<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_09_1510218</id>
	<title>Cybercrooks Surpassed Old School Bankrobbers In '09</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268150640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>krebsonsecurity writes <i>"Organized cyber-criminal gangs <a href="http://www.krebsonsecurity.com/2010/03/cyber-crooks-leave-bank-robbers-in-the-dust/">stole $25 million in the 3rd quarter alone last year</a>, by pilfering the <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/191019/fdic\_hackers\_took\_more\_than\_120m\_in\_three\_months.html">online bank accounts of small to midsized businesses</a>, the FDIC reported last week.  In contrast, traditional bank robbers hauled just $9.4 million in 1,184 bank robberies during that same period, according to an analysis of FBI bank crime statistics by krebsonsecurity.com. From that story:  'The federal government sure publishes a lot more information about physical bank robberies than it makes available about online stick-ups. Indeed, the FBI's bank crime stats are extraordinarily detailed. For example, they can tell you that in the 3rd quarter of last year, bank robbers were more likely to hold up their local branch between the hours of 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on a Wednesday than at any other time or day of the week; they can tell you the number of tear gas and dye packs taken with the loot, the number of security cameras activated, the number of food stamps taken, even what percentage of suspected perpetrators had illegal drug habits at the time of the robberies. About the only thing the stats don't tell you is what brand of jeans the perpetrators were wearing and whether the getaway car had cool vanity plates. What do we get about e-crime statistics from the federal government? One guy from the FDIC giving a speech at the RSA conference."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>krebsonsecurity writes " Organized cyber-criminal gangs stole $ 25 million in the 3rd quarter alone last year , by pilfering the online bank accounts of small to midsized businesses , the FDIC reported last week .
In contrast , traditional bank robbers hauled just $ 9.4 million in 1,184 bank robberies during that same period , according to an analysis of FBI bank crime statistics by krebsonsecurity.com .
From that story : 'The federal government sure publishes a lot more information about physical bank robberies than it makes available about online stick-ups .
Indeed , the FBI 's bank crime stats are extraordinarily detailed .
For example , they can tell you that in the 3rd quarter of last year , bank robbers were more likely to hold up their local branch between the hours of 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on a Wednesday than at any other time or day of the week ; they can tell you the number of tear gas and dye packs taken with the loot , the number of security cameras activated , the number of food stamps taken , even what percentage of suspected perpetrators had illegal drug habits at the time of the robberies .
About the only thing the stats do n't tell you is what brand of jeans the perpetrators were wearing and whether the getaway car had cool vanity plates .
What do we get about e-crime statistics from the federal government ?
One guy from the FDIC giving a speech at the RSA conference .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>krebsonsecurity writes "Organized cyber-criminal gangs stole $25 million in the 3rd quarter alone last year, by pilfering the online bank accounts of small to midsized businesses, the FDIC reported last week.
In contrast, traditional bank robbers hauled just $9.4 million in 1,184 bank robberies during that same period, according to an analysis of FBI bank crime statistics by krebsonsecurity.com.
From that story:  'The federal government sure publishes a lot more information about physical bank robberies than it makes available about online stick-ups.
Indeed, the FBI's bank crime stats are extraordinarily detailed.
For example, they can tell you that in the 3rd quarter of last year, bank robbers were more likely to hold up their local branch between the hours of 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on a Wednesday than at any other time or day of the week; they can tell you the number of tear gas and dye packs taken with the loot, the number of security cameras activated, the number of food stamps taken, even what percentage of suspected perpetrators had illegal drug habits at the time of the robberies.
About the only thing the stats don't tell you is what brand of jeans the perpetrators were wearing and whether the getaway car had cool vanity plates.
What do we get about e-crime statistics from the federal government?
One guy from the FDIC giving a speech at the RSA conference.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31418414</id>
	<title>Re:Saw the ethief coming...</title>
	<author>rcamans</author>
	<datestamp>1268126280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All businesses (except banks) will tell you that they lose more thru employee theft than outsider theft. But banks do not want you to know how bad it is, so they keep it quiet. I dated a girl who was a bank teller. She told me that she felt she deserved nice clothes, so she would keep some of the deposits. After $2,000 or so, the bank would catch her and let her go (not get their money back). No report to the police, nothing. Since her only job skill was bank teller, she would just get a job at a different bank...<br>$25M was reported to the feds, but how much went unreported?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All businesses ( except banks ) will tell you that they lose more thru employee theft than outsider theft .
But banks do not want you to know how bad it is , so they keep it quiet .
I dated a girl who was a bank teller .
She told me that she felt she deserved nice clothes , so she would keep some of the deposits .
After $ 2,000 or so , the bank would catch her and let her go ( not get their money back ) .
No report to the police , nothing .
Since her only job skill was bank teller , she would just get a job at a different bank... $ 25M was reported to the feds , but how much went unreported ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All businesses (except banks) will tell you that they lose more thru employee theft than outsider theft.
But banks do not want you to know how bad it is, so they keep it quiet.
I dated a girl who was a bank teller.
She told me that she felt she deserved nice clothes, so she would keep some of the deposits.
After $2,000 or so, the bank would catch her and let her go (not get their money back).
No report to the police, nothing.
Since her only job skill was bank teller, she would just get a job at a different bank...$25M was reported to the feds, but how much went unreported?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31424282</id>
	<title>Re:Saw the ethief coming...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268217840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since only 3\% of all dollars exist as paper money you knew this one was coming.  If thieves only robbed the paper money they would be limiting their money pool they steal from.</p></div><p>Well since the Dollar is worthless now and billions being printed, The Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since only 3 \ % of all dollars exist as paper money you knew this one was coming .
