<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_22_1639254</id>
	<title>US Inadvertently Enabled Chinese Google Hackers</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1266862020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Phrogman writes <i>"In this CNN article by Bruce Schneier, he states that the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hacking/">US Government inadvertently enabled Chinese hackers</a> access to Google's Gmail. The article states 'Google made headlines when it went public with the fact that Chinese hackers had penetrated some of its services, such as Gmail, in a politically motivated attempt at intelligence gathering. The news here isn't that Chinese hackers engage in these activities or that their attempts are technically sophisticated &mdash; we knew that already &mdash; it's that the US government inadvertently aided the hackers.'"</i>
<b>Update: 02/22 20:26 GMT</b> by <b> <a href="mailto:soulskillatslashdotdotorg">S</a> </b>: As readers have noted, Schneier said not long after he wrote this article that <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/02/more\_details\_on.html">he no longer thinks this is what happened</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Phrogman writes " In this CNN article by Bruce Schneier , he states that the US Government inadvertently enabled Chinese hackers access to Google 's Gmail .
The article states 'Google made headlines when it went public with the fact that Chinese hackers had penetrated some of its services , such as Gmail , in a politically motivated attempt at intelligence gathering .
The news here is n't that Chinese hackers engage in these activities or that their attempts are technically sophisticated    we knew that already    it 's that the US government inadvertently aided the hackers .
' " Update : 02/22 20 : 26 GMT by S : As readers have noted , Schneier said not long after he wrote this article that he no longer thinks this is what happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phrogman writes "In this CNN article by Bruce Schneier, he states that the US Government inadvertently enabled Chinese hackers access to Google's Gmail.
The article states 'Google made headlines when it went public with the fact that Chinese hackers had penetrated some of its services, such as Gmail, in a politically motivated attempt at intelligence gathering.
The news here isn't that Chinese hackers engage in these activities or that their attempts are technically sophisticated — we knew that already — it's that the US government inadvertently aided the hackers.
'"
Update: 02/22 20:26 GMT by  S : As readers have noted, Schneier said not long after he wrote this article that he no longer thinks this is what happened.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31234252</id>
	<title>Re:Repeat Story</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1266871920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The public is so prejudiced and so uncritical that even a million "Come on guys"s won't matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The public is so prejudiced and so uncritical that even a million " Come on guys " s wo n't matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The public is so prejudiced and so uncritical that even a million "Come on guys"s won't matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31234018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232868</id>
	<title>The rule is....</title>
	<author>professorguy</author>
	<datestamp>1266867180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When it comes to data:<br>
To PROTECT it,<br>
Don't COLLECT it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When it comes to data : To PROTECT it , Do n't COLLECT it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it comes to data:
To PROTECT it,
Don't COLLECT it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31237050</id>
	<title>BREAKING NEWS...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266837060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Armstrong and Aldrin safe on the moon...<br>haha I scooped<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Armstrong and Aldrin safe on the moon...haha I scooped / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Armstrong and Aldrin safe on the moon...haha I scooped /.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232962</id>
	<title>Re:Olllddd</title>
	<author>lassen</author>
	<datestamp>1266867480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, he has mentioned several times that he now doubts the veracity of this account. Time to UPDATE the story to stop confusing people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , he has mentioned several times that he now doubts the veracity of this account .
Time to UPDATE the story to stop confusing people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, he has mentioned several times that he now doubts the veracity of this account.
Time to UPDATE the story to stop confusing people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31235992</id>
	<title>Seriously, and we treat them like allies?</title>
	<author>Paracelcus</author>
	<datestamp>1266833820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry but Communism is IMHO a scourge and a threat and always will be!</p><p>Anybody remember "Die Yankee dog, running dogs of imperialism!", I do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry but Communism is IMHO a scourge and a threat and always will be ! Anybody remember " Die Yankee dog , running dogs of imperialism !
" , I do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry but Communism is IMHO a scourge and a threat and always will be!Anybody remember "Die Yankee dog, running dogs of imperialism!
