<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_12_0722225</id>
	<title>A Sad Day For the New Zealand Internet</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268382960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Another one bites the dust, as <a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1003/S00159.htm">New Zealand's Internet filter  stealthily goes live</a> with two smaller ISPs, and three of the largest already rumoured to have signed up to do the same. However, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is apparently '<a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/23/0338225/China-Slams-Clintons-Call-For-Internet-Freedom">committed to helping people to circumvent government internet filtering</a>,' so perhaps the USA will launch an invasion to free the poor downtrodden Kiwis from their own evil government?"</i> Clever of one of the acquiescing ISPs to have named itself "Watchdog."</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Another one bites the dust , as New Zealand 's Internet filter stealthily goes live with two smaller ISPs , and three of the largest already rumoured to have signed up to do the same .
However , US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is apparently 'committed to helping people to circumvent government internet filtering, ' so perhaps the USA will launch an invasion to free the poor downtrodden Kiwis from their own evil government ?
" Clever of one of the acquiescing ISPs to have named itself " Watchdog .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Another one bites the dust, as New Zealand's Internet filter  stealthily goes live with two smaller ISPs, and three of the largest already rumoured to have signed up to do the same.
However, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is apparently 'committed to helping people to circumvent government internet filtering,' so perhaps the USA will launch an invasion to free the poor downtrodden Kiwis from their own evil government?
" Clever of one of the acquiescing ISPs to have named itself "Watchdog.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31451450</id>
	<title>Re:We'd be happy to help</title>
	<author>whatajoke</author>
	<datestamp>1268408460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We promise to bring you the same great internet service that we have in the USA. If you haven't experienced dial up before you're in for a treat!</p></div><p>NZers will gladly exchange their internet access for yours. Try 50$ with 10G cap.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We promise to bring you the same great internet service that we have in the USA .
If you have n't experienced dial up before you 're in for a treat ! NZers will gladly exchange their internet access for yours .
Try 50 $ with 10G cap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We promise to bring you the same great internet service that we have in the USA.
If you haven't experienced dial up before you're in for a treat!NZers will gladly exchange their internet access for yours.
Try 50$ with 10G cap.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31462042</id>
	<title>It should be noted...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268421660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... that Watchdog is aimed mainly for families &amp; schools, and have in the past always implemented their own filtering on connections. in which case It should be no surprise for anyone familar with Watchdog's mission that they have been one of the first to sign up for the government provided filtering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... that Watchdog is aimed mainly for families &amp; schools , and have in the past always implemented their own filtering on connections .
in which case It should be no surprise for anyone familar with Watchdog 's mission that they have been one of the first to sign up for the government provided filtering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that Watchdog is aimed mainly for families &amp; schools, and have in the past always implemented their own filtering on connections.
in which case It should be no surprise for anyone familar with Watchdog's mission that they have been one of the first to sign up for the government provided filtering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450076</id>
	<title>Re:Human Rights?</title>
	<author>geezer nerd</author>
	<datestamp>1268398260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Me, too. I live in NZ, and this article on Slashdot is the first I have heard of this filtering in NZ. That seems strange.

On the other hand, the government can and does spend huge amounts of time sensing the opinions and feelings of the people only to then ignore them and ham-handedly put into place whatever policies it wanted to in the first place. All the while beating its chest over how democratic it is. BS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Me , too .
I live in NZ , and this article on Slashdot is the first I have heard of this filtering in NZ .
That seems strange .
On the other hand , the government can and does spend huge amounts of time sensing the opinions and feelings of the people only to then ignore them and ham-handedly put into place whatever policies it wanted to in the first place .
All the while beating its chest over how democratic it is .
BS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me, too.
I live in NZ, and this article on Slashdot is the first I have heard of this filtering in NZ.
That seems strange.
On the other hand, the government can and does spend huge amounts of time sensing the opinions and feelings of the people only to then ignore them and ham-handedly put into place whatever policies it wanted to in the first place.
All the while beating its chest over how democratic it is.
BS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450464</id>
	<title>That graph doesn't mean what you think it means</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1268401980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Corruption takes three forms:
</p><ul> <li>There is the pure and simple corruption: Here is 10.000 give me the contract.</li>
<li>There is the common american corruption: I donate 10.000 to your election campaign, now how are you going to vote on this bill that is not directly tied to me, but benefits me quite by accident?</li>
<li>And then there is corruption of the mind, the ivory tower. When politicians and those in power become so estranged from the real world that they might as well be on the take.</li>
</ul><p>This last one is actually most insidious, because the above leave a paper trail and can land you in jail. Being incompetent carries no such penalty, if it did, most judges would be in jail. These kind of measures are not introduced out of malice, but out of a sense "something must be done, this is something, therefor it must be done".
</p><p>the problem is ultimately the voter. Politicians are like women, once they reach a certain age you should replace them with a new model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Corruption takes three forms : There is the pure and simple corruption : Here is 10.000 give me the contract .
There is the common american corruption : I donate 10.000 to your election campaign , now how are you going to vote on this bill that is not directly tied to me , but benefits me quite by accident ?
And then there is corruption of the mind , the ivory tower .
When politicians and those in power become so estranged from the real world that they might as well be on the take .
This last one is actually most insidious , because the above leave a paper trail and can land you in jail .
Being incompetent carries no such penalty , if it did , most judges would be in jail .
These kind of measures are not introduced out of malice , but out of a sense " something must be done , this is something , therefor it must be done " .
the problem is ultimately the voter .
Politicians are like women , once they reach a certain age you should replace them with a new model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corruption takes three forms:
 There is the pure and simple corruption: Here is 10.000 give me the contract.
There is the common american corruption: I donate 10.000 to your election campaign, now how are you going to vote on this bill that is not directly tied to me, but benefits me quite by accident?
And then there is corruption of the mind, the ivory tower.
When politicians and those in power become so estranged from the real world that they might as well be on the take.
This last one is actually most insidious, because the above leave a paper trail and can land you in jail.
Being incompetent carries no such penalty, if it did, most judges would be in jail.
These kind of measures are not introduced out of malice, but out of a sense "something must be done, this is something, therefor it must be done".
the problem is ultimately the voter.
Politicians are like women, once they reach a certain age you should replace them with a new model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449768</id>
	<title>Re:Human Rights?</title>
	<author>kubitus</author>
	<datestamp>1268391840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NZ is in the Echelon group -isn't it?
So it is Echelon implemented inside.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NZ is in the Echelon group -is n't it ?
So it is Echelon implemented inside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NZ is in the Echelon group -isn't it?
So it is Echelon implemented inside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449548</id>
	<title>Re:Two words</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1268388420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jail.<p>
Suprise butt sex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jail .
Suprise butt sex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jail.
Suprise butt sex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31452922</id>
	<title>Re:Human Rights?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268415660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Democracies don't give you good government, they give you the government you deserve.</p></div><p>Democracies don't give you the government <em>you</em> deserve[1], they give you the worst government any 50.1\% or more of your fellow citizens can be tricked into voting for.</p><p>[1] As if anyone actually <em>deserved</em> to be ruled by any government. Democracies have advantages and disadvantages relative to other forms of government, but these minor differences pale in comparison to the disadvantages inherent in government itself, of any type. Among other issues, so long as any government exists we will never be free of "legitimized" coercive&mdash;that is, <em>criminal</em>&mdash;behavior.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Democracies do n't give you good government , they give you the government you deserve.Democracies do n't give you the government you deserve [ 1 ] , they give you the worst government any 50.1 \ % or more of your fellow citizens can be tricked into voting for .
[ 1 ] As if anyone actually deserved to be ruled by any government .
Democracies have advantages and disadvantages relative to other forms of government , but these minor differences pale in comparison to the disadvantages inherent in government itself , of any type .
Among other issues , so long as any government exists we will never be free of " legitimized " coercive    that is , criminal    behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democracies don't give you good government, they give you the government you deserve.Democracies don't give you the government you deserve[1], they give you the worst government any 50.1\% or more of your fellow citizens can be tricked into voting for.
[1] As if anyone actually deserved to be ruled by any government.
Democracies have advantages and disadvantages relative to other forms of government, but these minor differences pale in comparison to the disadvantages inherent in government itself, of any type.
Among other issues, so long as any government exists we will never be free of "legitimized" coercive—that is, criminal—behavior.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31454720</id>
	<title>Re:Um why</title>
	<author>bsdewhurst</author>
	<datestamp>1268424000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I don't think its that they don't want the Government to intervene.  Look at who has implemented it, we will ignore the two small ISPs for now.  Telecom, Vodafone and Telstra Clear are all network owners in New Zealand.
</p><p>
The government is currently deciding who will get 1.5 billion dollars to roll out fibre to the home in the main towns of New Zealand replacing Telecom's network and to a lesser extent taking customers off Telstra Clear's cable networks in Wellington and Christchurch.  Telecom has placed two bids for the fibre money.  Vodafone with its mobile network is interested in the second stage of funding for rural broadband.  So they have reason to buddy up with the Government, Telecom in particular because it has the most to lose.
</p><p>
It is also interesting that one of the ISPs that say they are not going to use the filter is Orcon, which is owned by Kordia, which is a state owned enterprise.  The government can't even get the ISP they own to use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think its that they do n't want the Government to intervene .
Look at who has implemented it , we will ignore the two small ISPs for now .
Telecom , Vodafone and Telstra Clear are all network owners in New Zealand .
The government is currently deciding who will get 1.5 billion dollars to roll out fibre to the home in the main towns of New Zealand replacing Telecom 's network and to a lesser extent taking customers off Telstra Clear 's cable networks in Wellington and Christchurch .
