? Mock bombs exploding does nothing except make smoke and a noise. Mock bomb attacks on these items takes this out of the realm of a "cyber" attack.</li><li>"When the servers serving the malware were "discovered" to be located in Russia, "National Security Advisor" Chertoff immediately began inquiring about the possibility of shutting them down and the implications of such an action." &mdash; But since there's only a few choke points for traffic to enter the country, this is a stupid and deliberately provocative question to ask. Anyone suggesting doing this in the event of an actual attack should be eliminated from the chain of command for incompetence <em>immediately</em>.</li><li>"Regarding a possible shutdown of the cell phone and Internet service to prevent a cascading effect, the group found out that federal agencies actually don't have the authority to do so," &mdash; So what? That's what declaring a state of emergency is for. Then they "magically" get the authority for the duration of the emergency.</li><li>"Another thing that might prove to be an issue is the Governors' reluctancy to put their power in the hands of the federal government, which would possibly lead to a nationalization of the National Guard." &mdash; If the federal government doesn't have any power, how would that help anyway? To create a larger clusterfuck? Also, what does <em>this</em> sentence mean? Which power? Which part of the federal government?</li><li>"Federal Times reports that "Attorney general" Gorelick mused on the idea of introducing laws that would allow the government to seize broader power for the time it takes to suppress a nation-wide cyber attack." &mdash; But since no such laws were needed, the true purpose of this exercise was revealed.</li><li>"When the "exercise" came to an end, the likelihood of such a scenario was discussed. "Secretary of State" Negroponte declared that the attack seemed very plausible to him." &mdash; Because otherwise the whole thing would be revealed as either a direct manipulation or a big jerkoff waste of time, and we can't have either of those things coming out, can we?</li><li>"Will a real cyber attack of these proportions be required to wake the government up? Probably. In the meantime, war games such as these can start the ball rolling into the right direction." &mdash; And apparently that direction is <em>towards greater fascism</em>.</li></ol><p>Seriously, this is the prelude to new legislation that will in practice be used to justify terminating all kinds of service to clamp down on free speech, in the name of prevention of terrorism. And if you try to discuss it, you'll just lose your connection to the internet. When will we wake up and build a mesh network permitting an end-run around the Powers That Be?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was not a mock cyber attack , but in fact it was a media event hosted by the U.S .
government. " The entire scenario was thought up by Michael Hayden , the former CIA Director "    'nuff said .
" A bevy of former top US officials were given various roles to play "    note that none of these people were the actual officials playing themselves .
Thus this " test " proves nothing .
" a free March Madness application for smartphones .
Once activated , it spread fast and first incapacitated cellphone networks , then landlines "    You shut off the cellphone networks and this problem ends .
And given how crap they are , they 'll probably go down by themselves before they actually take out the land lines .
Further , military communications ( including governmental backups ) are not dependent on either .
" aided by mock bombs exploding in a couple of gas pipelines and power stations "    What does this sentence even mean ?
Mock bombs exploding does nothing except make smoke and a noise .
Mock bomb attacks on these items takes this out of the realm of a " cyber " attack .
" When the servers serving the malware were " discovered " to be located in Russia , " National Security Advisor " Chertoff immediately began inquiring about the possibility of shutting them down and the implications of such an action .
"    But since there 's only a few choke points for traffic to enter the country , this is a stupid and deliberately provocative question to ask .
Anyone suggesting doing this in the event of an actual attack should be eliminated from the chain of command for incompetence immediately .
" Regarding a possible shutdown of the cell phone and Internet service to prevent a cascading effect , the group found out that federal agencies actually do n't have the authority to do so , "    So what ?
That 's what declaring a state of emergency is for .
Then they " magically " get the authority for the duration of the emergency .
" Another thing that might prove to be an issue is the Governors ' reluctancy to put their power in the hands of the federal government , which would possibly lead to a nationalization of the National Guard .
"    If the federal government does n't have any power , how would that help anyway ?
To create a larger clusterfuck ?
Also , what does this sentence mean ?
Which power ?
Which part of the federal government ?
" Federal Times reports that " Attorney general " Gorelick mused on the idea of introducing laws that would allow the government to seize broader power for the time it takes to suppress a nation-wide cyber attack .
"    But since no such laws were needed , the true purpose of this exercise was revealed .
" When the " exercise " came to an end , the likelihood of such a scenario was discussed .
" Secretary of State " Negroponte declared that the attack seemed very plausible to him .
"    Because otherwise the whole thing would be revealed as either a direct manipulation or a big jerkoff waste of time , and we ca n't have either of those things coming out , can we ?
" Will a real cyber attack of these proportions be required to wake the government up ?
Probably. In the meantime , war games such as these can start the ball rolling into the right direction .
"    And apparently that direction is towards greater fascism.Seriously , this is the prelude to new legislation that will in practice be used to justify terminating all kinds of service to clamp down on free speech , in the name of prevention of terrorism .
And if you try to discuss it , you 'll just lose your connection to the internet .
When will we wake up and build a mesh network permitting an end-run around the Powers That Be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was not a mock cyber attack, but in fact it was a media event hosted by the U.S.
government."The entire scenario was thought up by Michael Hayden, the former CIA Director" — 'nuff said.
"A bevy of former top US officials were given various roles to play" — note that none of these people were the actual officials playing themselves.