", I do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232798</id>
	<title>A modest proposal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266866880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Dear people of China,
</p><p>
We buy a lot of cheap shit from China and don't export anything (other than debt) so consequently, you have a surplus of dollars.  You also have a deficit of pussy.  Due to the one child policy and a penchant for aborting girls, men outnumber women and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.  It's well known that guys who can't get pussy like to protest the government and try to speak freely, so you need that pussy to keep them shut up and in the factory.  Add to that, most chinese women prefer white men (larger wallets, larger dicks).  Invading thailand, taiwan, and the phillipines is an option but they don't have enough pussy and there's a good chance when she drops her panties there will be a package waiting for you.  Trust me, it's very disturbing, even if they do give awesome blowjobs.
</p><p>
What to do?
</p><p>
Well, the US has a surplus of pussy.  Black pussy.  Thing is, nobody wants to fuck black girls, so they're pretty desperate and would be happy with small chinese cock.  They also are excellent at cooking and cleaning and other shit like that.  If you like mexican, we've got plenty of mexican pussy too.
</p><p>
I realize the irony that some 40 years ago, you offered to sell chinese women to the US to raise cash.  Well, the tables have turned.
</p><p>
Thank you for your consideration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear people of China , We buy a lot of cheap shit from China and do n't export anything ( other than debt ) so consequently , you have a surplus of dollars .
You also have a deficit of pussy .
Due to the one child policy and a penchant for aborting girls , men outnumber women and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future .
It 's well known that guys who ca n't get pussy like to protest the government and try to speak freely , so you need that pussy to keep them shut up and in the factory .
Add to that , most chinese women prefer white men ( larger wallets , larger dicks ) .
Invading thailand , taiwan , and the phillipines is an option but they do n't have enough pussy and there 's a good chance when she drops her panties there will be a package waiting for you .
Trust me , it 's very disturbing , even if they do give awesome blowjobs .
What to do ?
Well , the US has a surplus of pussy .
Black pussy .
Thing is , nobody wants to fuck black girls , so they 're pretty desperate and would be happy with small chinese cock .
They also are excellent at cooking and cleaning and other shit like that .
If you like mexican , we 've got plenty of mexican pussy too .
I realize the irony that some 40 years ago , you offered to sell chinese women to the US to raise cash .
Well , the tables have turned .
Thank you for your consideration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Dear people of China,

We buy a lot of cheap shit from China and don't export anything (other than debt) so consequently, you have a surplus of dollars.
You also have a deficit of pussy.
Due to the one child policy and a penchant for aborting girls, men outnumber women and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
It's well known that guys who can't get pussy like to protest the government and try to speak freely, so you need that pussy to keep them shut up and in the factory.
Add to that, most chinese women prefer white men (larger wallets, larger dicks).
Invading thailand, taiwan, and the phillipines is an option but they don't have enough pussy and there's a good chance when she drops her panties there will be a package waiting for you.
Trust me, it's very disturbing, even if they do give awesome blowjobs.
What to do?
Well, the US has a surplus of pussy.
Black pussy.
Thing is, nobody wants to fuck black girls, so they're pretty desperate and would be happy with small chinese cock.
They also are excellent at cooking and cleaning and other shit like that.
If you like mexican, we've got plenty of mexican pussy too.
I realize the irony that some 40 years ago, you offered to sell chinese women to the US to raise cash.
Well, the tables have turned.
Thank you for your consideration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31235712</id>
	<title>Picture Shopped</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266833040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did anyone else notice the banner in the article is completely shopped?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone else notice the banner in the article is completely shopped ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone else notice the banner in the article is completely shopped?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31234018</id>
	<title>Repeat Story</title>
	<author>jfredric</author>
	<datestamp>1266871260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This story was on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. a month ago. LINKED TO THE SAME ARTICLE. Come on guys.
<p>
<a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/24/1518213/Surveillance-Backdoor-Enabled-Chinese-Gmail-Attack" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/24/1518213/Surveillance-Backdoor-Enabled-Chinese-Gmail-Attack</a> [slashdot.org]
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This story was on / .
a month ago .
LINKED TO THE SAME ARTICLE .
Come on guys .
http : //tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/24/1518213/Surveillance-Backdoor-Enabled-Chinese-Gmail-Attack [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story was on /.
a month ago.
LINKED TO THE SAME ARTICLE.