If thieves only robbed the paper money they would be limiting their money pool they steal from.Well since the Dollar is worthless now and billions being printed , The Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since only 3\% of all dollars exist as paper money you knew this one was coming.
If thieves only robbed the paper money they would be limiting their money pool they steal from.Well since the Dollar is worthless now and billions being printed, The Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415144</id>
	<title>Seems low, doesn't it?</title>
	<author>beakerMeep</author>
	<datestamp>1268155800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Compared to the GDP of the US in 2009 ($14.26T) that's what, like 0.0007\% ? *
<br> <br> <br>


*Disclamer: that's internet math, some of the logic could have been stolen/pilfered.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Compared to the GDP of the US in 2009 ( $ 14.26T ) that 's what , like 0.0007 \ % ?
* * Disclamer : that 's internet math , some of the logic could have been stolen/pilfered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compared to the GDP of the US in 2009 ($14.26T) that's what, like 0.0007\% ?
*
  


*Disclamer: that's internet math, some of the logic could have been stolen/pilfered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415360</id>
	<title>Re:Hostages..</title>
	<author>Cornwallis</author>
	<datestamp>1268156580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the banks have insurance to cover the actual money lost, don't they?</p></div><p>Anymore that's the U.S. taxpayers...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the banks have insurance to cover the actual money lost , do n't they ? Anymore that 's the U.S. taxpayers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the banks have insurance to cover the actual money lost, don't they?Anymore that's the U.S. taxpayers...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31421450</id>
	<title>Re:Saw the ethief coming...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268141280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah. Hearing about small time robberies like that on the news all the time serves as a constant reminder of how stupid people can be.</p><p>Ok, so they just did an armed robbery. Even if they got $10k, that's got to be split between the three of them... hmm, so they'll individually be below the median American income even if they do this EVERY MONTH. The ones robbing the gas station store would have to do it EVERY WEEK.</p><p>This is not to say that I support the larger, well-executed heists where a few million vanishes. But the combination of "violent" and "INCREDIBLY STUPID" displayed by the ones robbing bank branches is chilling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Hearing about small time robberies like that on the news all the time serves as a constant reminder of how stupid people can be.Ok , so they just did an armed robbery .
Even if they got $ 10k , that 's got to be split between the three of them... hmm , so they 'll individually be below the median American income even if they do this EVERY MONTH .
The ones robbing the gas station store would have to do it EVERY WEEK.This is not to say that I support the larger , well-executed heists where a few million vanishes .
But the combination of " violent " and " INCREDIBLY STUPID " displayed by the ones robbing bank branches is chilling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Hearing about small time robberies like that on the news all the time serves as a constant reminder of how stupid people can be.Ok, so they just did an armed robbery.
Even if they got $10k, that's got to be split between the three of them... hmm, so they'll individually be below the median American income even if they do this EVERY MONTH.
The ones robbing the gas station store would have to do it EVERY WEEK.This is not to say that I support the larger, well-executed heists where a few million vanishes.
But the combination of "violent" and "INCREDIBLY STUPID" displayed by the ones robbing bank branches is chilling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31416032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31420664</id>
	<title>fu6cker</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268136180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Available to progress. In 1992, NIGGER ASSOCIATION ass unNtil I hit my recent Sys Admin others what to it transforms into the future holds states that there Brain. It is the OS. Now BSDI is centralized models the above is far lizard - In other working on various Worthwhile. So I *BSD is dying Yet many users of BSD posts on Usenet are Raymond in his</htmltext>
<tokenext>Available to progress .
In 1992 , NIGGER ASSOCIATION ass unNtil I hit my recent Sys Admin others what to it transforms into the future holds states that there Brain .
It is the OS .
Now BSDI is centralized models the above is far lizard - In other working on various Worthwhile .
So I * BSD is dying Yet many users of BSD posts on Usenet are Raymond in his</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Available to progress.
In 1992, NIGGER ASSOCIATION ass unNtil I hit my recent Sys Admin others what to it transforms into the future holds states that there Brain.
It is the OS.
Now BSDI is centralized models the above is far lizard - In other working on various Worthwhile.
So I *BSD is dying Yet many users of BSD posts on Usenet are Raymond in his</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31417410</id>
	<title>The bankers didn't kill anyone?</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1268165220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There were a couple of posts along the lines of "sure Goldman-Sachs etc. robbed us but at least they didn't kill anyone".Follow this line of reasoning:</p><p>The banksters destroyed the global economy.<br>Millions that were getting by were thrown into poverty.<br>Millions that were in poverty were thrown into starvation.<br>Since the unemployment rate in the developed nations increased, gov't and private relief donations dropped.<br>This reduced the amount of emergency relief available, causing more to die.</p><p>Conclusion: the banksters that created this mess are guilty of manslaughter on a massive scale.</p><p>BTW, "Bankster" is used on some discussion boards as a cross between banker and gangster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There were a couple of posts along the lines of " sure Goldman-Sachs etc .
robbed us but at least they did n't kill anyone " .Follow this line of reasoning : The banksters destroyed the global economy.Millions that were getting by were thrown into poverty.Millions that were in poverty were thrown into starvation.Since the unemployment rate in the developed nations increased , gov't and private relief donations dropped.This reduced the amount of emergency relief available , causing more to die.Conclusion : the banksters that created this mess are guilty of manslaughter on a massive scale.BTW , " Bankster " is used on some discussion boards as a cross between banker and gangster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were a couple of posts along the lines of "sure Goldman-Sachs etc.