Thus this "test" proves nothing.
"a free March Madness application for smartphones.
Once activated, it spread fast and first incapacitated cellphone networks, then landlines" — You shut off the cellphone networks and this problem ends.
And given how crap they are, they'll probably go down by themselves before they actually take out the land lines.
Further, military communications (including governmental backups) are not dependent on either.
"aided by mock bombs exploding in a couple of gas pipelines and power stations" — What does this sentence even mean?
Mock bombs exploding does nothing except make smoke and a noise.
Mock bomb attacks on these items takes this out of the realm of a "cyber" attack.
"When the servers serving the malware were "discovered" to be located in Russia, "National Security Advisor" Chertoff immediately began inquiring about the possibility of shutting them down and the implications of such an action.
" — But since there's only a few choke points for traffic to enter the country, this is a stupid and deliberately provocative question to ask.
Anyone suggesting doing this in the event of an actual attack should be eliminated from the chain of command for incompetence immediately.
"Regarding a possible shutdown of the cell phone and Internet service to prevent a cascading effect, the group found out that federal agencies actually don't have the authority to do so," — So what?
That's what declaring a state of emergency is for.
Then they "magically" get the authority for the duration of the emergency.
"Another thing that might prove to be an issue is the Governors' reluctancy to put their power in the hands of the federal government, which would possibly lead to a nationalization of the National Guard.
" — If the federal government doesn't have any power, how would that help anyway?
To create a larger clusterfuck?
Also, what does this sentence mean?
Which power?
Which part of the federal government?
"Federal Times reports that "Attorney general" Gorelick mused on the idea of introducing laws that would allow the government to seize broader power for the time it takes to suppress a nation-wide cyber attack.
" — But since no such laws were needed, the true purpose of this exercise was revealed.
"When the "exercise" came to an end, the likelihood of such a scenario was discussed.
"Secretary of State" Negroponte declared that the attack seemed very plausible to him.
" — Because otherwise the whole thing would be revealed as either a direct manipulation or a big jerkoff waste of time, and we can't have either of those things coming out, can we?
"Will a real cyber attack of these proportions be required to wake the government up?
Probably. In the meantime, war games such as these can start the ball rolling into the right direction.
" — And apparently that direction is towards greater fascism.Seriously, this is the prelude to new legislation that will in practice be used to justify terminating all kinds of service to clamp down on free speech, in the name of prevention of terrorism.
And if you try to discuss it, you'll just lose your connection to the internet.
When will we wake up and build a mesh network permitting an end-run around the Powers That Be?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175888</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>mhajicek</author>
	<datestamp>1265018400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What was that? Your signal was a bit weak...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What was that ?
Your signal was a bit weak.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What was that?
Your signal was a bit weak...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176710</id>
	<title>This is actually very comforting</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1265021520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you look at the simulated attack they used:<p><div class="quote"><p>the faux attack began with malware masquerading as a free March Madness application for smartphones. Once activated, it spread fast and first incapacitated cellphone networks, then landlines, the Internet, and finally - aided by mock bombs exploding in a couple of gas pipelines and power stations and a hurricane hitting the Gulf Coast - brought the entire East Coast electrical power grid to its knees. Air traffic was thrown into disorder and commerce came to a standstill.</p></div><p>Ignoring the practical difficulty of bringing down a cellphone network AND the entire internet with a free March Madness smartphone application, notice that for an internet to have any real effect, they needed to include bombs exploding gas pipelines and power stations.......and a hurricane.<br> <br>
In other words, if you bomb things in the US it can cause problems.  Seriously, we have thousands of miles of unprotected power lines across the country......some well placed bombs could knock the power out for a lot of people really quickly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look at the simulated attack they used : the faux attack began with malware masquerading as a free March Madness application for smartphones .
Once activated , it spread fast and first incapacitated cellphone networks , then landlines , the Internet , and finally - aided by mock bombs exploding in a couple of gas pipelines and power stations and a hurricane hitting the Gulf Coast - brought the entire East Coast electrical power grid to its knees .
Air traffic was thrown into disorder and commerce came to a standstill.Ignoring the practical difficulty of bringing down a cellphone network AND the entire internet with a free March Madness smartphone application , notice that for an internet to have any real effect , they needed to include bombs exploding gas pipelines and power stations.......and a hurricane .
In other words , if you bomb things in the US it can cause problems .
Seriously , we have thousands of miles of unprotected power lines across the country......some well placed bombs could knock the power out for a lot of people really quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look at the simulated attack they used:the faux attack began with malware masquerading as a free March Madness application for smartphones.
Once activated, it spread fast and first incapacitated cellphone networks, then landlines, the Internet, and finally - aided by mock bombs exploding in a couple of gas pipelines and power stations and a hurricane hitting the Gulf Coast - brought the entire East Coast electrical power grid to its knees.
Air traffic was thrown into disorder and commerce came to a standstill.Ignoring the practical difficulty of bringing down a cellphone network AND the entire internet with a free March Madness smartphone application, notice that for an internet to have any real effect, they needed to include bombs exploding gas pipelines and power stations.......and a hurricane.
In other words, if you bomb things in the US it can cause problems.