Telecom has placed two bids for the fibre money .
Vodafone with its mobile network is interested in the second stage of funding for rural broadband .
So they have reason to buddy up with the Government , Telecom in particular because it has the most to lose .
It is also interesting that one of the ISPs that say they are not going to use the filter is Orcon , which is owned by Kordia , which is a state owned enterprise .
The government ca n't even get the ISP they own to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I don't think its that they don't want the Government to intervene.
Look at who has implemented it, we will ignore the two small ISPs for now.
Telecom, Vodafone and Telstra Clear are all network owners in New Zealand.
The government is currently deciding who will get 1.5 billion dollars to roll out fibre to the home in the main towns of New Zealand replacing Telecom's network and to a lesser extent taking customers off Telstra Clear's cable networks in Wellington and Christchurch.
Telecom has placed two bids for the fibre money.
Vodafone with its mobile network is interested in the second stage of funding for rural broadband.
So they have reason to buddy up with the Government, Telecom in particular because it has the most to lose.
It is also interesting that one of the ISPs that say they are not going to use the filter is Orcon, which is owned by Kordia, which is a state owned enterprise.
The government can't even get the ISP they own to use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449684</id>
	<title>NZ 2nd least corrupt government?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268390640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This comes as a great surprise to me, considering the NZ government is SUPPOSED to be the 2nd least corrupt government in the world:
<a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov\_cor-government-corruption" title="nationmaster.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov\_cor-government-corruption</a> [nationmaster.com]
All this talk in the article of secretly implementing crap to filter the internet doesn't bode well for NZ. Internet there is already shiit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This comes as a great surprise to me , considering the NZ government is SUPPOSED to be the 2nd least corrupt government in the world : http : //www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov \ _cor-government-corruption [ nationmaster.com ] All this talk in the article of secretly implementing crap to filter the internet does n't bode well for NZ .
Internet there is already shiit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This comes as a great surprise to me, considering the NZ government is SUPPOSED to be the 2nd least corrupt government in the world:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov\_cor-government-corruption [nationmaster.com]
All this talk in the article of secretly implementing crap to filter the internet doesn't bode well for NZ.
Internet there is already shiit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449700</id>
	<title>Re:Like many fads,</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1268390940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps the uncensored internet is the fad coming already to a close?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the uncensored internet is the fad coming already to a close ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the uncensored internet is the fad coming already to a close?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31453854</id>
	<title>Re:NZ Filtering FAQ</title>
	<author>Julie188</author>
	<datestamp>1268419980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting. That site says, "New Zealand&rsquo;s censorship laws forbid viewing or owning certain types of material (e.g. depictions of bestiality or sex with children) and this applies to material accessed over the internet too. A number of people have been convicted for possessing material they have downloaded over the internet."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

Now I'm torn. Censorship is evil. But it does make sense to make it illegal to view or own materials which harm others, like children.

The bigger concern is that the Scoop story says that the NZ government is keeping the list of stuff they are censoring a secret. If they are censoring for pedophiles -- they should be forthright about it, after all, isn't the idea to let them know its not ok? But if they are spying on their citizens, that's completely awful.

Julie</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
That site says , " New Zealand    s censorship laws forbid viewing or owning certain types of material ( e.g .
depictions of bestiality or sex with children ) and this applies to material accessed over the internet too .
A number of people have been convicted for possessing material they have downloaded over the internet .
" .. . Now I 'm torn .
Censorship is evil .
But it does make sense to make it illegal to view or own materials which harm others , like children .
The bigger concern is that the Scoop story says that the NZ government is keeping the list of stuff they are censoring a secret .
If they are censoring for pedophiles -- they should be forthright about it , after all , is n't the idea to let them know its not ok ?
But if they are spying on their citizens , that 's completely awful .
Julie</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
That site says, "New Zealand’s censorship laws forbid viewing or owning certain types of material (e.g.
depictions of bestiality or sex with children) and this applies to material accessed over the internet too.
A number of people have been convicted for possessing material they have downloaded over the internet.
" ...

Now I'm torn.
Censorship is evil.
But it does make sense to make it illegal to view or own materials which harm others, like children.
The bigger concern is that the Scoop story says that the NZ government is keeping the list of stuff they are censoring a secret.
If they are censoring for pedophiles -- they should be forthright about it, after all, isn't the idea to let them know its not ok?
But if they are spying on their citizens, that's completely awful.
Julie</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31505638</id>
	<title>Re:NZ 2nd least corrupt government?!</title>
	<author>Sardaukar86</author>
	<datestamp>1268816700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This comes as a great surprise to me, considering the NZ government is SUPPOSED to be the 2nd least corrupt government in the world:
<a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov\_cor-government-corruption" title="nationmaster.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov\_cor-government-corruption</a> [nationmaster.com]
All this talk in the article of secretly implementing crap to filter the internet doesn't bode well for NZ. Internet there is already shiit.</p></div><p>Interesting point. My understanding (from a fellow Kiwi who is usually pretty reliable on these sorts of things) is that it is known that NZ government administrations under-report corruption to a criminal level.</p><p>It may interest fellow 'dotters that we don't ship out the encumbent administration when a new government takes power. That's right - unlike the US, we leave them there to undermine the incoming cabinet. This can be particularly challenging when the outgoing government has been nine consecutive years in power, leaving behind it a thoroughly indoctrinated public service to receive the incoming party..</p><p>I'm not so sure this is different from the UK system of governance (although we have no House of Lords) so I may well be off-base with this thought.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This comes as a great surprise to me , considering the NZ government is SUPPOSED to be the 2nd least corrupt government in the world : http : //www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov \ _cor-government-corruption [ nationmaster.com ] All this talk in the article of secretly implementing crap to filter the internet does n't bode well for NZ .
Internet there is already shiit.Interesting point .
My understanding ( from a fellow Kiwi who is usually pretty reliable on these sorts of things ) is that it is known that NZ government administrations under-report corruption to a criminal level.It may interest fellow 'dotters that we do n't ship out the encumbent administration when a new government takes power .
That 's right - unlike the US , we leave them there to undermine the incoming cabinet .
This can be particularly challenging when the outgoing government has been nine consecutive years in power , leaving behind it a thoroughly indoctrinated public service to receive the incoming party..I 'm not so sure this is different from the UK system of governance ( although we have no House of Lords ) so I may well be off-base with this thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This comes as a great surprise to me, considering the NZ government is SUPPOSED to be the 2nd least corrupt government in the world:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov\_cor-government-corruption [nationmaster.com]
All this talk in the article of secretly implementing crap to filter the internet doesn't bode well for NZ.
Internet there is already shiit.Interesting point.
My understanding (from a fellow Kiwi who is usually pretty reliable on these sorts of things) is that it is known that NZ government administrations under-report corruption to a criminal level.It may interest fellow 'dotters that we don't ship out the encumbent administration when a new government takes power.
That's right - unlike the US, we leave them there to undermine the incoming cabinet.
This can be particularly challenging when the outgoing government has been nine consecutive years in power, leaving behind it a thoroughly indoctrinated public service to receive the incoming party..I'm not so sure this is different from the UK system of governance (although we have no House of Lords) so I may well be off-base with this thought.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31476858</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy</title>
	<author>harryjohnston</author>
	<datestamp>1268576700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't believe any of the credible parties have objected to the filter.  For reference, it wasn't a political decision, it was implemented by the civil service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe any of the credible parties have objected to the filter .
For reference , it was n't a political decision , it was implemented by the civil service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe any of the credible parties have objected to the filter.
For reference, it wasn't a political decision, it was implemented by the civil service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31456992</id>
	<title>Enables serruptitious surveillance</title>
	<author>Burz</author>
	<datestamp>1268390160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They could 'accidentally' send routing commands to ISPs for sites that are not actually banned. The traffic for those sites would then be routed through the DIA ready for snooping.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How does the filtering work?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. A list of banned sites and their internet addresses is maintained by the Department of Internal Affairs.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. The DIA then use a routing protocol to tell the participating ISPs (Internet Service Providers) that the &lsquo;best&rsquo; way to the internet address of the banned site&rsquo;s web server is through the DIA&rsquo;s filtering server.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3. When a person tries to access a site (banned or not) on one of the filtered addresses, their ISP knows to divert the request to the DIA&rsquo;s server.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4. The DIA&rsquo;s filtering server then looks at the request. If it is to a banned site, the request is refused and a message is sent back to the person. If it is to a non-banned site, the DIA&rsquo;s filtering server passes the request on to the real server through the DIA&rsquo;s internet connection.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They could 'accidentally ' send routing commands to ISPs for sites that are not actually banned .
The traffic for those sites would then be routed through the DIA ready for snooping.How does the filtering work ?
            1 .
A list of banned sites and their internet addresses is maintained by the Department of Internal Affairs .
            2 .
The DIA then use a routing protocol to tell the participating ISPs ( Internet Service Providers ) that the    best    way to the internet address of the banned site    s web server is through the DIA    s filtering server .
            3 .
When a person tries to access a site ( banned or not ) on one of the filtered addresses , their ISP knows to divert the request to the DIA    s server .
            4 .
The DIA    s filtering server then looks at the request .
If it is to a banned site , the request is refused and a message is sent back to the person .
If it is to a non-banned site , the DIA    s filtering server passes the request on to the real server through the DIA    s internet connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could 'accidentally' send routing commands to ISPs for sites that are not actually banned.
The traffic for those sites would then be routed through the DIA ready for snooping.How does the filtering work?
            1.
A list of banned sites and their internet addresses is maintained by the Department of Internal Affairs.
            2.