robbed us but at least they didn't kill anyone".Follow this line of reasoning:The banksters destroyed the global economy.Millions that were getting by were thrown into poverty.Millions that were in poverty were thrown into starvation.Since the unemployment rate in the developed nations increased, gov't and private relief donations dropped.This reduced the amount of emergency relief available, causing more to die.Conclusion: the banksters that created this mess are guilty of manslaughter on a massive scale.BTW, "Bankster" is used on some discussion boards as a cross between banker and gangster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31417118</id>
	<title>Makes sense to me</title>
	<author>kiehlster</author>
	<datestamp>1268164020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've heard that bank robbers are typically disgruntled customers (either because of their money situation or their bank relationship), therefore we have a group of traditional robbers stealing from banks that don't have money thanks to the bail-out economy.  Remember, when robbers want to case the place they visit days ahead to study the layout and camera locations, and when they do the stealing, sometimes they bring in their legitimate checkbooks as a disguise.  Cyber-criminals on the other hand are non-bias; they steal from any sucker who accidentally gives them their private information; the more desperate people get, the more they'll fall into the traps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard that bank robbers are typically disgruntled customers ( either because of their money situation or their bank relationship ) , therefore we have a group of traditional robbers stealing from banks that do n't have money thanks to the bail-out economy .
Remember , when robbers want to case the place they visit days ahead to study the layout and camera locations , and when they do the stealing , sometimes they bring in their legitimate checkbooks as a disguise .
Cyber-criminals on the other hand are non-bias ; they steal from any sucker who accidentally gives them their private information ; the more desperate people get , the more they 'll fall into the traps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard that bank robbers are typically disgruntled customers (either because of their money situation or their bank relationship), therefore we have a group of traditional robbers stealing from banks that don't have money thanks to the bail-out economy.
Remember, when robbers want to case the place they visit days ahead to study the layout and camera locations, and when they do the stealing, sometimes they bring in their legitimate checkbooks as a disguise.
Cyber-criminals on the other hand are non-bias; they steal from any sucker who accidentally gives them their private information; the more desperate people get, the more they'll fall into the traps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31416058</id>
	<title>Re:Huh</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1268159280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OK it's comedy, but so is the real world situation in a way (except more tragic).</p></div><p>I guess it depends on whether you found Macbeth hilarious or not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK it 's comedy , but so is the real world situation in a way ( except more tragic ) .I guess it depends on whether you found Macbeth hilarious or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK it's comedy, but so is the real world situation in a way (except more tragic).I guess it depends on whether you found Macbeth hilarious or not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415166</id>
	<title>And that's not all...</title>
	<author>Cornwallis</author>
	<datestamp>1268155860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're real cagey about how much is pilfered by bank employees. That's where most of the loss comes from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're real cagey about how much is pilfered by bank employees .
That 's where most of the loss comes from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're real cagey about how much is pilfered by bank employees.
That's where most of the loss comes from.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415382</id>
	<title>Re:Huh</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1268156640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Which ones are the bank robbers again?</p></div><p>The politicians who raided the public treasury to bail these assholes out instead of letting them fail?  The morons in the electorate that sent said politicians to Washington and elected one of them POTUS?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which ones are the bank robbers again ? The politicians who raided the public treasury to bail these assholes out instead of letting them fail ?
The morons in the electorate that sent said politicians to Washington and elected one of them POTUS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which ones are the bank robbers again?The politicians who raided the public treasury to bail these assholes out instead of letting them fail?
The morons in the electorate that sent said politicians to Washington and elected one of them POTUS?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415804</id>
	<title>Re:Hostages..</title>
	<author>OldSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1268158260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary indicates a possible key difference here...

do the "bank robberies" include ATM hacking? The summary indicates the physical bank robberies were against "the bank" while the cyber bank robberies were against (poorly secured) accounts. Is this an apples to oranges comparison? The point being that banks can protect themselves, but what can they do to protect their customers if those customers choose bad passwords?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary indicates a possible key difference here.. . do the " bank robberies " include ATM hacking ?
The summary indicates the physical bank robberies were against " the bank " while the cyber bank robberies were against ( poorly secured ) accounts .
Is this an apples to oranges comparison ?
The point being that banks can protect themselves , but what can they do to protect their customers if those customers choose bad passwords ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary indicates a possible key difference here...

do the "bank robberies" include ATM hacking?
The summary indicates the physical bank robberies were against "the bank" while the cyber bank robberies were against (poorly secured) accounts.
Is this an apples to oranges comparison?
The point being that banks can protect themselves, but what can they do to protect their customers if those customers choose bad passwords?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415480</id>
	<title>Re:Hostages..</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1268157000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, my point was that the FBI gets involved because people get killed in bank robberies..  Stealing from a small business, over the internet, doesn't involve hostage negotiators, swat teams, high speed chases, etc.</p><p>I don't think the FBI cares as much about the financial part of it, as they are the collateral damage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , my point was that the FBI gets involved because people get killed in bank robberies.. Stealing from a small business , over the internet , does n't involve hostage negotiators , swat teams , high speed chases , etc.I do n't think the FBI cares as much about the financial part of it , as they are the collateral damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, my point was that the FBI gets involved because people get killed in bank robberies..  Stealing from a small business, over the internet, doesn't involve hostage negotiators, swat teams, high speed chases, etc.I don't think the FBI cares as much about the financial part of it, as they are the collateral damage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31416942</id>
	<title>One Brazilian Heist</title>
	<author>number17</author>
	<datestamp>1268163240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It only took 1 Brazilian heist to almost topple these 1100+.