Seriously, we have thousands of miles of unprotected power lines across the country......some well placed bombs could knock the power out for a lot of people really quickly.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177592</id>
	<title>I don't get it...</title>
	<author>hort\_wort</author>
	<datestamp>1265025000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why didn't they just let Skynet handle it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why did n't they just let Skynet handle it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why didn't they just let Skynet handle it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176512</id>
	<title>Re:Oh - of course its not</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1265020740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, it was organized by a bunch of Bush neocons. But its primary purpose was to make Obama look weak on security, so every moron in America will piss their pants in fear and check "R" on the ballot in the next election.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , it was organized by a bunch of Bush neocons .
But its primary purpose was to make Obama look weak on security , so every moron in America will piss their pants in fear and check " R " on the ballot in the next election .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, it was organized by a bunch of Bush neocons.
But its primary purpose was to make Obama look weak on security, so every moron in America will piss their pants in fear and check "R" on the ballot in the next election.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176598</id>
	<title>Did anyone with technical knowledge participate?</title>
	<author>grandpa-geek</author>
	<datestamp>1265021040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking at the list of participants, they seem to be all policy/political types.  Was anyone with technical knowledge involved?  My observation of the policy/political types is that their knowledge is so sketchy, vague, and reasoned by analogy (e.g., "collection of tubes") that they can't be depended on for anything technically accurate or definitive.</p><p>This event looks like it might have been hype for the purpose of motivating funding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at the list of participants , they seem to be all policy/political types .
Was anyone with technical knowledge involved ?
My observation of the policy/political types is that their knowledge is so sketchy , vague , and reasoned by analogy ( e.g. , " collection of tubes " ) that they ca n't be depended on for anything technically accurate or definitive.This event looks like it might have been hype for the purpose of motivating funding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at the list of participants, they seem to be all policy/political types.
Was anyone with technical knowledge involved?
My observation of the policy/political types is that their knowledge is so sketchy, vague, and reasoned by analogy (e.g., "collection of tubes") that they can't be depended on for anything technically accurate or definitive.This event looks like it might have been hype for the purpose of motivating funding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177192</id>
	<title>moD Down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">is EFNet, and 7ou I read the latest she had no fear Handy, you are free</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>is EFNet , and 7ou I read the latest she had no fear Handy , you are free [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is EFNet, and 7ou I read the latest she had no fear Handy, you are free [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176706</id>
	<title>Re:Admin password</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265021520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The missile launch code was changed from "0000" to "00000", making it ten times more difficult to guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The missile launch code was changed from " 0000 " to " 00000 " , making it ten times more difficult to guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The missile launch code was changed from "0000" to "00000", making it ten times more difficult to guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31178984</id>
	<title>Re:Led by Negroponte and Chertoff? Pass the salt.</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1265033580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree; my initial impression upon reading the list of participants was that it was a neocon reunion.</p><p>Besides, they're sorta-kinda fibbing (ok, they're lying).</p><p>If we did get the U.S. of A. sufficiently hardened - to include all internet users in the nation ('cuz who knows what super-secret intelligence a g'ment worker would put on his or her home system), then three things would happen:

</p><ol>
<li>People who think like the participants in this exercise would demand that everybody have a "backdoor" so the g'ment can still eavesdrop,</li>
<li>All of the bad guys in the world would soon have a copy of said backdoor, its operating manual, and a reverse-engineered solution for both opening the back door and negating its effectiveness.  Why?  'Cuz people who think like the neocons in the exercise would have offshored the backdoor's manufacture so they could make higher profits.    That is what neocons do:  Scream for America's security while they try to divert as much of the American people's wealth as they can to themselves.</li>
<li>People who (again) think like the participants in this exercise would eventually also succeed in getting the eavesdropping function itself "privatized", and would promptly offshore <i>that</i> work to within reach of whoever wants in.</li>
</ol><p>The moral of the story is one of:</p><ul>
<li>You can't have security even as you demand the ability to spy</li>
<li>What is the point of having security if your intention is to sell the American people out anyway?</li>
</ul><p>Or maybe both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree ; my initial impression upon reading the list of participants was that it was a neocon reunion.Besides , they 're sorta-kinda fibbing ( ok , they 're lying ) .If we did get the U.S. of A. sufficiently hardened - to include all internet users in the nation ( 'cuz who knows what super-secret intelligence a g'ment worker would put on his or her home system ) , then three things would happen : People who think like the participants in this exercise would demand that everybody have a " backdoor " so the g'ment can still eavesdrop , All of the bad guys in the world would soon have a copy of said backdoor , its operating manual , and a reverse-engineered solution for both opening the back door and negating its effectiveness .
Why ? 'Cuz people who think like the neocons in the exercise would have offshored the backdoor 's manufacture so they could make higher profits .
That is what neocons do : Scream for America 's security while they try to divert as much of the American people 's wealth as they can to themselves .
People who ( again ) think like the participants in this exercise would eventually also succeed in getting the eavesdropping function itself " privatized " , and would promptly offshore that work to within reach of whoever wants in .
The moral of the story is one of : You ca n't have security even as you demand the ability to spy What is the point of having security if your intention is to sell the American people out anyway ?
Or maybe both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree; my initial impression upon reading the list of participants was that it was a neocon reunion.Besides, they're sorta-kinda fibbing (ok, they're lying).If we did get the U.S. of A. sufficiently hardened - to include all internet users in the nation ('cuz who knows what super-secret intelligence a g'ment worker would put on his or her home system), then three things would happen:


People who think like the participants in this exercise would demand that everybody have a "backdoor" so the g'ment can still eavesdrop,
All of the bad guys in the world would soon have a copy of said backdoor, its operating manual, and a reverse-engineered solution for both opening the back door and negating its effectiveness.