The DIA then use a routing protocol to tell the participating ISPs (Internet Service Providers) that the ‘best’ way to the internet address of the banned site’s web server is through the DIA’s filtering server.
            3.
When a person tries to access a site (banned or not) on one of the filtered addresses, their ISP knows to divert the request to the DIA’s server.
            4.
The DIA’s filtering server then looks at the request.
If it is to a banned site, the request is refused and a message is sent back to the person.
If it is to a non-banned site, the DIA’s filtering server passes the request on to the real server through the DIA’s internet connection.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450710</id>
	<title>Just one question...</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1268403960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is New Zealand's government not elected by it's citizens? <br>
There is not truer saying than "We get the government we deserve."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is New Zealand 's government not elected by it 's citizens ?
There is not truer saying than " We get the government we deserve .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is New Zealand's government not elected by it's citizens?
There is not truer saying than "We get the government we deserve.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449552</id>
	<title>Human Rights?</title>
	<author>teslar</author>
	<datestamp>1268388480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I do have to admit that this is the first time I heard about the filter... but how can they possibly square that with <a href="http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base\_id=104&amp;language\_id=1&amp;erc\_doc\_id=445&amp;category\_id=24&amp;category\_type=3&amp;group=" title="hrea.org">human rights</a> [hrea.org]? Especially this part:</p><blockquote><div><p>Article 19<br>Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, <b>receive</b> and impart information and ideas <b>through any media and regardless of frontiers</b>.</p></div></blockquote><p>I get that various dictatorships and so on around the globe might not care all that much about human rights, but New Zealand was still a democracy last time I checked?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I do have to admit that this is the first time I heard about the filter... but how can they possibly square that with human rights [ hrea.org ] ?
Especially this part : Article 19Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression ; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek , receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.I get that various dictatorships and so on around the globe might not care all that much about human rights , but New Zealand was still a democracy last time I checked ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I do have to admit that this is the first time I heard about the filter... but how can they possibly square that with human rights [hrea.org]?
Especially this part:Article 19Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.I get that various dictatorships and so on around the globe might not care all that much about human rights, but New Zealand was still a democracy last time I checked?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31476810</id>
	<title>Re:NZ 2nd least corrupt government?!</title>
	<author>harryjohnston</author>
	<datestamp>1268576340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It wasn't particularly secret.</p><p>It should also be noted that (in contrast, for example, to the Australian proposal) this filter was not politically driven, but implemented by the civil service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't particularly secret.It should also be noted that ( in contrast , for example , to the Australian proposal ) this filter was not politically driven , but implemented by the civil service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't particularly secret.It should also be noted that (in contrast, for example, to the Australian proposal) this filter was not politically driven, but implemented by the civil service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449484</id>
	<title>Alternatively</title>
	<author>microbee</author>
	<datestamp>1268387520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google can quit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google can quit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google can quit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449758</id>
	<title>Re:Um why</title>
	<author>alanw</author>
	<datestamp>1268391780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the UK it was recently reported that the government will not buy services from any ISP that does not implement the IWF blacklist.</p><p><a href="http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech\_and\_web/the\_web/article7055882.ece" title="timesonline.co.uk">http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech\_and\_web/the\_web/article7055882.ece</a> [timesonline.co.uk]</p><p>And in the USA, the Minnesota Senate is considering a proposal to prevent state employees staying in hotels that offers  "violent" pornography.</p><p><a href="http://www.kare11.com/news/news\_article.aspx?storyid=843624" title="kare11.com">http://www.kare11.com/news/news\_article.aspx?storyid=843624</a> [kare11.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the UK it was recently reported that the government will not buy services from any ISP that does not implement the IWF blacklist.http : //technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech \ _and \ _web/the \ _web/article7055882.ece [ timesonline.co.uk ] And in the USA , the Minnesota Senate is considering a proposal to prevent state employees staying in hotels that offers " violent " pornography.http : //www.kare11.com/news/news \ _article.aspx ? storyid = 843624 [ kare11.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the UK it was recently reported that the government will not buy services from any ISP that does not implement the IWF blacklist.http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech\_and\_web/the\_web/article7055882.ece [timesonline.co.uk]And in the USA, the Minnesota Senate is considering a proposal to prevent state employees staying in hotels that offers  "violent" pornography.http://www.kare11.com/news/news\_article.aspx?storyid=843624 [kare11.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449820</id>
	<title>Re:Um why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268392980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're talking about a filter that only filters child pornography. Since everything that's on the internet stays on the internet, those pictures and movie clips will come back to haunt them from time to time throughout their lives. It would be comforting for the victims if they could be sure that the pictures of them as children being raped are not readily available.</p><p>One possible way (and a cheap one) to limit the damage is to use automatic filtering. A pedophile who is looking for some child porn probably has limited time and resources that he or she can devote to that activity. If it takes too long to get to the pictures he's gonna jerk off to something else. That also means he's not gonna send it to his pedo buddies through p2p or IM. That slows down the rate at which child porn spreads.</p><p>I'm not sure how well this filter works, but if it works as advertised it might be something that many ISPs will want to install voluntarily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're talking about a filter that only filters child pornography .
Since everything that 's on the internet stays on the internet , those pictures and movie clips will come back to haunt them from time to time throughout their lives .
It would be comforting for the victims if they could be sure that the pictures of them as children being raped are not readily available.One possible way ( and a cheap one ) to limit the damage is to use automatic filtering .
A pedophile who is looking for some child porn probably has limited time and resources that he or she can devote to that activity .
If it takes too long to get to the pictures he 's gon na jerk off to something else .
That also means he 's not gon na send it to his pedo buddies through p2p or IM .
That slows down the rate at which child porn spreads.I 'm not sure how well this filter works , but if it works as advertised it might be something that many ISPs will want to install voluntarily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're talking about a filter that only filters child pornography.
Since everything that's on the internet stays on the internet, those pictures and movie clips will come back to haunt them from time to time throughout their lives.
It would be comforting for the victims if they could be sure that the pictures of them as children being raped are not readily available.One possible way (and a cheap one) to limit the damage is to use automatic filtering.
A pedophile who is looking for some child porn probably has limited time and resources that he or she can devote to that activity.
If it takes too long to get to the pictures he's gonna jerk off to something else.
That also means he's not gonna send it to his pedo buddies through p2p or IM.
That slows down the rate at which child porn spreads.I'm not sure how well this filter works, but if it works as advertised it might be something that many ISPs will want to install voluntarily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450914</id>
	<title>UK town name, sCUNThorpe, a classic example</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268405340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>of why filtering doesn't work.</p><p>No, I don't mean just the fact that the simple text string filter is too crude, but mainly the fact that there is no penalties imposed (eg loss of job) on the assholes who implement filtering technology with the same due diligence as an indian first line support call centre, and fuck up the entire internet for whole groups of users, or domain owners.</p><p>Scunthorpe is just one example, what is crude, evil or illegal to one person, is totally innocent and innocuous to another person.</p><p>Back in the day, no ISP wanted to touch filtering with a bargepole, not even if it cut their upstream bandwidth costs by 50\%, for one simple reason... once you filter, you take legal responsibility for EVERYTHING, and open yourself up to lawsuits.</p><p>Goodbye "common carrier" and "mere conduit" status.</p><p>EU Law states (and I know exactly of what I speak, being personally instrumental in this law being codified and specified within UK Law) that for the purposes of the Electronic Commerce Directive an ISP is a "mere conduit"</p><p>As this applies to a UK ISP this ruling SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS the "mere conduit" from all civil, and criminal, liabilities, even if the material in question is defamatory, copyright violation, or even child pornography... PROVIDED THEY REMAIN A "MERE CONDUIT"</p><p>The nanosecond you start filtering, you are no longer a mere conduit or common carrier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>of why filtering does n't work.No , I do n't mean just the fact that the simple text string filter is too crude , but mainly the fact that there is no penalties imposed ( eg loss of job ) on the assholes who implement filtering technology with the same due diligence as an indian first line support call centre , and fuck up the entire internet for whole groups of users , or domain owners.Scunthorpe is just one example , what is crude , evil or illegal to one person , is totally innocent and innocuous to another person.Back in the day , no ISP wanted to touch filtering with a bargepole , not even if it cut their upstream bandwidth costs by 50 \ % , for one simple reason... once you filter , you take legal responsibility for EVERYTHING , and open yourself up to lawsuits.Goodbye " common carrier " and " mere conduit " status.EU Law states ( and I know exactly of what I speak , being personally instrumental in this law being codified and specified within UK Law ) that for the purposes of the Electronic Commerce Directive an ISP is a " mere conduit " As this applies to a UK ISP this ruling SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS the " mere conduit " from all civil , and criminal , liabilities , even if the material in question is defamatory , copyright violation , or even child pornography... PROVIDED THEY REMAIN A " MERE CONDUIT " The nanosecond you start filtering , you are no longer a mere conduit or common carrier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of why filtering doesn't work.No, I don't mean just the fact that the simple text string filter is too crude, but mainly the fact that there is no penalties imposed (eg loss of job) on the assholes who implement filtering technology with the same due diligence as an indian first line support call centre, and fuck up the entire internet for whole groups of users, or domain owners.Scunthorpe is just one example, what is crude, evil or illegal to one person, is totally innocent and innocuous to another person.Back in the day, no ISP wanted to touch filtering with a bargepole, not even if it cut their upstream bandwidth costs by 50\%, for one simple reason... once you filter, you take legal responsibility for EVERYTHING, and open yourself up to lawsuits.Goodbye "common carrier" and "mere conduit" status.EU Law states (and I know exactly of what I speak, being personally instrumental in this law being codified and specified within UK Law) that for the purposes of the Electronic Commerce Directive an ISP is a "mere conduit"As this applies to a UK ISP this ruling SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS the "mere conduit" from all civil, and criminal, liabilities, even if the material in question is defamatory, copyright violation, or even child pornography... PROVIDED THEY REMAIN A "MERE CONDUIT"The nanosecond you start filtering, you are no longer a mere conduit or common carrier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449624</id>
	<title>Re:Human Rights?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268389800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I get that various dictatorships and so on around the globe might not care all that much about human rights, but New Zealand was still a democracy last time I checked?</p></div><p>Democracies don't give you good government, they give you the government you deserve.  If the people don't pay attention, the government will be corrupt.  If the people is willing to put up with human rights abuses, the government will be willing also.  If the people are willing to put up with unbalanced budgets and lack of healthcare for some people, the government will be willing to also.  See also slavery in America prior to the civil war.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get that various dictatorships and so on around the globe might not care all that much about human rights , but New Zealand was still a democracy last time I checked ? Democracies do n't give you good government , they give you the government you deserve .