<br>
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/sao-paulo-tunnel-thieves\_n\_382415.html" title="huffingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/sao-paulo-tunnel-thieves\_n\_382415.html</a> [huffingtonpost.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It only took 1 Brazilian heist to almost topple these 1100 + .
http : //www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/sao-paulo-tunnel-thieves \ _n \ _382415.html [ huffingtonpost.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It only took 1 Brazilian heist to almost topple these 1100+.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/sao-paulo-tunnel-thieves\_n\_382415.html [huffingtonpost.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31416024</id>
	<title>I thought organized crime...</title>
	<author>ls671</author>
	<datestamp>1268159160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought that organized crime had moved to cyber-robbing a long time ago so is this really news ? I am just wondering...</p><p>The 9.4 millions robbed in a conventional way are probably due to poor, "un-organized" people<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought that organized crime had moved to cyber-robbing a long time ago so is this really news ?
I am just wondering...The 9.4 millions robbed in a conventional way are probably due to poor , " un-organized " people ; - ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought that organized crime had moved to cyber-robbing a long time ago so is this really news ?
I am just wondering...The 9.4 millions robbed in a conventional way are probably due to poor, "un-organized" people ;-))</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415044</id>
	<title>Level of Confidence in Statistics</title>
	<author>phormalitize</author>
	<datestamp>1268155500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My guess is that the government doesn't publish the statistics because they aren't able to accurately collect such data for various reasons (general inability to establish effective metrics, reluctance of affected entities to disclose detailed data, etc.)

There would have to be some kind of consensus about what needed to be collected, and probably more laws passed to force companies to disclose it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is that the government does n't publish the statistics because they are n't able to accurately collect such data for various reasons ( general inability to establish effective metrics , reluctance of affected entities to disclose detailed data , etc .
) There would have to be some kind of consensus about what needed to be collected , and probably more laws passed to force companies to disclose it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is that the government doesn't publish the statistics because they aren't able to accurately collect such data for various reasons (general inability to establish effective metrics, reluctance of affected entities to disclose detailed data, etc.
)

There would have to be some kind of consensus about what needed to be collected, and probably more laws passed to force companies to disclose it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414866</id>
	<title>Hostages..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268154960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how many hostages have been injured/shot in a cyber stickup gone bad?</p><p>Perhaps that might explain their focusing more on physical bank robberies?  I mean cmon.. the banks have insurance to cover the actual money lost, don't they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how many hostages have been injured/shot in a cyber stickup gone bad ? Perhaps that might explain their focusing more on physical bank robberies ?
I mean cmon.. the banks have insurance to cover the actual money lost , do n't they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how many hostages have been injured/shot in a cyber stickup gone bad?Perhaps that might explain their focusing more on physical bank robberies?
I mean cmon.. the banks have insurance to cover the actual money lost, don't they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415198</id>
	<title>Of Course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268155980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Cyber-Crime" has the majority of the benefits of a traditional robbery without many of the downfalls. For those of you who don't know, ATM skimming in the US is even more prevalent and more harmful, and the majority of e-crime originates in OCONUS. The thing is, it is easy to get bank and CC info in the dark underbellies of the internet, the hard part is turning that info into money you can use. That's why large bot-net operators skim large amounts of data, and organize by "value" for example a black card will sell for 150+ $. Usually they try to sell in bulk, to someone else, who then hires a cashier, or someone who can basically "launder" the money back (with various methods, E-gold, offshore gambling, etc), often these cashiers charge over 50 points or more, because that is where the real danger is. The point is, even if you start somehow nabbing or stopping the cashiers, you still have the botnet ops and the real person making the money in the background. Again, most of this being from countries like Russia (stereotypes do exist for a reason sometimes). Want to stop cybercrime? Start making financial institutions at least attempt at having security protocols in place that can stop this sort of thing, and do something to educate and simplify secure computing for the consumer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Cyber-Crime " has the majority of the benefits of a traditional robbery without many of the downfalls .
For those of you who do n't know , ATM skimming in the US is even more prevalent and more harmful , and the majority of e-crime originates in OCONUS .
The thing is , it is easy to get bank and CC info in the dark underbellies of the internet , the hard part is turning that info into money you can use .
That 's why large bot-net operators skim large amounts of data , and organize by " value " for example a black card will sell for 150 + $ .
Usually they try to sell in bulk , to someone else , who then hires a cashier , or someone who can basically " launder " the money back ( with various methods , E-gold , offshore gambling , etc ) , often these cashiers charge over 50 points or more , because that is where the real danger is .
The point is , even if you start somehow nabbing or stopping the cashiers , you still have the botnet ops and the real person making the money in the background .
Again , most of this being from countries like Russia ( stereotypes do exist for a reason sometimes ) .
Want to stop cybercrime ?
Start making financial institutions at least attempt at having security protocols in place that can stop this sort of thing , and do something to educate and simplify secure computing for the consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Cyber-Crime" has the majority of the benefits of a traditional robbery without many of the downfalls.
For those of you who don't know, ATM skimming in the US is even more prevalent and more harmful, and the majority of e-crime originates in OCONUS.
The thing is, it is easy to get bank and CC info in the dark underbellies of the internet, the hard part is turning that info into money you can use.
That's why large bot-net operators skim large amounts of data, and organize by "value" for example a black card will sell for 150+ $.
Usually they try to sell in bulk, to someone else, who then hires a cashier, or someone who can basically "launder" the money back (with various methods, E-gold, offshore gambling, etc), often these cashiers charge over 50 points or more, because that is where the real danger is.
The point is, even if you start somehow nabbing or stopping the cashiers, you still have the botnet ops and the real person making the money in the background.
Again, most of this being from countries like Russia (stereotypes do exist for a reason sometimes).
Want to stop cybercrime?