Why?  'Cuz people who think like the neocons in the exercise would have offshored the backdoor's manufacture so they could make higher profits.
That is what neocons do:  Scream for America's security while they try to divert as much of the American people's wealth as they can to themselves.
People who (again) think like the participants in this exercise would eventually also succeed in getting the eavesdropping function itself "privatized", and would promptly offshore that work to within reach of whoever wants in.
The moral of the story is one of:
You can't have security even as you demand the ability to spy
What is the point of having security if your intention is to sell the American people out anyway?
Or maybe both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175940</id>
	<title>Duh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265018520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Security is almost by definition an illusion - by making information accessible to someone, you make it potentially available to anyone.  Completely enforcing security ideals to a logical extreme would result in complete paralysis, depleting enormous resources along the way (see: the cold war).  If you want to keep anything secret, you have to limit its use, and limit the amount of things you  keep secret - otherwise the cost of maintaining that secret status becomes prohibitive and unrealistic.</p><p>It's the same thing with 'virtual borders' as it is with real borders - you can't keep eyes, or even cameras, or even CPU cycles going on all potential borders.  It just won't work - you have to observe effects and target responses, use honeypots and similar tactics, and marshal your resources to minimize the effects of breaches.  Better yet, improve relations and economies on both sides of the border, and make such breaches meaningless while still enforcing your limited security goals - you'll be serving all your underlying motivations at the same time.</p><p>Then again - security always seems to be a 'temporary' thing, that happens to almost always be escalating.  Don't you love your family enough to own the latest and greatest killing machine?  Inside most real life monsters lies the desire for securing safety for one's interests - with the lines of priorities drawn right through the property/face of someone else.  That's not something we're likely to be getting over anytime soon, conflicting interests, and aggressive 'defense'.</p><p>Ryan Fenton</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Security is almost by definition an illusion - by making information accessible to someone , you make it potentially available to anyone .
Completely enforcing security ideals to a logical extreme would result in complete paralysis , depleting enormous resources along the way ( see : the cold war ) .
If you want to keep anything secret , you have to limit its use , and limit the amount of things you keep secret - otherwise the cost of maintaining that secret status becomes prohibitive and unrealistic.It 's the same thing with 'virtual borders ' as it is with real borders - you ca n't keep eyes , or even cameras , or even CPU cycles going on all potential borders .
It just wo n't work - you have to observe effects and target responses , use honeypots and similar tactics , and marshal your resources to minimize the effects of breaches .
Better yet , improve relations and economies on both sides of the border , and make such breaches meaningless while still enforcing your limited security goals - you 'll be serving all your underlying motivations at the same time.Then again - security always seems to be a 'temporary ' thing , that happens to almost always be escalating .
Do n't you love your family enough to own the latest and greatest killing machine ?
Inside most real life monsters lies the desire for securing safety for one 's interests - with the lines of priorities drawn right through the property/face of someone else .
That 's not something we 're likely to be getting over anytime soon , conflicting interests , and aggressive 'defense'.Ryan Fenton</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security is almost by definition an illusion - by making information accessible to someone, you make it potentially available to anyone.
Completely enforcing security ideals to a logical extreme would result in complete paralysis, depleting enormous resources along the way (see: the cold war).
If you want to keep anything secret, you have to limit its use, and limit the amount of things you  keep secret - otherwise the cost of maintaining that secret status becomes prohibitive and unrealistic.It's the same thing with 'virtual borders' as it is with real borders - you can't keep eyes, or even cameras, or even CPU cycles going on all potential borders.
It just won't work - you have to observe effects and target responses, use honeypots and similar tactics, and marshal your resources to minimize the effects of breaches.
Better yet, improve relations and economies on both sides of the border, and make such breaches meaningless while still enforcing your limited security goals - you'll be serving all your underlying motivations at the same time.Then again - security always seems to be a 'temporary' thing, that happens to almost always be escalating.
Don't you love your family enough to own the latest and greatest killing machine?
Inside most real life monsters lies the desire for securing safety for one's interests - with the lines of priorities drawn right through the property/face of someone else.
That's not something we're likely to be getting over anytime soon, conflicting interests, and aggressive 'defense'.Ryan Fenton</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175998</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>grahamsaa</author>
	<datestamp>1265018820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Guerrilla News Network</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guerrilla News Network</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guerrilla News Network</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176052</id>
	<title>I don't quite understand 'how' this was simulated</title>
	<author>zero\_out</author>
	<datestamp>1265019000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>After reading the article, I'm still not sure how this was simulated.  Was it basically a situation where a bunch of agency heads sat around, were given a scenario, and asked 'what would you do'?  Was this a test of department decision making, or an actual test of doing something?  I'm just having a hard time understanding the 'format' of this simulation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading the article , I 'm still not sure how this was simulated .
Was it basically a situation where a bunch of agency heads sat around , were given a scenario , and asked 'what would you do ' ?
Was this a test of department decision making , or an actual test of doing something ?
I 'm just having a hard time understanding the 'format ' of this simulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading the article, I'm still not sure how this was simulated.