If the people do n't pay attention , the government will be corrupt .
If the people is willing to put up with human rights abuses , the government will be willing also .
If the people are willing to put up with unbalanced budgets and lack of healthcare for some people , the government will be willing to also .
See also slavery in America prior to the civil war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get that various dictatorships and so on around the globe might not care all that much about human rights, but New Zealand was still a democracy last time I checked?Democracies don't give you good government, they give you the government you deserve.
If the people don't pay attention, the government will be corrupt.
If the people is willing to put up with human rights abuses, the government will be willing also.
If the people are willing to put up with unbalanced budgets and lack of healthcare for some people, the government will be willing to also.
See also slavery in America prior to the civil war.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449436</id>
	<title>Two words</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1268386920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Encryption</p><p>Proxies</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EncryptionProxies</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EncryptionProxies</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31453596</id>
	<title>and goodbye to Gropecunt Lane</title>
	<author>axl917</author>
	<datestamp>1268418840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A recent featured article on the Wikipedia, even;</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gropecunt\_Lane" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gropecunt\_Lane</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A recent featured article on the Wikipedia , even ; http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gropecunt \ _Lane [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A recent featured article on the Wikipedia, even;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gropecunt\_Lane [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449876</id>
	<title>Re:NZ 2nd least corrupt government?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268394060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah but that list also puts the UK only at number 11, and even the top number Iceland is kind of dubious when you look at the complete screw up they made with their banks, and their decision to make the choice of fixing the solution between not fulfilling their commitments to repay their international debts, or force their citizens to repay it, rather than, you know, going after the people who ran off with a large portion of the cash. They've not exactly got a great history of honesty in fulfilling their international obligations on fishing and so forth because they also enjoy the money it brings it regardless of the legality of it. Hell, even Sweden is number 6 and look how the RIAA was able to install a puppet judge in their courts, and how their ministers were able to force a police raid at the request of the RIAA on TPB.</p><p>So either the bar for being low on corruption is so low that anyone can simply step over it and still be hailed a hero on the list, or the listing is completely and utterly useless. Sadly, I'm inclined to believe it's probably actually the former, however seeing Canada 3 places behind the UK does make me question that- the idea that Canada is more corrupt than the UK is laughable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah but that list also puts the UK only at number 11 , and even the top number Iceland is kind of dubious when you look at the complete screw up they made with their banks , and their decision to make the choice of fixing the solution between not fulfilling their commitments to repay their international debts , or force their citizens to repay it , rather than , you know , going after the people who ran off with a large portion of the cash .
They 've not exactly got a great history of honesty in fulfilling their international obligations on fishing and so forth because they also enjoy the money it brings it regardless of the legality of it .
Hell , even Sweden is number 6 and look how the RIAA was able to install a puppet judge in their courts , and how their ministers were able to force a police raid at the request of the RIAA on TPB.So either the bar for being low on corruption is so low that anyone can simply step over it and still be hailed a hero on the list , or the listing is completely and utterly useless .
Sadly , I 'm inclined to believe it 's probably actually the former , however seeing Canada 3 places behind the UK does make me question that- the idea that Canada is more corrupt than the UK is laughable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah but that list also puts the UK only at number 11, and even the top number Iceland is kind of dubious when you look at the complete screw up they made with their banks, and their decision to make the choice of fixing the solution between not fulfilling their commitments to repay their international debts, or force their citizens to repay it, rather than, you know, going after the people who ran off with a large portion of the cash.
They've not exactly got a great history of honesty in fulfilling their international obligations on fishing and so forth because they also enjoy the money it brings it regardless of the legality of it.
Hell, even Sweden is number 6 and look how the RIAA was able to install a puppet judge in their courts, and how their ministers were able to force a police raid at the request of the RIAA on TPB.So either the bar for being low on corruption is so low that anyone can simply step over it and still be hailed a hero on the list, or the listing is completely and utterly useless.
Sadly, I'm inclined to believe it's probably actually the former, however seeing Canada 3 places behind the UK does make me question that- the idea that Canada is more corrupt than the UK is laughable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31477754</id>
	<title>Re:Human Rights?</title>
	<author>harryjohnston</author>
	<datestamp>1268583960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was in the local news long ago, but it never got much attention.  Note that while it is true that it is "the government" implementing the filter, it wasn't a political move.  It's something the civil service did on it's own initiative, under existing law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was in the local news long ago , but it never got much attention .
Note that while it is true that it is " the government " implementing the filter , it was n't a political move .
It 's something the civil service did on it 's own initiative , under existing law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was in the local news long ago, but it never got much attention.
Note that while it is true that it is "the government" implementing the filter, it wasn't a political move.
It's something the civil service did on it's own initiative, under existing law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31476846</id>
	<title>Re:Human Rights?</title>
	<author>harryjohnston</author>
	<datestamp>1268576640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't believe the UN, or any government in the world has taken the position that article 19 prohibits the censorship of child pornography.</p><p>If you want to argue that it does, I'll respect that viewpoint, but I don't think NZ is exactly going out on a limb here as far as the UN is concerned.  (They're far more worried that we might not discriminate against the descendants of Europeans thoroughly enough.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe the UN , or any government in the world has taken the position that article 19 prohibits the censorship of child pornography.If you want to argue that it does , I 'll respect that viewpoint , but I do n't think NZ is exactly going out on a limb here as far as the UN is concerned .
( They 're far more worried that we might not discriminate against the descendants of Europeans thoroughly enough .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe the UN, or any government in the world has taken the position that article 19 prohibits the censorship of child pornography.If you want to argue that it does, I'll respect that viewpoint, but I don't think NZ is exactly going out on a limb here as far as the UN is concerned.
(They're far more worried that we might not discriminate against the descendants of Europeans thoroughly enough.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449550</id>
	<title>invasion ? probably yes</title>
	<author>Atreide</author>
	<datestamp>1268388480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"so perhaps the USA will launch an invasion to free the poor downtrodden Kiwis from their own evil government?"</p><p>That is probably true.<br>Since there is rumor CNN might have proof that Bin Laden has been seen there for vacation.</p><p>People also say he is accompagnied by Sadam Hussein and Joseph Stalin.<br>Who are said to have found some oil offshore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" so perhaps the USA will launch an invasion to free the poor downtrodden Kiwis from their own evil government ?
" That is probably true.Since there is rumor CNN might have proof that Bin Laden has been seen there for vacation.People also say he is accompagnied by Sadam Hussein and Joseph Stalin.Who are said to have found some oil offshore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"so perhaps the USA will launch an invasion to free the poor downtrodden Kiwis from their own evil government?
"That is probably true.Since there is rumor CNN might have proof that Bin Laden has been seen there for vacation.People also say he is accompagnied by Sadam Hussein and Joseph Stalin.Who are said to have found some oil offshore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31451674</id>
	<title>Does anyone use these filtered ISPs?</title>
	<author>FatLittleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1268409720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm curious how these filters work. That is, how you can get around them. Everyone shouts "VPNs! Encrypted Proxies!" but do you have to go that far. Are they just names-level filters? Can they be bypassed by manually setting your DNS to google/OpenDNS? Or via a hosts file or directly typing the pinged numerical IP. Do they block http: but not ftp: ?</p><p>Not just the NZ filter. But also the UK and trialled Aust filter. Has anyone had a chance to actually throw rocks at a filtered account?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm curious how these filters work .
That is , how you can get around them .
Everyone shouts " VPNs !
Encrypted Proxies !
" but do you have to go that far .
Are they just names-level filters ?
Can they be bypassed by manually setting your DNS to google/OpenDNS ?
Or via a hosts file or directly typing the pinged numerical IP .
Do they block http : but not ftp : ? Not just the NZ filter .
But also the UK and trialled Aust filter .
Has anyone had a chance to actually throw rocks at a filtered account ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm curious how these filters work.
That is, how you can get around them.
Everyone shouts "VPNs!
Encrypted Proxies!
" but do you have to go that far.
Are they just names-level filters?
Can they be bypassed by manually setting your DNS to google/OpenDNS?
Or via a hosts file or directly typing the pinged numerical IP.
Do they block http: but not ftp: ?Not just the NZ filter.
But also the UK and trialled Aust filter.
Has anyone had a chance to actually throw rocks at a filtered account?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31455674</id>
	<title>Re:Um why</title>
	<author>timnbron</author>
	<datestamp>1268384820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure how that's informative. Might be so in the US, but over here our little government just doesn't have the resources to intervene. The police are more concerned about speeding tickets and methamphetamine labs, the people are more concerned about the price of petrol and some church leader with a shiny car (search for "Brian Tamaki" and "Destiny Church"), and the government is more concerned about how to rebuild half of Auckland after the silly 'modern' building fads of the 90s.</p><p>It's voluntary. And it hasn't even reached the technology page on the NZ Herald yet. Who cares?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure how that 's informative .