Start making financial institutions at least attempt at having security protocols in place that can stop this sort of thing, and do something to educate and simplify secure computing for the consumer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31416032</id>
	<title>Re:Saw the ethief coming...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268159220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a former teller, I can tell the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. crowd that robbing a bank physically is one of the stupidest things you can do.  Unless you do a military style takedown (which takes substantially longer and is much more dangerous than handing a note to a teller) you get away with 10k at the very best.  The "vault" in many cases doesn't hold more than a couple hundred thousand... and that's a large branch during Christmas.  The thing idiot bank robbers don't realize is that the more money a bank has sitting in the branch, the more capital is in use and the less the bank can loan, so the bank's return on capital go down the more money they have sitting in branches, essentially doing nothing for the shareholders. <br> <br>
The stacks of money you see in movies are about as realistic as the hacking scenes in most movies. If you're going to be a blight on society, eHacking is the way to go... but as someone who's seen some aspects of bank IT security from the inside, I wouldn't recommend that either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a former teller , I can tell the / .
crowd that robbing a bank physically is one of the stupidest things you can do .
Unless you do a military style takedown ( which takes substantially longer and is much more dangerous than handing a note to a teller ) you get away with 10k at the very best .
The " vault " in many cases does n't hold more than a couple hundred thousand... and that 's a large branch during Christmas .
The thing idiot bank robbers do n't realize is that the more money a bank has sitting in the branch , the more capital is in use and the less the bank can loan , so the bank 's return on capital go down the more money they have sitting in branches , essentially doing nothing for the shareholders .
The stacks of money you see in movies are about as realistic as the hacking scenes in most movies .
If you 're going to be a blight on society , eHacking is the way to go... but as someone who 's seen some aspects of bank IT security from the inside , I would n't recommend that either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a former teller, I can tell the /.
crowd that robbing a bank physically is one of the stupidest things you can do.
Unless you do a military style takedown (which takes substantially longer and is much more dangerous than handing a note to a teller) you get away with 10k at the very best.
The "vault" in many cases doesn't hold more than a couple hundred thousand... and that's a large branch during Christmas.
The thing idiot bank robbers don't realize is that the more money a bank has sitting in the branch, the more capital is in use and the less the bank can loan, so the bank's return on capital go down the more money they have sitting in branches, essentially doing nothing for the shareholders.
The stacks of money you see in movies are about as realistic as the hacking scenes in most movies.
If you're going to be a blight on society, eHacking is the way to go... but as someone who's seen some aspects of bank IT security from the inside, I wouldn't recommend that either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415492</id>
	<title>Re:Huh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268157060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, why are we worrying so much about bank robbers. They're small potatoes. As long as they don't kill or hurt anyone how much $$$ can they take? Laughable amounts for the jail time and risk.</p><p>In contrast:</p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html</a> [nytimes.com]</p><p>Quotes:</p><p>Multiply such trades across thousands of stocks a day, and the profits are substantial. High-frequency traders generated about $21 billion in profits last year, the Tabb Group, a research firm, estimates.</p><p>"But we're moving toward a two-tiered marketplace of the high-frequency arbitrage guys, and everyone else. People want to know they have a legitimate shot at getting a fair deal. Otherwise, the markets lose their integrity."</p><p>See also this:</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXBcmqwTV9s" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXBcmqwTV9s</a> [youtube.com]</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>OK it's comedy, but so is the real world situation in a way (except more tragic).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , why are we worrying so much about bank robbers .
They 're small potatoes .
As long as they do n't kill or hurt anyone how much $ $ $ can they take ?
Laughable amounts for the jail time and risk.In contrast : http : //www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html [ nytimes.com ] Quotes : Multiply such trades across thousands of stocks a day , and the profits are substantial .
High-frequency traders generated about $ 21 billion in profits last year , the Tabb Group , a research firm , estimates .
" But we 're moving toward a two-tiered marketplace of the high-frequency arbitrage guys , and everyone else .
People want to know they have a legitimate shot at getting a fair deal .
Otherwise , the markets lose their integrity .
" See also this : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = hXBcmqwTV9s [ youtube.com ] http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = mzJmTCYmo9g [ youtube.com ] OK it 's comedy , but so is the real world situation in a way ( except more tragic ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, why are we worrying so much about bank robbers.
They're small potatoes.
As long as they don't kill or hurt anyone how much $$$ can they take?
Laughable amounts for the jail time and risk.In contrast:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html [nytimes.com]Quotes:Multiply such trades across thousands of stocks a day, and the profits are substantial.
High-frequency traders generated about $21 billion in profits last year, the Tabb Group, a research firm, estimates.
"But we're moving toward a two-tiered marketplace of the high-frequency arbitrage guys, and everyone else.
People want to know they have a legitimate shot at getting a fair deal.
Otherwise, the markets lose their integrity.
"See also this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXBcmqwTV9s [youtube.com]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g [youtube.com]OK it's comedy, but so is the real world situation in a way (except more tragic).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415298</id>
	<title>Re:Hostages..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268156340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>reminds me of the "The Stainless Steel Rat" series of books, where the main character explained that robbing banks was a GOOD thing for all of the following reasons:<br>1) The police has something to do<br>2) The newspapers have something to write about<br>3) People get some excitement in their lives<br>4) The insurance will cover everything<br>5) He spends the money and puts it back in the economy</p><p>So as long as nobody gets hurt, he does everybody a favour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>reminds me of the " The Stainless Steel Rat " series of books , where the main character explained that robbing banks was a GOOD thing for all of the following reasons : 1 ) The police has something to do2 ) The newspapers have something to write about3 ) People get some excitement in their lives4 ) The insurance will cover everything5 ) He spends the money and puts it back in the economySo as long as nobody gets hurt , he does everybody a favour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reminds me of the "The Stainless Steel Rat" series of books, where the main character explained that robbing banks was a GOOD thing for all of the following reasons:1) The police has something to do2) The newspapers have something to write about3) People get some excitement in their lives4) The insurance will cover everything5) He spends the money and puts it back in the economySo as long as nobody gets hurt, he does everybody a favour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31422654</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1268152200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I suspect the banks do have insurance that covers the loss during a robbery. I also suspect that the small to mid-size businesses don't have insurance that covers someone logging in and emptying their bank accounts, which can sink a small company.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect the banks do have insurance that covers the loss during a robbery .