Come on guys.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/24/1518213/Surveillance-Backdoor-Enabled-Chinese-Gmail-Attack [slashdot.org]
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232498</id>
	<title>Olllddd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266865920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a month old, and Schneier has since backed off this assertion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a month old , and Schneier has since backed off this assertion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a month old, and Schneier has since backed off this assertion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31233866</id>
	<title>This is retardedly hilarious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266870840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How the news media portrays 'chinese hackers' as this hugely sophisticated bunch launching attacks, when in fact if you leave a door unlocked a fucking child can open it.</p><p>It's all a front to take your civil liberties anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How the news media portrays 'chinese hackers ' as this hugely sophisticated bunch launching attacks , when in fact if you leave a door unlocked a fucking child can open it.It 's all a front to take your civil liberties anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the news media portrays 'chinese hackers' as this hugely sophisticated bunch launching attacks, when in fact if you leave a door unlocked a fucking child can open it.It's all a front to take your civil liberties anyways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31234666</id>
	<title>IE6... sooooo sad</title>
	<author>LordAzuzu</author>
	<datestamp>1266829860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>All this mess for an "undisclosed vulnerability in Internet Explorer 6".<br>WTF! Still using it? Google employees or anyone else? You deserve it!</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this mess for an " undisclosed vulnerability in Internet Explorer 6 " .WTF !
Still using it ?
Google employees or anyone else ?
You deserve it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this mess for an "undisclosed vulnerability in Internet Explorer 6".WTF!
Still using it?
Google employees or anyone else?
You deserve it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31233796</id>
	<title>look at the summary</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1266870600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary uses the phrase "we already knew". Who knew? and how did they know?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary uses the phrase " we already knew " .
Who knew ?
and how did they know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary uses the phrase "we already knew".
Who knew?
and how did they know?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31233096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31233096</id>
	<title>Classic kind of propaganda</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1266868080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Presuppositions. Or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unstated\_assumption" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">unstated assumptions</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Presuppositions .
Or unstated assumptions [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presuppositions.
Or unstated assumptions [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232488</id>
	<title>Booga booga</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1266865920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how doing what is required to not be put in prison, is "inadvertently aiding" anything.</p><p>I want my ad impressions back<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how doing what is required to not be put in prison , is " inadvertently aiding " anything.I want my ad impressions back : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how doing what is required to not be put in prison, is "inadvertently aiding" anything.I want my ad impressions back :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232496</id>
	<title>I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266865920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you use GMail to do anything private? You're already trusting Google and the NSA, and they are more likely to want to interfere in your business than China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you use GMail to do anything private ?
You 're already trusting Google and the NSA , and they are more likely to want to interfere in your business than China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you use GMail to do anything private?
You're already trusting Google and the NSA, and they are more likely to want to interfere in your business than China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232946</id>
	<title>Re:Olllddd</title>
	<author>Major Blud</author>
	<datestamp>1266867480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, especially since it's already made the front page of Slashdot.

<a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/24/1518213/Surveillance-Backdoor-Enabled-Chinese-Gmail-Attack" title="slashdot.org">http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/24/1518213/Surveillance-Backdoor-Enabled-Chinese-Gmail-Attack</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , especially since it 's already made the front page of Slashdot .
http : //tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/24/1518213/Surveillance-Backdoor-Enabled-Chinese-Gmail-Attack [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, especially since it's already made the front page of Slashdot.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/24/1518213/Surveillance-Backdoor-Enabled-Chinese-Gmail-Attack [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232922</id>
	<title>How About Some Content?</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1266867360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In order to comply with government search warrants on user data, Google  created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts. This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access.</p></div><p>Put on your tinfoil hats people!<br>Not only is Google working WITH the government, they're doing a sloppy job of it!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to comply with government search warrants on user data , Google created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts .
This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access.Put on your tinfoil hats people ! Not only is Google working WITH the government , they 're doing a sloppy job of it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to comply with government search warrants on user data, Google  created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts.
This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access.Put on your tinfoil hats people!Not only is Google working WITH the government, they're doing a sloppy job of it!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232640</id>
	<title>Re:Olllddd</title>
	<author>ratnerstar</author>
	<datestamp>1266866340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  See: <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/02/more\_details\_on.html" title="schneier.com">http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/02/more\_details\_on.html</a> [schneier.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>The rumor that China used a system Google put in place to enable lawful intercepts, which I used as a news hook for this essay, has not been confirmed. At this point, I doubt that it's true.</p></div></blockquote><p>Seriously slashdot, you're not even trying.  Although, I have to say it was somewhat irresponsible of Schneier, who in general I have enormous respect for, to write an essay predicated on an unconfirmed rumor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
See : http : //www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/02/more \ _details \ _on.html [ schneier.com ] The rumor that China used a system Google put in place to enable lawful intercepts , which I used as a news hook for this essay , has not been confirmed .