Might be so in the US , but over here our little government just does n't have the resources to intervene .
The police are more concerned about speeding tickets and methamphetamine labs , the people are more concerned about the price of petrol and some church leader with a shiny car ( search for " Brian Tamaki " and " Destiny Church " ) , and the government is more concerned about how to rebuild half of Auckland after the silly 'modern ' building fads of the 90s.It 's voluntary .
And it has n't even reached the technology page on the NZ Herald yet .
Who cares ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure how that's informative.
Might be so in the US, but over here our little government just doesn't have the resources to intervene.
The police are more concerned about speeding tickets and methamphetamine labs, the people are more concerned about the price of petrol and some church leader with a shiny car (search for "Brian Tamaki" and "Destiny Church"), and the government is more concerned about how to rebuild half of Auckland after the silly 'modern' building fads of the 90s.It's voluntary.
And it hasn't even reached the technology page on the NZ Herald yet.
Who cares?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450572</id>
	<title>How to annoy the ISPs</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1268402760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the best way to get ISPs to stop being censorship bitches is every time you have connectivity issues, is to call them up and complain your site has probably been caught in the government censorship filter and you can't see any reason why it would  be blocked. Here is hoping that enough complaints of false positives will change things. After all how are you to know whether a site is mearly slashdotted or being blocked?</p><p>Sounds like like you guys really need a pirate party to defend your liberties and in the mean time VPN all your important traffic.</p><p>BTW does the filter support IPv6</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the best way to get ISPs to stop being censorship bitches is every time you have connectivity issues , is to call them up and complain your site has probably been caught in the government censorship filter and you ca n't see any reason why it would be blocked .
Here is hoping that enough complaints of false positives will change things .
After all how are you to know whether a site is mearly slashdotted or being blocked ? Sounds like like you guys really need a pirate party to defend your liberties and in the mean time VPN all your important traffic.BTW does the filter support IPv6</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the best way to get ISPs to stop being censorship bitches is every time you have connectivity issues, is to call them up and complain your site has probably been caught in the government censorship filter and you can't see any reason why it would  be blocked.
Here is hoping that enough complaints of false positives will change things.
After all how are you to know whether a site is mearly slashdotted or being blocked?Sounds like like you guys really need a pirate party to defend your liberties and in the mean time VPN all your important traffic.BTW does the filter support IPv6</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450294</id>
	<title>Re:Um why</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1268400480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aside from the fact that this stuff generally doesn't work at all I'd hazard a guess that you're wrong about pedophiles and their relative degree of laziness.</p><p>Ya see, these are people who do something which is pretty much universally reviled. Even serial killers, drug dealers, murderers, and normal every day run of the mill rapists hate people who do this sort of this to kids. If they were capable of just "jerking off to something else" I reckon they would have. There's plenty of freak porn that won't have your neighbours trying to burn down your house and/or kill you. Terrorists are more popular than these people.</p><p>The corollary of this is of course that the automatic filter is supposed to be targeted at people who are likely to be more careful and paranoid than, as previously stated, terrorists. It would be harder to eliminate child pornography than it is to defeat terrorism, and we can all see what a lovely job the governments are doing at that.</p><p>I'm perfectly happy for them to block child pornography(though I confess that the recent court decisions here in Oz about the old Simpson's cartoons we all saw back in the late 90's are going a bit too far). The problem is that these filters don't work, they're not even particularly good at stopping accidental exposure to this sort of thing let alone deliberate exposure, and they require resources and add a burden to internet connectivity which should not be born for so little benefit. The example I alway give is that even oppressive regimes who have the authority to burst into your house and shoot your for no real reason at all(China, North Korea, Iran) can't actually make them work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from the fact that this stuff generally does n't work at all I 'd hazard a guess that you 're wrong about pedophiles and their relative degree of laziness.Ya see , these are people who do something which is pretty much universally reviled .
Even serial killers , drug dealers , murderers , and normal every day run of the mill rapists hate people who do this sort of this to kids .
If they were capable of just " jerking off to something else " I reckon they would have .
There 's plenty of freak porn that wo n't have your neighbours trying to burn down your house and/or kill you .
Terrorists are more popular than these people.The corollary of this is of course that the automatic filter is supposed to be targeted at people who are likely to be more careful and paranoid than , as previously stated , terrorists .
It would be harder to eliminate child pornography than it is to defeat terrorism , and we can all see what a lovely job the governments are doing at that.I 'm perfectly happy for them to block child pornography ( though I confess that the recent court decisions here in Oz about the old Simpson 's cartoons we all saw back in the late 90 's are going a bit too far ) .
The problem is that these filters do n't work , they 're not even particularly good at stopping accidental exposure to this sort of thing let alone deliberate exposure , and they require resources and add a burden to internet connectivity which should not be born for so little benefit .
The example I alway give is that even oppressive regimes who have the authority to burst into your house and shoot your for no real reason at all ( China , North Korea , Iran ) ca n't actually make them work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from the fact that this stuff generally doesn't work at all I'd hazard a guess that you're wrong about pedophiles and their relative degree of laziness.Ya see, these are people who do something which is pretty much universally reviled.
Even serial killers, drug dealers, murderers, and normal every day run of the mill rapists hate people who do this sort of this to kids.
If they were capable of just "jerking off to something else" I reckon they would have.
There's plenty of freak porn that won't have your neighbours trying to burn down your house and/or kill you.
Terrorists are more popular than these people.The corollary of this is of course that the automatic filter is supposed to be targeted at people who are likely to be more careful and paranoid than, as previously stated, terrorists.
It would be harder to eliminate child pornography than it is to defeat terrorism, and we can all see what a lovely job the governments are doing at that.I'm perfectly happy for them to block child pornography(though I confess that the recent court decisions here in Oz about the old Simpson's cartoons we all saw back in the late 90's are going a bit too far).
The problem is that these filters don't work, they're not even particularly good at stopping accidental exposure to this sort of thing let alone deliberate exposure, and they require resources and add a burden to internet connectivity which should not be born for so little benefit.
The example I alway give is that even oppressive regimes who have the authority to burst into your house and shoot your for no real reason at all(China, North Korea, Iran) can't actually make them work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31457894</id>
	<title>Good timing, by the way.</title>
	<author>timnbron</author>
	<datestamp>1268393880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good timing Slashdot. You posted this at 9:30pm NZ time. It's already off the front page. Now nobody will know...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good timing Slashdot .
You posted this at 9 : 30pm NZ time .
It 's already off the front page .
Now nobody will know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good timing Slashdot.
You posted this at 9:30pm NZ time.
It's already off the front page.
Now nobody will know...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31453936</id>
	<title>Progressives</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1268420340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come now, Hillary... that's not very <i>progressive</i> of you.  Government knows best, right?  Or do you even like telling other countries what to do?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come now , Hillary... that 's not very progressive of you .
Government knows best , right ?
Or do you even like telling other countries what to do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come now, Hillary... that's not very progressive of you.
Government knows best, right?
Or do you even like telling other countries what to do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449644</id>
	<title>We'd be happy to help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268390100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"so perhaps the USA will launch an invasion to free the poor downtrodden Kiwis from their own evil government?"</p><p>The USA would be more than happy to overthrow your government for you and install a dictator friendly to our interests. We can also free you from your public health care system and bring in a less efficient private system that will only cost you 2X as much. We will though commit to spending billions to rebuild your country after our war of words. And finally the issue at hand. We promise to bring you the same great internet service that we have in the USA. If you haven't experienced dial up before you're in for a treat!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" so perhaps the USA will launch an invasion to free the poor downtrodden Kiwis from their own evil government ?
" The USA would be more than happy to overthrow your government for you and install a dictator friendly to our interests .
We can also free you from your public health care system and bring in a less efficient private system that will only cost you 2X as much .
We will though commit to spending billions to rebuild your country after our war of words .
And finally the issue at hand .
We promise to bring you the same great internet service that we have in the USA .
If you have n't experienced dial up before you 're in for a treat !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"so perhaps the USA will launch an invasion to free the poor downtrodden Kiwis from their own evil government?
"The USA would be more than happy to overthrow your government for you and install a dictator friendly to our interests.
We can also free you from your public health care system and bring in a less efficient private system that will only cost you 2X as much.
We will though commit to spending billions to rebuild your country after our war of words.
And finally the issue at hand.
We promise to bring you the same great internet service that we have in the USA.
If you haven't experienced dial up before you're in for a treat!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31452796</id>
	<title>a billion sheep twitter each other</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1268415000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That image went through my head.
<br>
I wonder what they say.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That image went through my head .
I wonder what they say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That image went through my head.
I wonder what they say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31454158</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone use these filtered ISPs?</title>
	<author>BeagleBoi</author>
	<datestamp>1268421300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NZ filter works by collecting a list of banned websites.</p><p>The websites addresses are converted to IP.</p><p>These IPs are advertised to the ISPs via BGP.</p><p>The ISPs divert all traffic for that IP to the government filter server.</p><p>The government filter server examines the request against the list of banned websites, and decides whether to forward or block. Only HTTP is examined, everything else is forwarded.</p><p>So, you can't get around it via DNS tricks.</p><p>More details: <a href="http://techliberty.org.nz/issues/internet-filtering/filtering-technical-faq/" title="techliberty.org.nz">http://techliberty.org.nz/issues/internet-filtering/filtering-technical-faq/</a> [techliberty.org.nz]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NZ filter works by collecting a list of banned websites.The websites addresses are converted to IP.These IPs are advertised to the ISPs via BGP.The ISPs divert all traffic for that IP to the government filter server.The government filter server examines the request against the list of banned websites , and decides whether to forward or block .