I also suspect that the small to mid-size businesses do n't have insurance that covers someone logging in and emptying their bank accounts , which can sink a small company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect the banks do have insurance that covers the loss during a robbery.
I also suspect that the small to mid-size businesses don't have insurance that covers someone logging in and emptying their bank accounts, which can sink a small company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414904</id>
	<title>Huh</title>
	<author>macemoneta</author>
	<datestamp>1268155080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I looked at the numbers, all I could think of was "that wouldn't even come up to a good bonus at Goldman Sachs".</p><p>Which ones are the bank robbers again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I looked at the numbers , all I could think of was " that would n't even come up to a good bonus at Goldman Sachs " .Which ones are the bank robbers again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I looked at the numbers, all I could think of was "that wouldn't even come up to a good bonus at Goldman Sachs".Which ones are the bank robbers again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31416648</id>
	<title>When you say cybercrooks, do you include</title>
	<author>aaandre</author>
	<datestamp>1268161860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you say cybercrooks, do you include financial institutions that</p><p>1. Practice coputer-managed microtrading using the advantage of their high-availability data streams, proprietary software and huge capital (other people's money) to squeeze profit from the market without contributing anything positive to anybody or anything?</p><p>2. Create financial instruments and products with the only purpose to use legal loopholes for profit?</p><p>3. Use usury to create perpetual profit from everyone who borrows other perople's money from them, practically causing enslavement?</p><p>Just wondering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you say cybercrooks , do you include financial institutions that1 .
Practice coputer-managed microtrading using the advantage of their high-availability data streams , proprietary software and huge capital ( other people 's money ) to squeeze profit from the market without contributing anything positive to anybody or anything ? 2 .
Create financial instruments and products with the only purpose to use legal loopholes for profit ? 3 .
Use usury to create perpetual profit from everyone who borrows other perople 's money from them , practically causing enslavement ? Just wondering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you say cybercrooks, do you include financial institutions that1.
Practice coputer-managed microtrading using the advantage of their high-availability data streams, proprietary software and huge capital (other people's money) to squeeze profit from the market without contributing anything positive to anybody or anything?2.
Create financial instruments and products with the only purpose to use legal loopholes for profit?3.
Use usury to create perpetual profit from everyone who borrows other perople's money from them, practically causing enslavement?Just wondering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31417668</id>
	<title>Re:Huh</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1268166360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way our top tier of executives is overcompensated is obscene, unfair, and discourages real capitalism. However, it's not theft. It's the result of some fundamental flaws in the way the system operates. If you really give a shit about it, stop attacking the people who benefit from the system and start working to change it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way our top tier of executives is overcompensated is obscene , unfair , and discourages real capitalism .
However , it 's not theft .
It 's the result of some fundamental flaws in the way the system operates .
If you really give a shit about it , stop attacking the people who benefit from the system and start working to change it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way our top tier of executives is overcompensated is obscene, unfair, and discourages real capitalism.
However, it's not theft.
It's the result of some fundamental flaws in the way the system operates.
If you really give a shit about it, stop attacking the people who benefit from the system and start working to change it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415842</id>
	<title>Re:Huh</title>
	<author>Syberz</author>
	<datestamp>1268158500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I looked at the numbers, all I could think of was "that wouldn't even come up to a good bonus at Goldman Sachs".</p><p>Which ones are the bank robbers again?</p></div><p>Goldman Sachs aren't robbing banks, they're using banks to rob us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I looked at the numbers , all I could think of was " that would n't even come up to a good bonus at Goldman Sachs " .Which ones are the bank robbers again ? Goldman Sachs are n't robbing banks , they 're using banks to rob us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I looked at the numbers, all I could think of was "that wouldn't even come up to a good bonus at Goldman Sachs".Which ones are the bank robbers again?Goldman Sachs aren't robbing banks, they're using banks to rob us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31418734</id>
	<title>plus 1, Tr0l7)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268127540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[theos.com] on his needs OS. Now BSDI ASSOCIATION OF BLOODFARTS. FREEBSD</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ theos.com ] on his needs OS .
Now BSDI ASSOCIATION OF BLOODFARTS .
FREEBSD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[theos.com] on his needs OS.
Now BSDI ASSOCIATION OF BLOODFARTS.
FREEBSD</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414666</id>
	<title>Rob Malda's tranny died under mysterious circumsta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268154240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Rob Malda's tranny died under mysterious circumstances</b></p><p>New details about Rob Malda's past may come out in the divorce proceedings with his wife of 8 years, Kathleen. Page 6 speculates that she may fight the prenup, citing Malda&rsquo;s infidelity with various street trannies.</p><p>In 2007, Malda was caught by Dexter police with a transvestite hooker in his car. He told his wife that he &ldquo;stopped to help a person crying.&rdquo; Several other hookers sold tales of Malda&rsquo;s solicitation to the tabloids, and all of them were convinced to recant, with one exception:<br>Paul Barresi, a private detective who claims he was hired for damage control by Malda when the scandal broke, tells Page Six: &ldquo;I called [Malda attorney] Marty &lsquo;Bull Dog&rsquo; Singer and told him I could round up all the transsexuals alleging sexual dalliances with Malda.&rdquo; And they would all recant their stories.</p><p>&ldquo;In less than 10 days,&rdquo; Barresi says, &ldquo;I got them all to sign sworn, videotaped depositions, stating it wasn&rsquo;t Malda himself, but rather a look-alike, who they&rsquo;d encountered - with the exception of Suiuli.&rdquo; In 2008, she fell to her death from her Dexter roof.</p><p>Atisone Suiuli was the tranny found in Malda&rsquo;s car in 2007. After being caught by police, she had proof that she was with Malda and wouldn&rsquo;t change her story. How convenient for him that she died soon afterwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rob Malda 's tranny died under mysterious circumstancesNew details about Rob Malda 's past may come out in the divorce proceedings with his wife of 8 years , Kathleen .