At this point , I doubt that it 's true.Seriously slashdot , you 're not even trying .
Although , I have to say it was somewhat irresponsible of Schneier , who in general I have enormous respect for , to write an essay predicated on an unconfirmed rumor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
See: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/02/more\_details\_on.html [schneier.com] The rumor that China used a system Google put in place to enable lawful intercepts, which I used as a news hook for this essay, has not been confirmed.
At this point, I doubt that it's true.Seriously slashdot, you're not even trying.
Although, I have to say it was somewhat irresponsible of Schneier, who in general I have enormous respect for, to write an essay predicated on an unconfirmed rumor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31234780</id>
	<title>Re:Olllddd</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1266830220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would have been even better had he not used a rumor as the basic for accusations in the first place and waiting until the facts are in.  But he's got an agenda to push, and like all pundits he's only important so long as he's got something worth publishing - the more controversial and likely to get eyeballs on the publisher the better.  Facts are secondary to this the reality that agendas must be served.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would have been even better had he not used a rumor as the basic for accusations in the first place and waiting until the facts are in .
But he 's got an agenda to push , and like all pundits he 's only important so long as he 's got something worth publishing - the more controversial and likely to get eyeballs on the publisher the better .
Facts are secondary to this the reality that agendas must be served .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would have been even better had he not used a rumor as the basic for accusations in the first place and waiting until the facts are in.
But he's got an agenda to push, and like all pundits he's only important so long as he's got something worth publishing - the more controversial and likely to get eyeballs on the publisher the better.
Facts are secondary to this the reality that agendas must be served.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31233596</id>
	<title>fa1lzors!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266869760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>having lost 93\% fellow travellers? Then disappeared GAY NIGGERS from the future holds shower Don't just too, can b3 a a sad world. At the public eye: by BSDI who s^ell</htmltext>
<tokenext>having lost 93 \ % fellow travellers ?
Then disappeared GAY NIGGERS from the future holds shower Do n't just too , can b3 a a sad world .
At the public eye : by BSDI who s ^ ell</tokentext>
<sentencetext>having lost 93\% fellow travellers?
Then disappeared GAY NIGGERS from the future holds shower Don't just too, can b3 a a sad world.
At the public eye: by BSDI who s^ell</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232528</id>
	<title>No proof whatsover</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266866040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is something that Schneier has insinuated but provides no proof or detail about this " US backdoor access" at all.</p><p>I'm calling bullshit on this one.  Where is the evidence for his claims?  Has anybody at Google confirmed such a system exists?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is something that Schneier has insinuated but provides no proof or detail about this " US backdoor access " at all.I 'm calling bullshit on this one .
Where is the evidence for his claims ?
Has anybody at Google confirmed such a system exists ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is something that Schneier has insinuated but provides no proof or detail about this " US backdoor access" at all.I'm calling bullshit on this one.
Where is the evidence for his claims?
Has anybody at Google confirmed such a system exists?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31237828</id>
	<title>The irony...</title>
	<author>batrick</author>
	<datestamp>1266840240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>here is that the affront to our freedoms here enables the Chinese to squash those advocating Chinese freedom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>here is that the affront to our freedoms here enables the Chinese to squash those advocating Chinese freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>here is that the affront to our freedoms here enables the Chinese to squash those advocating Chinese freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232416</id>
	<title>Open letter to Chinese computer professionals:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266865740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Proud computer experts of China, <br> <br>

We were made aware of your recent exploits concerning Google and a number of other Western corporations. We know that you have the facility to go after bigger and better targets, so why not go after the U.S. government itself? Instead of hacking Gmail to read average citizens' e-mail, you could go after congress and deliver to us their damming communiques. We want to know all about their marital affairs, business dealings, money streams, and even their bowel movements. We want them to know that they are being watched using the very systems they voted to put into place. We cannot do the same, for our society is becoming repressive and average citizens are being tried as war-criminals if not tortured detained indefinitely without trial.<br> <br>

You can do it. We understand that your government tacitly condones your hacking actions against U.S. interests. Google is your friend. The United States government is your enemy. Google will publicly condemn China and cause it to lose business. The U.S. government will not release public statements out of fear of humiliation, so they will not affect Chinese business. Get into their computers, post their secrets on Wikileaks, and you will be our heroes. After exploitation, publicly supply the methods of exploitation to humiliate our government. Our government are out of touch with reality and are stinking drunk with power and the money earned with capitalistic corporate greed. You must become heroes of the people. Not just your people, but the people of the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Proud computer experts of China , We were made aware of your recent exploits concerning Google and a number of other Western corporations .