Only HTTP is examined , everything else is forwarded.So , you ca n't get around it via DNS tricks.More details : http : //techliberty.org.nz/issues/internet-filtering/filtering-technical-faq/ [ techliberty.org.nz ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NZ filter works by collecting a list of banned websites.The websites addresses are converted to IP.These IPs are advertised to the ISPs via BGP.The ISPs divert all traffic for that IP to the government filter server.The government filter server examines the request against the list of banned websites, and decides whether to forward or block.
Only HTTP is examined, everything else is forwarded.So, you can't get around it via DNS tricks.More details: http://techliberty.org.nz/issues/internet-filtering/filtering-technical-faq/ [techliberty.org.nz]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31451674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450040</id>
	<title>Re:Human Rights?</title>
	<author>t0p</author>
	<datestamp>1268397900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights dates from 1948.  I think the authorities would say the internet was not taken into account back then.

Anyway, the USA signed up to that as well, and they are probably the greatest violator of human rights in the Northern hemisphere.  So I think that old document is rather irrelevant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights dates from 1948 .
I think the authorities would say the internet was not taken into account back then .
Anyway , the USA signed up to that as well , and they are probably the greatest violator of human rights in the Northern hemisphere .
So I think that old document is rather irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights dates from 1948.
I think the authorities would say the internet was not taken into account back then.
Anyway, the USA signed up to that as well, and they are probably the greatest violator of human rights in the Northern hemisphere.
So I think that old document is rather irrelevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449728</id>
	<title>Re:It's just stupidity and ignorance of technology</title>
	<author>Volguus Zildrohar</author>
	<datestamp>1268391420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, a lot of our stupidity results from our proximity to Australia.  It's like trying not to have the volume too loud when you're living beside the airport.</p><p>(It's a friendly rivalry, really)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , a lot of our stupidity results from our proximity to Australia .
It 's like trying not to have the volume too loud when you 're living beside the airport .
( It 's a friendly rivalry , really )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, a lot of our stupidity results from our proximity to Australia.
It's like trying not to have the volume too loud when you're living beside the airport.
(It's a friendly rivalry, really)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31455342</id>
	<title>Watchdog</title>
	<author>timnbron</author>
	<datestamp>1268426640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Watchdog has positioned themselves as filtering specialists. They always have. That's why they call themselves "Watchdog". Parental control is their biggest selling point.</p><p>Funny though, their logo is a duck. Never worked that one out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Watchdog has positioned themselves as filtering specialists .
They always have .
That 's why they call themselves " Watchdog " .
Parental control is their biggest selling point.Funny though , their logo is a duck .
Never worked that one out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watchdog has positioned themselves as filtering specialists.
They always have.
That's why they call themselves "Watchdog".
Parental control is their biggest selling point.Funny though, their logo is a duck.
Never worked that one out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449704</id>
	<title>Don't forget us brits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268391000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And don't forget us <a href="http://www.iwf.org.uk/" title="iwf.org.uk" rel="nofollow">brits</a> [iwf.org.uk] too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And do n't forget us brits [ iwf.org.uk ] too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And don't forget us brits [iwf.org.uk] too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31455864</id>
	<title>Re:NZ Filtering FAQ</title>
	<author>Petrushka</author>
	<datestamp>1268385600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://thomasbeagle.net/2009/07/17/but-which-isps/" title="thomasbeagle.net">Also important:</a> [thomasbeagle.net] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>ISPs that will implement the DIA filter<br>
    * Vodafone/Ihug<br>
    * TelstraClear<br>
    * Maxnet</p><p>ISPs that won&rsquo;t implement the DIA filter<br>
    * Orcon<br>
    * Natcom<br>
    * Callplus/Slingshot</p><p>ISPs that will offer filtered and unfiltered feeds<br>
    * Snap</p><p>ISPs on the fence<br>
    * Telecom/Xtra<br>
    * World Exchange (WxC)<br>
    * WIC</p></div><p>Numerous ISPs unaccounted for there, but I've been meaning to move away from TelstraClear ever since I first found out about this. I'm fairly deeply ashamed that I haven't already.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also important : [ thomasbeagle.net ] ISPs that will implement the DIA filter * Vodafone/Ihug * TelstraClear * MaxnetISPs that won    t implement the DIA filter * Orcon * Natcom * Callplus/SlingshotISPs that will offer filtered and unfiltered feeds * SnapISPs on the fence * Telecom/Xtra * World Exchange ( WxC ) * WICNumerous ISPs unaccounted for there , but I 've been meaning to move away from TelstraClear ever since I first found out about this .
I 'm fairly deeply ashamed that I have n't already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Also important: [thomasbeagle.net] ISPs that will implement the DIA filter
    * Vodafone/Ihug
    * TelstraClear
    * MaxnetISPs that won’t implement the DIA filter
    * Orcon
    * Natcom
    * Callplus/SlingshotISPs that will offer filtered and unfiltered feeds
    * SnapISPs on the fence
    * Telecom/Xtra
    * World Exchange (WxC)
    * WICNumerous ISPs unaccounted for there, but I've been meaning to move away from TelstraClear ever since I first found out about this.
I'm fairly deeply ashamed that I haven't already.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31453286</id>
	<title>Insanity</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1268417520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Christian certainty that theirs is the only morality and their certainty that we all really want to be moral by their standards drives them to commit atrocities that they would rail against if it were perpetrated by another religion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Christian certainty that theirs is the only morality and their certainty that we all really want to be moral by their standards drives them to commit atrocities that they would rail against if it were perpetrated by another religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Christian certainty that theirs is the only morality and their certainty that we all really want to be moral by their standards drives them to commit atrocities that they would rail against if it were perpetrated by another religion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450566</id>
	<title>Filtering NEVER works</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1268402700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that I support Child Pornography but I have seen many filtering systems over the years and NONE of them (including the one proposed for Australia or the one that seems to be being used in New Zealand) are going to stop someone who wants to find Child Pornography.</p><p>No filtering system that I have seen even attempts to block the kinds of encrypted p2p networks used by many child pornographers.</p><p>The right solution to child porn is to go after the people who are taking these pornographic photographs of kids in the first place and lock them up in a Gulag, Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison, Jail, Camp or whatever the appropriate correctional institution may be. If you cant do that because its not illegal in the country they happen to reside in, extradite them to a country where it is illegal and pressure the government of the country where its not illegal to make it illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I support Child Pornography but I have seen many filtering systems over the years and NONE of them ( including the one proposed for Australia or the one that seems to be being used in New Zealand ) are going to stop someone who wants to find Child Pornography.No filtering system that I have seen even attempts to block the kinds of encrypted p2p networks used by many child pornographers.The right solution to child porn is to go after the people who are taking these pornographic photographs of kids in the first place and lock them up in a Gulag , Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison , Jail , Camp or whatever the appropriate correctional institution may be .
If you cant do that because its not illegal in the country they happen to reside in , extradite them to a country where it is illegal and pressure the government of the country where its not illegal to make it illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I support Child Pornography but I have seen many filtering systems over the years and NONE of them (including the one proposed for Australia or the one that seems to be being used in New Zealand) are going to stop someone who wants to find Child Pornography.No filtering system that I have seen even attempts to block the kinds of encrypted p2p networks used by many child pornographers.The right solution to child porn is to go after the people who are taking these pornographic photographs of kids in the first place and lock them up in a Gulag, Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison, Jail, Camp or whatever the appropriate correctional institution may be.
If you cant do that because its not illegal in the country they happen to reside in, extradite them to a country where it is illegal and pressure the government of the country where its not illegal to make it illegal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31452992</id>
	<title>Re:Filtering NEVER works</title>
	<author>JesseMcDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1268416080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you cant do that because its not illegal in the country they happen to reside in, extradite them to a country where it is illegal...</p></div><p>Extradition treaties generally only cover actions which are illegal in <em>both</em> jurisdictions, for which you should be grateful. Just consider some of the more oppressive regimes you've heard of, and whether you'd care to be extradited to their jurisdiction to be tried for actions which aren't illegal in your home country.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you cant do that because its not illegal in the country they happen to reside in , extradite them to a country where it is illegal...Extradition treaties generally only cover actions which are illegal in both jurisdictions , for which you should be grateful .
Just consider some of the more oppressive regimes you 've heard of , and whether you 'd care to be extradited to their jurisdiction to be tried for actions which are n't illegal in your home country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you cant do that because its not illegal in the country they happen to reside in, extradite them to a country where it is illegal...Extradition treaties generally only cover actions which are illegal in both jurisdictions, for which you should be grateful.
Just consider some of the more oppressive regimes you've heard of, and whether you'd care to be extradited to their jurisdiction to be tried for actions which aren't illegal in your home country.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450384</id>
	<title>Re:Like many fads,</title>
	<author>ZeroExistenZ</author>
	<datestamp>1268401440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>internet censorship too will never last.</p></div></blockquote><p>It might last, but it wont take long before people find other ways to do the things they want to do. it's always been like this. All it takes is enough people adjusting to it, it spreading and becoming more convenient until it raises brows enough to slap it down.</p><p>And then, the next alternative will sprout up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>internet censorship too will never last.It might last , but it wont take long before people find other ways to do the things they want to do .
it 's always been like this .