Was it basically a situation where a bunch of agency heads sat around, were given a scenario, and asked 'what would you do'?
Was this a test of department decision making, or an actual test of doing something?
I'm just having a hard time understanding the 'format' of this simulation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176424</id>
	<title>Re:Led by Negroponte and Chertoff? Pass the salt.</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1265020440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What did i do with that mod point?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What did i do with that mod point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What did i do with that mod point?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175606</id>
	<title>hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>simulated updates and broadcasts by <b>'GNN,'</b> an imaginary television network 'covering' the crisis.</p></div><p>Gotham News Network?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>simulated updates and broadcasts by 'GNN, ' an imaginary television network 'covering ' the crisis.Gotham News Network ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>simulated updates and broadcasts by 'GNN,' an imaginary television network 'covering' the crisis.Gotham News Network?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176960</id>
	<title>TERROR !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265022540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, ramp up that TERROR, turn the dial to PANIC !</p><p>Are you scared yet citizen ? Are you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , ramp up that TERROR , turn the dial to PANIC ! Are you scared yet citizen ?
Are you .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, ramp up that TERROR, turn the dial to PANIC !Are you scared yet citizen ?
Are you ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177178</id>
	<title>Re:Duh!</title>
	<author>Gitcho</author>
	<datestamp>1265023500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Better yet, improve relations and economies on both sides of the border</i> <br> <br>
i think he's right<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you know, I wonder how much security we would need if we did things like practice what we preach, swallow our pride every now and then, admin we screwed up when we do? Bad example:  (not that Canada is the model country by any stretch) part of the reason we don't *need* a huge military force is because lots of countries *like* us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better yet , improve relations and economies on both sides of the border i think he 's right ... you know , I wonder how much security we would need if we did things like practice what we preach , swallow our pride every now and then , admin we screwed up when we do ?
Bad example : ( not that Canada is the model country by any stretch ) part of the reason we do n't * need * a huge military force is because lots of countries * like * us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better yet, improve relations and economies on both sides of the border  
i think he's right ... you know, I wonder how much security we would need if we did things like practice what we preach, swallow our pride every now and then, admin we screwed up when we do?
Bad example:  (not that Canada is the model country by any stretch) part of the reason we don't *need* a huge military force is because lots of countries *like* us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177214</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, at least it wasn't the GNAANN...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , at least it was n't the GNAANN.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, at least it wasn't the GNAANN...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177726</id>
	<title>Re:Duh!</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1265025540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to dispute your observations, which I agree with but you can say *anything* is an illusion if you choose a sufficiently constrained definition of it.</p><p>What you are talking about is the "all or nothing" model of security, where security is regarded as a property a system either has or does not have.  Any system that a determined adversary can undermine is "not secure", and of course a determined adversary (one willing and able to engage in black bag jobs and human intelligence operations) is capable of penetrating any system.</p><p>Let me propose an alternate view of security: it is a continuous dimension on which systems can be placed for purposes of evaluating them for a particular kind of use.   The question then is not "is this system secure?" but rather "is this system sufficiently secure to serve this purpose in this situation?"</p><p>It's quite reasonable to ask whether a network of computers connected through the Internet and running certain services and software are sufficiently secure to run the nation's power grid.  The important thing isn't the answer you get, but the *process* you go through to obtain that answer.  A sound process for answering that question should result in a deeper understanding of the system's vulnerabilities.    "Is this system secure?" is too vague, and is apt to lead to wishful thinking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to dispute your observations , which I agree with but you can say * anything * is an illusion if you choose a sufficiently constrained definition of it.What you are talking about is the " all or nothing " model of security , where security is regarded as a property a system either has or does not have .
Any system that a determined adversary can undermine is " not secure " , and of course a determined adversary ( one willing and able to engage in black bag jobs and human intelligence operations ) is capable of penetrating any system.Let me propose an alternate view of security : it is a continuous dimension on which systems can be placed for purposes of evaluating them for a particular kind of use .
The question then is not " is this system secure ?
" but rather " is this system sufficiently secure to serve this purpose in this situation ?
" It 's quite reasonable to ask whether a network of computers connected through the Internet and running certain services and software are sufficiently secure to run the nation 's power grid .
The important thing is n't the answer you get , but the * process * you go through to obtain that answer .
A sound process for answering that question should result in a deeper understanding of the system 's vulnerabilities .
" Is this system secure ?
" is too vague , and is apt to lead to wishful thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to dispute your observations, which I agree with but you can say *anything* is an illusion if you choose a sufficiently constrained definition of it.What you are talking about is the "all or nothing" model of security, where security is regarded as a property a system either has or does not have.
Any system that a determined adversary can undermine is "not secure", and of course a determined adversary (one willing and able to engage in black bag jobs and human intelligence operations) is capable of penetrating any system.Let me propose an alternate view of security: it is a continuous dimension on which systems can be placed for purposes of evaluating them for a particular kind of use.
The question then is not "is this system secure?
" but rather "is this system sufficiently secure to serve this purpose in this situation?
"It's quite reasonable to ask whether a network of computers connected through the Internet and running certain services and software are sufficiently secure to run the nation's power grid.
The important thing isn't the answer you get, but the *process* you go through to obtain that answer.
A sound process for answering that question should result in a deeper understanding of the system's vulnerabilities.
"Is this system secure?