We know that you have the facility to go after bigger and better targets , so why not go after the U.S. government itself ?
Instead of hacking Gmail to read average citizens ' e-mail , you could go after congress and deliver to us their damming communiques .
We want to know all about their marital affairs , business dealings , money streams , and even their bowel movements .
We want them to know that they are being watched using the very systems they voted to put into place .
We can not do the same , for our society is becoming repressive and average citizens are being tried as war-criminals if not tortured detained indefinitely without trial .
You can do it .
We understand that your government tacitly condones your hacking actions against U.S. interests. Google is your friend .
The United States government is your enemy .
Google will publicly condemn China and cause it to lose business .
The U.S. government will not release public statements out of fear of humiliation , so they will not affect Chinese business .
Get into their computers , post their secrets on Wikileaks , and you will be our heroes .
After exploitation , publicly supply the methods of exploitation to humiliate our government .
Our government are out of touch with reality and are stinking drunk with power and the money earned with capitalistic corporate greed .
You must become heroes of the people .
Not just your people , but the people of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proud computer experts of China,  

We were made aware of your recent exploits concerning Google and a number of other Western corporations.
We know that you have the facility to go after bigger and better targets, so why not go after the U.S. government itself?
Instead of hacking Gmail to read average citizens' e-mail, you could go after congress and deliver to us their damming communiques.
We want to know all about their marital affairs, business dealings, money streams, and even their bowel movements.
We want them to know that they are being watched using the very systems they voted to put into place.
We cannot do the same, for our society is becoming repressive and average citizens are being tried as war-criminals if not tortured detained indefinitely without trial.
You can do it.
We understand that your government tacitly condones your hacking actions against U.S. interests. Google is your friend.
The United States government is your enemy.
Google will publicly condemn China and cause it to lose business.
The U.S. government will not release public statements out of fear of humiliation, so they will not affect Chinese business.
Get into their computers, post their secrets on Wikileaks, and you will be our heroes.
After exploitation, publicly supply the methods of exploitation to humiliate our government.
Our government are out of touch with reality and are stinking drunk with power and the money earned with capitalistic corporate greed.
You must become heroes of the people.
Not just your people, but the people of the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31234738</id>
	<title>Inadvertently?</title>
	<author>Livius</author>
	<datestamp>1266830040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, right....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , right... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, right....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31236448</id>
	<title>Re:Booga booga</title>
	<author>zill</author>
	<datestamp>1266835320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am running a mail server at home and I do not provide backdoor access to any US government agencies. I have not been "put in prison" for this yet.<br> <br>

Please point out the piece of legislation that requires all email service providers to guarantee backdoor access to the US government. Otherwise please stop spreading FUD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am running a mail server at home and I do not provide backdoor access to any US government agencies .
I have not been " put in prison " for this yet .
Please point out the piece of legislation that requires all email service providers to guarantee backdoor access to the US government .
Otherwise please stop spreading FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am running a mail server at home and I do not provide backdoor access to any US government agencies.
I have not been "put in prison" for this yet.
Please point out the piece of legislation that requires all email service providers to guarantee backdoor access to the US government.
Otherwise please stop spreading FUD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232642</id>
	<title>Presuppositions are very effective propaganda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266866340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This article is just drilling unsubstantiated claims deep into our heads using presuppositions. It's just a "How US govt. inadvertently enabled Iraq to build WMDs" kind of article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is just drilling unsubstantiated claims deep into our heads using presuppositions .