All it takes is enough people adjusting to it , it spreading and becoming more convenient until it raises brows enough to slap it down.And then , the next alternative will sprout up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>internet censorship too will never last.It might last, but it wont take long before people find other ways to do the things they want to do.
it's always been like this.
All it takes is enough people adjusting to it, it spreading and becoming more convenient until it raises brows enough to slap it down.And then, the next alternative will sprout up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449432</id>
	<title>Like many fads,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268386740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>internet censorship too will never last.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>internet censorship too will never last .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>internet censorship too will never last.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450250</id>
	<title>Re:Don't forget us brits</title>
	<author>t0p</author>
	<datestamp>1268399940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, you may be surprised to learn that various ISPs in the UK have been taking part in a voluntary filtering scheme since 1996.

The Internet Watch Foundation is a "non-governmental charitable body" that "operates in informal partnership with the police, government, public and Internet service providers" (from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet\_Watch\_Foundation" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org]).  So there's no legal standing to what it does.  What's more, it compiles a black-list of sites whose content the IWF considers is <i>potentially</i> illegal, and ISPs block the sites accordingly.  So sites get blocked if the IWF thinks they <i>might</i> be illegal.  This has resulted in cases like when <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet\_Watch\_Foundation\_and\_Wikipedia" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia was blocked in 2008</a> [wikipedia.org].  Internetarchive.org was also blocked in the past.  Similarly to the NZ filter, IWF does not inform sites that they have been blacklisted, nor does it make its list available to the public.

So IWF has nothing to do (officially) with government or law enforcement, yet it is part publicly funded (through national government and EU grants), and an awful lot of UK citizens find their internet access is filtered according to its list.  Who needs official censorship when you've got a voluntary system like this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , you may be surprised to learn that various ISPs in the UK have been taking part in a voluntary filtering scheme since 1996 .
The Internet Watch Foundation is a " non-governmental charitable body " that " operates in informal partnership with the police , government , public and Internet service providers " ( from Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
So there 's no legal standing to what it does .
What 's more , it compiles a black-list of sites whose content the IWF considers is potentially illegal , and ISPs block the sites accordingly .
So sites get blocked if the IWF thinks they might be illegal .
This has resulted in cases like when Wikipedia was blocked in 2008 [ wikipedia.org ] .
Internetarchive.org was also blocked in the past .
Similarly to the NZ filter , IWF does not inform sites that they have been blacklisted , nor does it make its list available to the public .
So IWF has nothing to do ( officially ) with government or law enforcement , yet it is part publicly funded ( through national government and EU grants ) , and an awful lot of UK citizens find their internet access is filtered according to its list .
Who needs official censorship when you 've got a voluntary system like this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, you may be surprised to learn that various ISPs in the UK have been taking part in a voluntary filtering scheme since 1996.
The Internet Watch Foundation is a "non-governmental charitable body" that "operates in informal partnership with the police, government, public and Internet service providers" (from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]).
So there's no legal standing to what it does.
What's more, it compiles a black-list of sites whose content the IWF considers is potentially illegal, and ISPs block the sites accordingly.
So sites get blocked if the IWF thinks they might be illegal.
This has resulted in cases like when Wikipedia was blocked in 2008 [wikipedia.org].
Internetarchive.org was also blocked in the past.
Similarly to the NZ filter, IWF does not inform sites that they have been blacklisted, nor does it make its list available to the public.
So IWF has nothing to do (officially) with government or law enforcement, yet it is part publicly funded (through national government and EU grants), and an awful lot of UK citizens find their internet access is filtered according to its list.
Who needs official censorship when you've got a voluntary system like this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31451262</id>
	<title>Re:Don't forget us brits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268407500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://fantbooks.ru/" title="fantbooks.ru" rel="nofollow">Really this is fantastic article</a> [fantbooks.ru]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really this is fantastic article [ fantbooks.ru ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really this is fantastic article [fantbooks.ru]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449544</id>
	<title>question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268388360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is there an asshats tag?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is there an asshats tag ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is there an asshats tag?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31457226</id>
	<title>Re:How to annoy the ISPs</title>
	<author>kickme\_hax0r</author>
	<datestamp>1268391060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After all how are you to know whether a site is mearly slashdotted or being blocked?</p></div><p>From the FAQ: </p><p><div class="quote"><p> The request is diverted to the filter server which sees that the URL is banned and an &ldquo;Access is refused&rdquo; page is returned. The internet address of the requesting computer is logged.</p></div><p>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After all how are you to know whether a site is mearly slashdotted or being blocked ? From the FAQ : The request is diverted to the filter server which sees that the URL is banned and an    Access is refused    page is returned .
The internet address of the requesting computer is logged. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all how are you to know whether a site is mearly slashdotted or being blocked?From the FAQ:  The request is diverted to the filter server which sees that the URL is banned and an “Access is refused” page is returned.
The internet address of the requesting computer is logged..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31452458</id>
	<title>Re:circumvent to destabilize</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268413320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad someone mentioned this.</p><p>As a tiny country, we've been given the raw end of trade deals with a lot of countries, and as a result NZ is trying to boost its economy by free trade agreements.<br>We signed one with china last year, that saw out exports to that country explode as a result.<br>China was also being 'nice' to us, since we were one of the few countries that would trade with their government, what with their human rights record being in the bin. We got a fair bit of flack over the trade treaty both locally and international.<br>Still our exports are way up as a result, and it looks to have been a good deal. As they are now a larger export destitation then the US is.</p><p>The US on the other hand, we've been trying to get a free trade agreement for decades.<br>The US on the whole really doesn't care very much for our country.<br>When we introduced a nuclear free zone, preventing any cargo or nuclear powered ships from entering our international waters, we seriously pissed off the US, as most of their navy is nuclear powered.<br>The result was that america turned their backs on us and snubbed us.<br>About 40 years later and the US goverment is only slightly starting to warm up to us, and they go and have a war with iraq, with the bold statement "Your either with us, or against us". Well our little country after having our Prime Minister being breifed with their top secret classified information, decided that there wasn't grounds for war and didn't send any troops to the invasion. (we've sent troops to help rebuild in afghastan however)<br>Cold shoulder treatment again.<br>And fastforward to now, when the US goverment has with last years trade talks, basicly told us that the offer is still on the table, but were not going to look at it just yet.<br>Now the US has told us in between the lines ways, that the trade agreement won't happen until we put in the 3 strike rules. In fact they are likely to start killing off our trade unless we do.<br>Frankly after putting up with their shit for so long, i'd love to tell the US to go fuck themselves and play their politics game elsewhere. Trying to trade with them is like bending over backwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad someone mentioned this.As a tiny country , we 've been given the raw end of trade deals with a lot of countries , and as a result NZ is trying to boost its economy by free trade agreements.We signed one with china last year , that saw out exports to that country explode as a result.China was also being 'nice ' to us , since we were one of the few countries that would trade with their government , what with their human rights record being in the bin .
We got a fair bit of flack over the trade treaty both locally and international.Still our exports are way up as a result , and it looks to have been a good deal .
As they are now a larger export destitation then the US is.The US on the other hand , we 've been trying to get a free trade agreement for decades.The US on the whole really does n't care very much for our country.When we introduced a nuclear free zone , preventing any cargo or nuclear powered ships from entering our international waters , we seriously pissed off the US , as most of their navy is nuclear powered.The result was that america turned their backs on us and snubbed us.About 40 years later and the US goverment is only slightly starting to warm up to us , and they go and have a war with iraq , with the bold statement " Your either with us , or against us " .
Well our little country after having our Prime Minister being breifed with their top secret classified information , decided that there was n't grounds for war and did n't send any troops to the invasion .
( we 've sent troops to help rebuild in afghastan however ) Cold shoulder treatment again.And fastforward to now , when the US goverment has with last years trade talks , basicly told us that the offer is still on the table , but were not going to look at it just yet.Now the US has told us in between the lines ways , that the trade agreement wo n't happen until we put in the 3 strike rules .
In fact they are likely to start killing off our trade unless we do.Frankly after putting up with their shit for so long , i 'd love to tell the US to go fuck themselves and play their politics game elsewhere .
Trying to trade with them is like bending over backwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad someone mentioned this.As a tiny country, we've been given the raw end of trade deals with a lot of countries, and as a result NZ is trying to boost its economy by free trade agreements.We signed one with china last year, that saw out exports to that country explode as a result.China was also being 'nice' to us, since we were one of the few countries that would trade with their government, what with their human rights record being in the bin.
We got a fair bit of flack over the trade treaty both locally and international.Still our exports are way up as a result, and it looks to have been a good deal.
As they are now a larger export destitation then the US is.The US on the other hand, we've been trying to get a free trade agreement for decades.The US on the whole really doesn't care very much for our country.When we introduced a nuclear free zone, preventing any cargo or nuclear powered ships from entering our international waters, we seriously pissed off the US, as most of their navy is nuclear powered.The result was that america turned their backs on us and snubbed us.About 40 years later and the US goverment is only slightly starting to warm up to us, and they go and have a war with iraq, with the bold statement "Your either with us, or against us".
Well our little country after having our Prime Minister being breifed with their top secret classified information, decided that there wasn't grounds for war and didn't send any troops to the invasion.
(we've sent troops to help rebuild in afghastan however)Cold shoulder treatment again.And fastforward to now, when the US goverment has with last years trade talks, basicly told us that the offer is still on the table, but were not going to look at it just yet.Now the US has told us in between the lines ways, that the trade agreement won't happen until we put in the 3 strike rules.
In fact they are likely to start killing off our trade unless we do.Frankly after putting up with their shit for so long, i'd love to tell the US to go fuck themselves and play their politics game elsewhere.