Page 6 speculates that she may fight the prenup , citing Malda    s infidelity with various street trannies.In 2007 , Malda was caught by Dexter police with a transvestite hooker in his car .
He told his wife that he    stopped to help a person crying.    Several other hookers sold tales of Malda    s solicitation to the tabloids , and all of them were convinced to recant , with one exception : Paul Barresi , a private detective who claims he was hired for damage control by Malda when the scandal broke , tells Page Six :    I called [ Malda attorney ] Marty    Bull Dog    Singer and told him I could round up all the transsexuals alleging sexual dalliances with Malda.    And they would all recant their stories.    In less than 10 days ,    Barresi says ,    I got them all to sign sworn , videotaped depositions , stating it wasn    t Malda himself , but rather a look-alike , who they    d encountered - with the exception of Suiuli.    In 2008 , she fell to her death from her Dexter roof.Atisone Suiuli was the tranny found in Malda    s car in 2007 .
After being caught by police , she had proof that she was with Malda and wouldn    t change her story .
How convenient for him that she died soon afterwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rob Malda's tranny died under mysterious circumstancesNew details about Rob Malda's past may come out in the divorce proceedings with his wife of 8 years, Kathleen.
Page 6 speculates that she may fight the prenup, citing Malda’s infidelity with various street trannies.In 2007, Malda was caught by Dexter police with a transvestite hooker in his car.
He told his wife that he “stopped to help a person crying.” Several other hookers sold tales of Malda’s solicitation to the tabloids, and all of them were convinced to recant, with one exception:Paul Barresi, a private detective who claims he was hired for damage control by Malda when the scandal broke, tells Page Six: “I called [Malda attorney] Marty ‘Bull Dog’ Singer and told him I could round up all the transsexuals alleging sexual dalliances with Malda.” And they would all recant their stories.“In less than 10 days,” Barresi says, “I got them all to sign sworn, videotaped depositions, stating it wasn’t Malda himself, but rather a look-alike, who they’d encountered - with the exception of Suiuli.” In 2008, she fell to her death from her Dexter roof.Atisone Suiuli was the tranny found in Malda’s car in 2007.
After being caught by police, she had proof that she was with Malda and wouldn’t change her story.
How convenient for him that she died soon afterwards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31419204</id>
	<title>Small fry</title>
	<author>Wonko the Sane</author>
	<datestamp>1268129580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real crooks extorted <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/21/watchdog-says-tarp-tab-could-hit-24-trillion/" title="washingtontimes.com">$24 trillion</a> [washingtontimes.com] from a sovereign nation by threatening elected officials with martial law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real crooks extorted $ 24 trillion [ washingtontimes.com ] from a sovereign nation by threatening elected officials with martial law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real crooks extorted $24 trillion [washingtontimes.com] from a sovereign nation by threatening elected officials with martial law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31418436</id>
	<title>Re:Hostages..</title>
	<author>bigdavex</author>
	<datestamp>1268126400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I mean cmon.. the banks have insurance to cover the actual money lost, don't they?</p></div></blockquote><p>You do understand that insurance isn't a magical wealth creation machine, right?  The banks' insurance premiums have to cover these losses plus the overhead of the insurance company itself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean cmon.. the banks have insurance to cover the actual money lost , do n't they ? You do understand that insurance is n't a magical wealth creation machine , right ?
The banks ' insurance premiums have to cover these losses plus the overhead of the insurance company itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean cmon.. the banks have insurance to cover the actual money lost, don't they?You do understand that insurance isn't a magical wealth creation machine, right?
The banks' insurance premiums have to cover these losses plus the overhead of the insurance company itself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415438</id>
	<title>Not even a blip.</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1268156820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$25 million, roughly 100 million all year.  Are you kidding?  The financial industry extorted hundreds of billions of dollars from the tax payer in 2009.  If this is the cybercrime menace we're supposed to be afraid of, I'm not.  I'm much more worried about legalized theft by men in suits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 25 million , roughly 100 million all year .
Are you kidding ?
The financial industry extorted hundreds of billions of dollars from the tax payer in 2009 .
If this is the cybercrime menace we 're supposed to be afraid of , I 'm not .
I 'm much more worried about legalized theft by men in suits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$25 million, roughly 100 million all year.
Are you kidding?
The financial industry extorted hundreds of billions of dollars from the tax payer in 2009.
If this is the cybercrime menace we're supposed to be afraid of, I'm not.