It 's just a " How US govt .
inadvertently enabled Iraq to build WMDs " kind of article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is just drilling unsubstantiated claims deep into our heads using presuppositions.
It's just a "How US govt.
inadvertently enabled Iraq to build WMDs" kind of article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31236028</id>
	<title>#irc.trolltalk.c0m</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266833940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>3 simple ste4s!</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 simple ste4s !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3 simple ste4s!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31238028</id>
	<title>Re:Olllddd</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1266841200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is a month old, and Schneier has since backed off this assertion.</p></div><p>Kind of reminds me of a certain interview in which Dvorak reveals that he would whip the mac users into a froth but leave himself an out, then a month later he'd have another column in which he'd take back the statement and claim that he never really meant it, and predicted the way things actually turned out all along, and he kept getting published because it meant many eyeballs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a month old , and Schneier has since backed off this assertion.Kind of reminds me of a certain interview in which Dvorak reveals that he would whip the mac users into a froth but leave himself an out , then a month later he 'd have another column in which he 'd take back the statement and claim that he never really meant it , and predicted the way things actually turned out all along , and he kept getting published because it meant many eyeballs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a month old, and Schneier has since backed off this assertion.Kind of reminds me of a certain interview in which Dvorak reveals that he would whip the mac users into a froth but leave himself an out, then a month later he'd have another column in which he'd take back the statement and claim that he never really meant it, and predicted the way things actually turned out all along, and he kept getting published because it meant many eyeballs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31233078</id>
	<title>Re:Open letter to Chinese computer professionals:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266868020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OP suffers from a fundamental misunderstanding.</p><p>Any group of people will have unpleasant crap within it. There will be stuff behind the scenes that the public wouldn't accept. There will be people sniffing coke and taking pills at parties. There will be committee leaders getting whipped by leather-clad hookers. At the very least they will discuss their intense hatred of the opposition and desire of cutting them up with chainsaws. Cue e.g. climate emails and the debate that followed.</p><p>Therefore, many things follow:<br>1. 'undercover journalism' will always succeed. By definition an undercover journalist would find it difficult to be partisan, since whichever organisation you infiltrate means that you will find something unpleasant. This means that the result of who looks bad is given by your choice.<br>2. people in general suffer from overblown expectations of their leaders. Sure, maybe 10\% of politicians use drugs, but so does probably 10\% of their employer's board of directors, and 10\% of their friends who can afford it.<br>and so on.</p><p>The challenge that could therefore be made to anyone who feels that individual sordidness should be rooted out from groups with power is - how about YOU let ME into YOUR little group of power, for a year and with a video camera and tape recorder?</p><p>If there is a moral to this story, it is in my view that we should all pretend to be nice even if we aren't in the hope that others will be, and if we harm anyone that person should be ourselves only. Hence I don't really WANT to know how many of my government's politicians do coke. I just want to know if they award contracts to their friends or political allies. Please focus on that rather than marital affairs and bowel movements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OP suffers from a fundamental misunderstanding.Any group of people will have unpleasant crap within it .
There will be stuff behind the scenes that the public would n't accept .
There will be people sniffing coke and taking pills at parties .
There will be committee leaders getting whipped by leather-clad hookers .
At the very least they will discuss their intense hatred of the opposition and desire of cutting them up with chainsaws .
Cue e.g .
climate emails and the debate that followed.Therefore , many things follow : 1 .
'undercover journalism ' will always succeed .
By definition an undercover journalist would find it difficult to be partisan , since whichever organisation you infiltrate means that you will find something unpleasant .
This means that the result of who looks bad is given by your choice.2 .
people in general suffer from overblown expectations of their leaders .
Sure , maybe 10 \ % of politicians use drugs , but so does probably 10 \ % of their employer 's board of directors , and 10 \ % of their friends who can afford it.and so on.The challenge that could therefore be made to anyone who feels that individual sordidness should be rooted out from groups with power is - how about YOU let ME into YOUR little group of power , for a year and with a video camera and tape recorder ? If there is a moral to this story , it is in my view that we should all pretend to be nice even if we are n't in the hope that others will be , and if we harm anyone that person should be ourselves only .
Hence I do n't really WANT to know how many of my government 's politicians do coke .
I just want to know if they award contracts to their friends or political allies .