" is too vague, and is apt to lead to wishful thinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176628</id>
	<title>Re:creepy</title>
	<author>Ohrion</author>
	<datestamp>1265021160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree and had the same thoughts. I'm going to assume this malware was flooding the cell network,  much like the Melissa virus years ago "crippled" networks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree and had the same thoughts .
I 'm going to assume this malware was flooding the cell network , much like the Melissa virus years ago " crippled " networks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree and had the same thoughts.
I'm going to assume this malware was flooding the cell network,  much like the Melissa virus years ago "crippled" networks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177702</id>
	<title>not cyber attack</title>
	<author>bugi</author>
	<datestamp>1265025420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was a "simulation" of an attack that just happened to have "cyber" elements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was a " simulation " of an attack that just happened to have " cyber " elements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was a "simulation" of an attack that just happened to have "cyber" elements.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176604</id>
	<title>Re:Led by Negroponte and Chertoff? Pass the salt.</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1265021100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wish I could mod you to +6. This "exercise" was nothing but a partisan attempt to embarrass the Obama Administration, scare the American people, dupe the press, and justify a bunch of heavy-handed neocon anti-civil-liberty measures. Its outcome from forgone before the day even began.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I could mod you to + 6 .
This " exercise " was nothing but a partisan attempt to embarrass the Obama Administration , scare the American people , dupe the press , and justify a bunch of heavy-handed neocon anti-civil-liberty measures .
Its outcome from forgone before the day even began .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I could mod you to +6.
This "exercise" was nothing but a partisan attempt to embarrass the Obama Administration, scare the American people, dupe the press, and justify a bunch of heavy-handed neocon anti-civil-liberty measures.
Its outcome from forgone before the day even began.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175720</id>
	<title>Hey what do you know!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another reason to take more of our civil liberties in the name of 'national security'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another reason to take more of our civil liberties in the name of 'national security'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another reason to take more of our civil liberties in the name of 'national security'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31179078</id>
	<title>Re:I'm Not Worried</title>
	<author>stefanlasiewski</author>
	<datestamp>1265034480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think the use of the word 'cyber' is bad, check out this video promoting "Cyber ShockWave". It's produced by Bipartisan Policy Center, the organizers of the event.</p><p>The video is like something out of a bad action movie.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xpV5JjnEdE" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xpV5JjnEdE</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think the use of the word 'cyber ' is bad , check out this video promoting " Cyber ShockWave " .
It 's produced by Bipartisan Policy Center , the organizers of the event.The video is like something out of a bad action movie.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 8xpV5JjnEdE [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think the use of the word 'cyber' is bad, check out this video promoting "Cyber ShockWave".
It's produced by Bipartisan Policy Center, the organizers of the event.The video is like something out of a bad action movie.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xpV5JjnEdE [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31179164</id>
	<title>Re:Led by Negroponte and Chertoff? Pass the salt.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean the original members of "Security Theatre" (TM) have reformed for a come-back tour?</p><p>I want tickets!</p><p>Who has ever match their performance of "Ignorance"?</p><p>OK, I'll admit Michael Steele IS working on it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean the original members of " Security Theatre " ( TM ) have reformed for a come-back tour ? I want tickets ! Who has ever match their performance of " Ignorance " ? OK , I 'll admit Michael Steele IS working on it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean the original members of "Security Theatre" (TM) have reformed for a come-back tour?I want tickets!Who has ever match their performance of "Ignorance"?OK, I'll admit Michael Steele IS working on it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31180606</id>
	<title>Re:Authoritarian Theater</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265049000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's try that again with the Military Industrial complex:  "What precisely would lead us to believe that the Federal government is sufficiently adept at <b>war</b> to improve (yadda yadda)..."</p><p>Or should I go with: Wall street wants to solve your security concerns, for profit.</p><p>Or perhaps 'screw civilization; it's every man or woman for themselves.'</p><p>Each is about as incoherent and nuance-deprived as your screed.</p><p>Having worked in big multinational corporations, consulted for government and business and banks, and worked for startups and solo, I can't count all the ways you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about.</p><p>Yes, governments are thick with absurd and incompetent aspects.  News flash: SO ARE CORPORATIONS!!!  Yet both thrive not because of some hidden agenda, but because once something gets that huge, efficiencies of scale still make a big entity more cost-effective than mom n pop.    Yeah, a small shop is nimble and I love entrepreneurial work, but I hated running a small company: It takes half a person (or whatever you wanna call an FTE) to set up or make big changes to a 5-to-20-person shop's benefits, but the staffing demand to do this scales at a shallow rate until it takes a few people per THOUSAND to run a huge firm's benefits team.  Ditto accounting, recruiting, management, etc.</p><p>Too often Brooks' Mythical Man Month is quoted while glossing over another rule: as inefficient as adding bodies to a problem is, sometimes the problem is too damn big for anything but a leviathan to solve in the timeframe needed. Refactoring a job needing Brooks' infinite asymptote of manpower into doable parts still leaves a set of tasks that only Boeing or IBM or EDS or Microsoft or Uncle Sam can do.</p><p>Network security is that sort of huge, huge mess.  And thanks to exponential growth on existing infrastructure predicated on designs that are insecure, it is worsening, not improving.  Not because companies or governments aren't hiring good people, not because there's some agenda to strip you of your rights, but because of RFC'S that didn't envision this future.</p><p>As much as I loathe the names I'm seeing bandied about here (Negraputz &amp; Chertoff), I completely agree with the demo's underlying idea: don't sugarcoat our situation; people need to be *VISCERALLY* aware that critical infrastructure and commerce are at risk. And we're getting closer to our risk being not just life-threatening, but national-disaster caliber, with lots of deaths or financial losses.</p><p>As for what is being done, what would you do differently?  Aside from libertarian bullshit, that is?  I've seen or helped everywhere I go with: Contingency plans, mitigation, red-blue team exercises, tech redesigns, training, risk management exercises, and awareness campaigns seem like best practices.  Oh, and Audits.  God, I hate 'em, but they're a necessary evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's try that again with the Military Industrial complex : " What precisely would lead us to believe that the Federal government is sufficiently adept at war to improve ( yadda yadda ) ... " Or should I go with : Wall street wants to solve your security concerns , for profit.Or perhaps 'screw civilization ; it 's every man or woman for themselves .