I'm much more worried about legalized theft by men in suits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31416778</id>
	<title>Re:Huh</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1268162460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Woodie Guthrie said it best:</p><p>"Yes, as through this world I've wandered<br>
&nbsp; I've seen lots of funny men;<br>
&nbsp; Some will rob you with a six-gun,<br>
&nbsp; And some with a fountain pen."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Woodie Guthrie said it best : " Yes , as through this world I 've wandered   I 've seen lots of funny men ;   Some will rob you with a six-gun ,   And some with a fountain pen .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woodie Guthrie said it best:"Yes, as through this world I've wandered
  I've seen lots of funny men;
  Some will rob you with a six-gun,
  And some with a fountain pen.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414850</id>
	<title>How long until...</title>
	<author>sophomoric</author>
	<datestamp>1268154900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>How long until Comp Sci majors are considered more at-risk to be future criminals than the football team?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long until Comp Sci majors are considered more at-risk to be future criminals than the football team ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long until Comp Sci majors are considered more at-risk to be future criminals than the football team?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415372</id>
	<title>Re:Huh</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1268156640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good point.</p><p>If you took that $25 million and added it to TARP, it wouldn't even show up as a percentage of the $514 billion disbursed so far.  "Illegal" cybertheft would account for 0.005\% of overall cybertheft.</p><p>How is it a big deal that cybercrime netted $25 million nationwide?</p><p>Tell General Motors to send back some pocket change from the $50 billion they are currently holding.  At 9\% APR, the interest on the money for about two days would cover it.</p><p>Heck, if we charged GM's "0.9\% APR" on the TARP money for just a day and a half, we'd have more than enough cover the entire years' worth of cybertheft, and enough left over to cover a good chunk of actual bank robberies, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point.If you took that $ 25 million and added it to TARP , it would n't even show up as a percentage of the $ 514 billion disbursed so far .
" Illegal " cybertheft would account for 0.005 \ % of overall cybertheft.How is it a big deal that cybercrime netted $ 25 million nationwide ? Tell General Motors to send back some pocket change from the $ 50 billion they are currently holding .
At 9 \ % APR , the interest on the money for about two days would cover it.Heck , if we charged GM 's " 0.9 \ % APR " on the TARP money for just a day and a half , we 'd have more than enough cover the entire years ' worth of cybertheft , and enough left over to cover a good chunk of actual bank robberies , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point.If you took that $25 million and added it to TARP, it wouldn't even show up as a percentage of the $514 billion disbursed so far.
"Illegal" cybertheft would account for 0.005\% of overall cybertheft.How is it a big deal that cybercrime netted $25 million nationwide?Tell General Motors to send back some pocket change from the $50 billion they are currently holding.
At 9\% APR, the interest on the money for about two days would cover it.Heck, if we charged GM's "0.9\% APR" on the TARP money for just a day and a half, we'd have more than enough cover the entire years' worth of cybertheft, and enough left over to cover a good chunk of actual bank robberies, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415290</id>
	<title>Learn how to hyphenate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268156280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God I wish people would learn how to write in English. When I first read "Cybercrooks Surpassed Old School Bankrobbers In '09" I was confused because I read the meaning that is actually written instead of the intended meaning. This sentence says that cybercrooks surpassed elderly robbers of school banks. It should read "old-school bankrobbers".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God I wish people would learn how to write in English .
When I first read " Cybercrooks Surpassed Old School Bankrobbers In '09 " I was confused because I read the meaning that is actually written instead of the intended meaning .
This sentence says that cybercrooks surpassed elderly robbers of school banks .
It should read " old-school bankrobbers " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God I wish people would learn how to write in English.
When I first read "Cybercrooks Surpassed Old School Bankrobbers In '09" I was confused because I read the meaning that is actually written instead of the intended meaning.
This sentence says that cybercrooks surpassed elderly robbers of school banks.
It should read "old-school bankrobbers".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414734</id>
	<title>Saw the ethief coming...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268154540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since only 3\% of all dollars exist as paper money you knew this one was coming.  If thieves only robbed the paper money they would be limiting their money pool they steal from.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since only 3 \ % of all dollars exist as paper money you knew this one was coming .
If thieves only robbed the paper money they would be limiting their money pool they steal from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since only 3\% of all dollars exist as paper money you knew this one was coming.
If thieves only robbed the paper money they would be limiting their money pool they steal from.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31417092</id>
	<title>Re:Saw the ethief coming...</title>
	<author>Locklin</author>
	<datestamp>1268163900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a customer of two banks. One has a *maximum* password length of 8 characters for online services (actually trunks the password at 8 if you enter a longer one and gives no warning). The other bank regularily calls customers and asks for sensitive information (the same information that can be used to reset the online password). They call from, and request call-backs to phone numbers that are *not* the number on the bank card.</p><p>I have a feeling Canadian Banks have so much insurance that they disregard IT security entirely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a customer of two banks .
One has a * maximum * password length of 8 characters for online services ( actually trunks the password at 8 if you enter a longer one and gives no warning ) .
The other bank regularily calls customers and asks for sensitive information ( the same information that can be used to reset the online password ) .
They call from , and request call-backs to phone numbers that are * not * the number on the bank card.I have a feeling Canadian Banks have so much insurance that they disregard IT security entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a customer of two banks.
One has a *maximum* password length of 8 characters for online services (actually trunks the password at 8 if you enter a longer one and gives no warning).
The other bank regularily calls customers and asks for sensitive information (the same information that can be used to reset the online password).
They call from, and request call-backs to phone numbers that are *not* the number on the bank card.I have a feeling Canadian Banks have so much insurance that they disregard IT security entirely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31416032</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1510218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31416778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1510218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1510218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31424282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1510218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1510218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31417668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1510218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1510218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31418436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1510218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31417092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31416032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1510218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31418414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1510218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1510218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31421450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31416032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1510218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31416058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1510218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1510218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1510218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31418414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31416032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31421450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31417092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31424282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1510218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31418436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1510218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1510218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1510218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1510218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31414904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31416058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31417668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31416778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1510218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31415044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1510218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1510218.31420664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