Please focus on that rather than marital affairs and bowel movements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OP suffers from a fundamental misunderstanding.Any group of people will have unpleasant crap within it.
There will be stuff behind the scenes that the public wouldn't accept.
There will be people sniffing coke and taking pills at parties.
There will be committee leaders getting whipped by leather-clad hookers.
At the very least they will discuss their intense hatred of the opposition and desire of cutting them up with chainsaws.
Cue e.g.
climate emails and the debate that followed.Therefore, many things follow:1.
'undercover journalism' will always succeed.
By definition an undercover journalist would find it difficult to be partisan, since whichever organisation you infiltrate means that you will find something unpleasant.
This means that the result of who looks bad is given by your choice.2.
people in general suffer from overblown expectations of their leaders.
Sure, maybe 10\% of politicians use drugs, but so does probably 10\% of their employer's board of directors, and 10\% of their friends who can afford it.and so on.The challenge that could therefore be made to anyone who feels that individual sordidness should be rooted out from groups with power is - how about YOU let ME into YOUR little group of power, for a year and with a video camera and tape recorder?If there is a moral to this story, it is in my view that we should all pretend to be nice even if we aren't in the hope that others will be, and if we harm anyone that person should be ourselves only.
Hence I don't really WANT to know how many of my government's politicians do coke.
I just want to know if they award contracts to their friends or political allies.
Please focus on that rather than marital affairs and bowel movements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232906</id>
	<title>CNC</title>
	<author>the\_hellspawn</author>
	<datestamp>1266867300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every time I read something about China I can hear that freakin' bulldozer saying; "Building the Chinese empire" or "I build for China".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I read something about China I can hear that freakin ' bulldozer saying ; " Building the Chinese empire " or " I build for China " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I read something about China I can hear that freakin' bulldozer saying; "Building the Chinese empire" or "I build for China".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31238056</id>
	<title>Slashdot never even pretended to be journalists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266841380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot never even pretended to be journalists and to check spelling, facts, etc. but it is now beyond a joke. Will EVERY story now come with a "this turned out to be bullshit" disclaimer ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot never even pretended to be journalists and to check spelling , facts , etc .
but it is now beyond a joke .
Will EVERY story now come with a " this turned out to be bullshit " disclaimer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot never even pretended to be journalists and to check spelling, facts, etc.
but it is now beyond a joke.
Will EVERY story now come with a "this turned out to be bullshit" disclaimer ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232604</id>
	<title>Re:Olllddd</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1266866280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Link? I was surprised to see this show up on Slashdot so long after the fact, but I don't see any retraction on Schneier's blog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Link ?
I was surprised to see this show up on Slashdot so long after the fact , but I do n't see any retraction on Schneier 's blog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Link?
I was surprised to see this show up on Slashdot so long after the fact, but I don't see any retraction on Schneier's blog.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232456</id>
	<title>Ahem.</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1266865860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://livingwithanerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/TerroristsHateFreedom.gif" title="livingwithanerd.com">http://livingwithanerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/TerroristsHateFreedom.gif</a> [livingwithanerd.com]</p><p>That is all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //livingwithanerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/TerroristsHateFreedom.gif [ livingwithanerd.com ] That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://livingwithanerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/TerroristsHateFreedom.gif [livingwithanerd.com]That is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232790</id>
	<title>All is fair in love and war.</title>
	<author>voodoo cheesecake</author>
	<datestamp>1266866880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Arm the penguins and let Linus sort 'em out!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Arm the penguins and let Linus sort 'em out !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arm the penguins and let Linus sort 'em out!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232810</id>
	<title>Our "Cybersecurity Czar"'s first recommendation..</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1266866880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..should be: "Repeal CALEA."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..should be : " Repeal CALEA .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..should be: "Repeal CALEA.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31240148</id>
	<title>Re:Olllddd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266854760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where is the correction on CNN and Schneier's original blog post, very poor form.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is the correction on CNN and Schneier 's original blog post , very poor form .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is the correction on CNN and Schneier's original blog post, very poor form.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31239866</id>
	<title>Re:Olllddd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266852480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Backed off? Looks more like he retconned it.</p><p>In his original CNN article he stated it as hard fact, omitting any mention of rumour or speculation.</p><p>In his revisited article it is suddenly an unconfirmed rumour that he used as a newshook.</p><p>If he actually had backed off and said something along the lines of "I thought this, I was wrong" he would have lost a lot less respect in my eyes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Backed off ?