'Each is about as incoherent and nuance-deprived as your screed.Having worked in big multinational corporations , consulted for government and business and banks , and worked for startups and solo , I ca n't count all the ways you obviously do n't know what the hell you 're talking about.Yes , governments are thick with absurd and incompetent aspects .
News flash : SO ARE CORPORATIONS ! ! !
Yet both thrive not because of some hidden agenda , but because once something gets that huge , efficiencies of scale still make a big entity more cost-effective than mom n pop .
Yeah , a small shop is nimble and I love entrepreneurial work , but I hated running a small company : It takes half a person ( or whatever you wan na call an FTE ) to set up or make big changes to a 5-to-20-person shop 's benefits , but the staffing demand to do this scales at a shallow rate until it takes a few people per THOUSAND to run a huge firm 's benefits team .
Ditto accounting , recruiting , management , etc.Too often Brooks ' Mythical Man Month is quoted while glossing over another rule : as inefficient as adding bodies to a problem is , sometimes the problem is too damn big for anything but a leviathan to solve in the timeframe needed .
Refactoring a job needing Brooks ' infinite asymptote of manpower into doable parts still leaves a set of tasks that only Boeing or IBM or EDS or Microsoft or Uncle Sam can do.Network security is that sort of huge , huge mess .
And thanks to exponential growth on existing infrastructure predicated on designs that are insecure , it is worsening , not improving .
Not because companies or governments are n't hiring good people , not because there 's some agenda to strip you of your rights , but because of RFC 'S that did n't envision this future.As much as I loathe the names I 'm seeing bandied about here ( Negraputz &amp; Chertoff ) , I completely agree with the demo 's underlying idea : do n't sugarcoat our situation ; people need to be * VISCERALLY * aware that critical infrastructure and commerce are at risk .
And we 're getting closer to our risk being not just life-threatening , but national-disaster caliber , with lots of deaths or financial losses.As for what is being done , what would you do differently ?
Aside from libertarian bullshit , that is ?
I 've seen or helped everywhere I go with : Contingency plans , mitigation , red-blue team exercises , tech redesigns , training , risk management exercises , and awareness campaigns seem like best practices .
Oh , and Audits .
God , I hate 'em , but they 're a necessary evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's try that again with the Military Industrial complex:  "What precisely would lead us to believe that the Federal government is sufficiently adept at war to improve (yadda yadda)..."Or should I go with: Wall street wants to solve your security concerns, for profit.Or perhaps 'screw civilization; it's every man or woman for themselves.
'Each is about as incoherent and nuance-deprived as your screed.Having worked in big multinational corporations, consulted for government and business and banks, and worked for startups and solo, I can't count all the ways you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about.Yes, governments are thick with absurd and incompetent aspects.
News flash: SO ARE CORPORATIONS!!!
Yet both thrive not because of some hidden agenda, but because once something gets that huge, efficiencies of scale still make a big entity more cost-effective than mom n pop.
Yeah, a small shop is nimble and I love entrepreneurial work, but I hated running a small company: It takes half a person (or whatever you wanna call an FTE) to set up or make big changes to a 5-to-20-person shop's benefits, but the staffing demand to do this scales at a shallow rate until it takes a few people per THOUSAND to run a huge firm's benefits team.
Ditto accounting, recruiting, management, etc.Too often Brooks' Mythical Man Month is quoted while glossing over another rule: as inefficient as adding bodies to a problem is, sometimes the problem is too damn big for anything but a leviathan to solve in the timeframe needed.
Refactoring a job needing Brooks' infinite asymptote of manpower into doable parts still leaves a set of tasks that only Boeing or IBM or EDS or Microsoft or Uncle Sam can do.Network security is that sort of huge, huge mess.
And thanks to exponential growth on existing infrastructure predicated on designs that are insecure, it is worsening, not improving.
Not because companies or governments aren't hiring good people, not because there's some agenda to strip you of your rights, but because of RFC'S that didn't envision this future.As much as I loathe the names I'm seeing bandied about here (Negraputz &amp; Chertoff), I completely agree with the demo's underlying idea: don't sugarcoat our situation; people need to be *VISCERALLY* aware that critical infrastructure and commerce are at risk.
And we're getting closer to our risk being not just life-threatening, but national-disaster caliber, with lots of deaths or financial losses.As for what is being done, what would you do differently?
Aside from libertarian bullshit, that is?
I've seen or helped everywhere I go with: Contingency plans, mitigation, red-blue team exercises, tech redesigns, training, risk management exercises, and awareness campaigns seem like best practices.
Oh, and Audits.
God, I hate 'em, but they're a necessary evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176066</id>
	<title>everybody knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>turkey and some mistletoe helps to make the season bright</p><p>so they stand under the mistletoe and kiss the dead turkey flesh?</p><p>gross!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>turkey and some mistletoe helps to make the season brightso they stand under the mistletoe and kiss the dead turkey flesh ? gross !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>turkey and some mistletoe helps to make the season brightso they stand under the mistletoe and kiss the dead turkey flesh?gross!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177968</id>
	<title>Rediculous much?</title>
	<author>Stick32</author>
	<datestamp>1265026500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I for one agree that we are a bit under prepared for a cyberwar... the conditions for this 'test' was a bit ridiculous.
From the original article:<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...aided by mock bombs exploding in a couple of gas pipelines and power stations and a hurricane hitting the Gulf Coast - brought the entire East Coast electrical power grid to its knees...</p></div><p>Ok let's examine this shall we.  Only 2 threats would have the resources, motivation, and means to even attempt something on this scale.

1) Well funded and organized terrorist organizations.  They would have to successfully infiltrate and carry out an attack on a very tight and specific schedule.  All the while avoiding raising suspicion with the NSA, CIA, and FBI to name a few.

2) Foreign Governments: Not only would they have to do all the same things as the above, they might as well have troops ready to invade because once this gets traced back to them, which it would, it would start a war.  Hell, while we're at it why don't we simulate the attacker coordinating with strategic Nuke strikes at key infrastructure points and parachuting in commando units to secure corridors from troops invading in from Mexico and across the bearing straight.  We could call it operation Red Dawn.

Point is, if either of these scenario's caught us completely by surprise.  We have bigger problems than our National infrastructure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I for one agree that we are a bit under prepared for a cyberwar... the conditions for this 'test ' was a bit ridiculous .
From the original article : ...aided by mock bombs exploding in a couple of gas pipelines and power stations and a hurricane hitting the Gulf Coast - brought the entire East Coast electrical power grid to its knees...Ok let 's examine this shall we .
Only 2 threats would have the resources , motivation , and means to even attempt something on this scale .
1 ) Well funded and organized terrorist organizations .
They would have to successfully infiltrate and carry out an attack on a very tight and specific schedule .
All the while avoiding raising suspicion with the NSA , CIA , and FBI to name a few .
2 ) Foreign Governments : Not only would they have to do all the same things as the above , they might as well have troops ready to invade because once this gets traced back to them , which it would , it would start a war .
Hell , while we 're at it why do n't we simulate the attacker coordinating with strategic Nuke strikes at key infrastructure points and parachuting in commando units to secure corridors from troops invading in from Mexico and across the bearing straight .
We could call it operation Red Dawn .
Point is , if either of these scenario 's caught us completely by surprise .
We have bigger problems than our National infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I for one agree that we are a bit under prepared for a cyberwar... the conditions for this 'test' was a bit ridiculous.
From the original article: ...aided by mock bombs exploding in a couple of gas pipelines and power stations and a hurricane hitting the Gulf Coast - brought the entire East Coast electrical power grid to its knees...Ok let's examine this shall we.
Only 2 threats would have the resources, motivation, and means to even attempt something on this scale.
1) Well funded and organized terrorist organizations.
They would have to successfully infiltrate and carry out an attack on a very tight and specific schedule.
All the while avoiding raising suspicion with the NSA, CIA, and FBI to name a few.
2) Foreign Governments: Not only would they have to do all the same things as the above, they might as well have troops ready to invade because once this gets traced back to them, which it would, it would start a war.
Hell, while we're at it why don't we simulate the attacker coordinating with strategic Nuke strikes at key infrastructure points and parachuting in commando units to secure corridors from troops invading in from Mexico and across the bearing straight.
We could call it operation Red Dawn.
Point is, if either of these scenario's caught us completely by surprise.
We have bigger problems than our National infrastructure.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175874</id>
	<title>Or worse</title>
	<author>twoallbeefpatties</author>
	<datestamp>1265018340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they were being attacked by spammers and DDOSers, they might have been getting coverage from GNAA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they were being attacked by spammers and DDOSers , they might have been getting coverage from GNAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they were being attacked by spammers and DDOSers, they might have been getting coverage from GNAA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175628</id>
	<title>Oh - of course its not</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1265017560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This way - the demonstration shows that they need to implement more "Security Features" that encroach upon the rights and freedoms of the average American.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This way - the demonstration shows that they need to implement more " Security Features " that encroach upon the rights and freedoms of the average American .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This way - the demonstration shows that they need to implement more "Security Features" that encroach upon the rights and freedoms of the average American.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31179078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31178984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31180606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31180148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31191562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31178760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31179164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31179794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31180002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31179132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2033247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2033247.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2033247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31180606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31179794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2033247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31180836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2033247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31179164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31178984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2033247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31180002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2033247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2033247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2033247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2033247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31179132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31179078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2033247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2033247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2033247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31180148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31178760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2033247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31177424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31191562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2033247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31175628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2033247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2033247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2033247.31176052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