Looks more like he retconned it.In his original CNN article he stated it as hard fact , omitting any mention of rumour or speculation.In his revisited article it is suddenly an unconfirmed rumour that he used as a newshook.If he actually had backed off and said something along the lines of " I thought this , I was wrong " he would have lost a lot less respect in my eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Backed off?
Looks more like he retconned it.In his original CNN article he stated it as hard fact, omitting any mention of rumour or speculation.In his revisited article it is suddenly an unconfirmed rumour that he used as a newshook.If he actually had backed off and said something along the lines of "I thought this, I was wrong" he would have lost a lot less respect in my eyes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232904</id>
	<title>Probably social engineering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266867300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The chinese probably called up Googles secretary, and talked her into giving them their password (ChuckNorris).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The chinese probably called up Googles secretary , and talked her into giving them their password ( ChuckNorris ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The chinese probably called up Googles secretary, and talked her into giving them their password (ChuckNorris).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31233212</id>
	<title>Opinion Section</title>
	<author>rm999</author>
	<datestamp>1266868620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every article I have read that explains who committed the hacking, how, and why has been an opinion piece, and ends with "the opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of X". I have no problem with this per se, but we should all take it with a grain of salt; Slashdot should preface it's headline with "Theory:" or "Opinion:".</p><p>I prefer my news to be my news, and my conspiracy theories to be my entertainment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every article I have read that explains who committed the hacking , how , and why has been an opinion piece , and ends with " the opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of X " .
I have no problem with this per se , but we should all take it with a grain of salt ; Slashdot should preface it 's headline with " Theory : " or " Opinion : " .I prefer my news to be my news , and my conspiracy theories to be my entertainment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every article I have read that explains who committed the hacking, how, and why has been an opinion piece, and ends with "the opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of X".
I have no problem with this per se, but we should all take it with a grain of salt; Slashdot should preface it's headline with "Theory:" or "Opinion:".I prefer my news to be my news, and my conspiracy theories to be my entertainment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232562</id>
	<title>I think Bruce has taken this back...</title>
	<author>Saint Aardvark</author>
	<datestamp>1266866160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bruce appears to have taken back this assertion <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/02/more\_details\_on.html" title="schneier.com">here</a> [schneier.com]:<blockquote><div><p>The rumor that China used a system Google put in place to enable lawful intercepts, which I used as a news hook for this essay, has not been confirmed. At this point, I doubt that it's true.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

The original essay, linked to in TFP, is dated January 23rd; the update I quote from is from February 8th.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bruce appears to have taken back this assertion here [ schneier.com ] : The rumor that China used a system Google put in place to enable lawful intercepts , which I used as a news hook for this essay , has not been confirmed .
At this point , I doubt that it 's true .
The original essay , linked to in TFP , is dated January 23rd ; the update I quote from is from February 8th .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bruce appears to have taken back this assertion here [schneier.com]:The rumor that China used a system Google put in place to enable lawful intercepts, which I used as a news hook for this essay, has not been confirmed.
At this point, I doubt that it's true.
The original essay, linked to in TFP, is dated January 23rd; the update I quote from is from February 8th.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31233478</id>
	<title>Empty summary</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1266869400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why bother having a summary when it adds nothing to the headline?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why bother having a summary when it adds nothing to the headline ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why bother having a summary when it adds nothing to the headline?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31239312</id>
	<title>oh snap!  I enabled muggers!</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1266848820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>guess this means I enable muggers by walking down the street with a cell phone and mp3 player.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>guess this means I enable muggers by walking down the street with a cell phone and mp3 player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>guess this means I enable muggers by walking down the street with a cell phone and mp3 player.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1639254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31238028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1639254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1639254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31236448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1639254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1639254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31240148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1639254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1639254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1639254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31234252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31234018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1639254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31234780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1639254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31233796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31233096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1639254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31239866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1639254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31233078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1639254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1639254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1639254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31238028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31240148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31239866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31234780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1639254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1639254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1639254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1639254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1639254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31233078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1639254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31232488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31236448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1639254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31233096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31233796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1639254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31234018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1639254.31234252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