Trying to trade with them is like bending over backwards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449694</id>
	<title>NZ ISP experience</title>
	<author>DigMarx</author>
	<datestamp>1268390880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having recently moved to NZ, I'm still not used to having a 25 gig/month data cap, but at least my ISP (Slingshot) has taken a stance against the filter. We'll see how long that lasts. Having dealt with numerous account issues (overcharges, undercharges, VoIP issues, you name it) in the two months I've had it, I have a pretty dim view of their professionalism. At least I can reach an actual human being in customer service. They're usually quite polite and helpful (I make it a point to be also). Gotta give them kudos for that, at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having recently moved to NZ , I 'm still not used to having a 25 gig/month data cap , but at least my ISP ( Slingshot ) has taken a stance against the filter .
We 'll see how long that lasts .
Having dealt with numerous account issues ( overcharges , undercharges , VoIP issues , you name it ) in the two months I 've had it , I have a pretty dim view of their professionalism .
At least I can reach an actual human being in customer service .
They 're usually quite polite and helpful ( I make it a point to be also ) .
Got ta give them kudos for that , at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having recently moved to NZ, I'm still not used to having a 25 gig/month data cap, but at least my ISP (Slingshot) has taken a stance against the filter.
We'll see how long that lasts.
Having dealt with numerous account issues (overcharges, undercharges, VoIP issues, you name it) in the two months I've had it, I have a pretty dim view of their professionalism.
At least I can reach an actual human being in customer service.
They're usually quite polite and helpful (I make it a point to be also).
Gotta give them kudos for that, at least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449534</id>
	<title>NZ Filtering FAQ</title>
	<author>BeagleBoi</author>
	<datestamp>1268388180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to know more about it, check the NZ Internet Filtering FAQ at: <a href="http://techliberty.org.nz/issues/internet-filtering/filtering-faq/" title="techliberty.org.nz" rel="nofollow">http://techliberty.org.nz/issues/internet-filtering/filtering-faq/</a> [techliberty.org.nz]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to know more about it , check the NZ Internet Filtering FAQ at : http : //techliberty.org.nz/issues/internet-filtering/filtering-faq/ [ techliberty.org.nz ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to know more about it, check the NZ Internet Filtering FAQ at: http://techliberty.org.nz/issues/internet-filtering/filtering-faq/ [techliberty.org.nz]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31454822</id>
	<title>Re:NZ ISP experience</title>
	<author>samboneym</author>
	<datestamp>1268424480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mate, try Orcon. They're a little more expensive but the connection is rock solid, you do actually get the speed you pay for and they actually have technically competent support staff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mate , try Orcon .
They 're a little more expensive but the connection is rock solid , you do actually get the speed you pay for and they actually have technically competent support staff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mate, try Orcon.
They're a little more expensive but the connection is rock solid, you do actually get the speed you pay for and they actually have technically competent support staff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449670</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>exallon</author>
	<datestamp>1268390520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It keeps amazing me that the governments of the "free" world does everything they can do stop internet freedom.

It would also be very interesting to know who decides and on what grounds a site should be filtered on. Also what kind of filtering, http? smtp? p2p? msn? twitter? Facebook? youtube?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It keeps amazing me that the governments of the " free " world does everything they can do stop internet freedom .
It would also be very interesting to know who decides and on what grounds a site should be filtered on .
Also what kind of filtering , http ?
smtp ? p2p ?
msn ? twitter ?
Facebook ? youtube ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It keeps amazing me that the governments of the "free" world does everything they can do stop internet freedom.
It would also be very interesting to know who decides and on what grounds a site should be filtered on.
Also what kind of filtering, http?
smtp? p2p?
msn? twitter?
Facebook? youtube?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449702</id>
	<title>Re:NZ Filtering FAQ</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1268391000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone should read this.</p><blockquote><div><p>The scheme is currently voluntary for the ISPs (Internet Service Providers) as there is no law to force them to use it.<br><b>How does the filtering work?</b></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. A list of banned sites and their internet addresses is maintained by the Department of Internal Affairs.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. The DIA then use a routing protocol to tell the participating ISPs (Internet Service Providers) that the &lsquo;best&rsquo; way to the internet address of the banned site&rsquo;s web server is through the DIA&rsquo;s filtering server.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3. When a person tries to access a site (banned or not) on one of the filtered addresses, their ISP knows to divert the request to the DIA&rsquo;s server.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4. The DIA&rsquo;s filtering server then looks at the request. If it is to a banned site, the request is refused and a message is sent back to the person. If it is to a non-banned site, the DIA&rsquo;s filtering server passes the request on to the real server through the DIA&rsquo;s internet connection.</p><p><b>Does the filtering work with HTTPS (secure HTTP)?</b></p><p>HTTPS (secure HTTP) is used for security on sites that need it for services such as internet banking and online shopping.</p><p>HTTPS requests can&rsquo;t be examined by the filter server (because they use encryption for the security). This means that all HTTPS traffic to an internet address that has any banned content (possibly for a completely different website) will be passed through the filter.</p><p><b>Does the internet filter only apply to web browsing or does it apply to other traffic as well?</b></p><p>All traffic (web, email, P2P, etc) for a filtered internet address will be forwarded to the DIA&rsquo;s server.</p><p>All non-web Internet traffic will be forwarded through the filter to the destination site.</p><p><b>What type of material is censored?</b></p><p>The trial scheme was used to filter child pornography including video, photos, and text articles. Other illegal material (as defined by New Zealand law) is <b>not filtered</b>.</p><p><b>Can other types of material be censored in the future?</b></p><p>There is no technical reason why the same technology could not be extended to block websites with other types of content.</p><p>Apparently the NetClean software is contractually restricted to only being used to block child pornography.</p></div></blockquote><p>So far, so good.</p><p>But these are bad:</p><blockquote><div><p> <b>Is it possible to check whether a website is on the filtered list?</b></p><p>The only way to check whether the website is filtered is by attempting to access it.<br><b>If a website is filtered is it possible to find out why?</b></p><p>No.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone should read this.The scheme is currently voluntary for the ISPs ( Internet Service Providers ) as there is no law to force them to use it.How does the filtering work ?
      1 .
A list of banned sites and their internet addresses is maintained by the Department of Internal Affairs .
      2 .
The DIA then use a routing protocol to tell the participating ISPs ( Internet Service Providers ) that the    best    way to the internet address of the banned site    s web server is through the DIA    s filtering server .
      3 .
When a person tries to access a site ( banned or not ) on one of the filtered addresses , their ISP knows to divert the request to the DIA    s server .
      4 .
The DIA    s filtering server then looks at the request .
If it is to a banned site , the request is refused and a message is sent back to the person .
If it is to a non-banned site , the DIA    s filtering server passes the request on to the real server through the DIA    s internet connection.Does the filtering work with HTTPS ( secure HTTP ) ? HTTPS ( secure HTTP ) is used for security on sites that need it for services such as internet banking and online shopping.HTTPS requests can    t be examined by the filter server ( because they use encryption for the security ) .
This means that all HTTPS traffic to an internet address that has any banned content ( possibly for a completely different website ) will be passed through the filter.Does the internet filter only apply to web browsing or does it apply to other traffic as well ? All traffic ( web , email , P2P , etc ) for a filtered internet address will be forwarded to the DIA    s server.All non-web Internet traffic will be forwarded through the filter to the destination site.What type of material is censored ? The trial scheme was used to filter child pornography including video , photos , and text articles .
Other illegal material ( as defined by New Zealand law ) is not filtered.Can other types of material be censored in the future ? There is no technical reason why the same technology could not be extended to block websites with other types of content.Apparently the NetClean software is contractually restricted to only being used to block child pornography.So far , so good.But these are bad : Is it possible to check whether a website is on the filtered list ? The only way to check whether the website is filtered is by attempting to access it.If a website is filtered is it possible to find out why ? No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone should read this.The scheme is currently voluntary for the ISPs (Internet Service Providers) as there is no law to force them to use it.How does the filtering work?
      1.
A list of banned sites and their internet addresses is maintained by the Department of Internal Affairs.
      2.
The DIA then use a routing protocol to tell the participating ISPs (Internet Service Providers) that the ‘best’ way to the internet address of the banned site’s web server is through the DIA’s filtering server.
      3.
When a person tries to access a site (banned or not) on one of the filtered addresses, their ISP knows to divert the request to the DIA’s server.
      4.
The DIA’s filtering server then looks at the request.
If it is to a banned site, the request is refused and a message is sent back to the person.
If it is to a non-banned site, the DIA’s filtering server passes the request on to the real server through the DIA’s internet connection.Does the filtering work with HTTPS (secure HTTP)?HTTPS (secure HTTP) is used for security on sites that need it for services such as internet banking and online shopping.HTTPS requests can’t be examined by the filter server (because they use encryption for the security).
This means that all HTTPS traffic to an internet address that has any banned content (possibly for a completely different website) will be passed through the filter.Does the internet filter only apply to web browsing or does it apply to other traffic as well?All traffic (web, email, P2P, etc) for a filtered internet address will be forwarded to the DIA’s server.All non-web Internet traffic will be forwarded through the filter to the destination site.What type of material is censored?The trial scheme was used to filter child pornography including video, photos, and text articles.
Other illegal material (as defined by New Zealand law) is not filtered.Can other types of material be censored in the future?There is no technical reason why the same technology could not be extended to block websites with other types of content.Apparently the NetClean software is contractually restricted to only being used to block child pornography.So far, so good.But these are bad: Is it possible to check whether a website is on the filtered list?The only way to check whether the website is filtered is by attempting to access it.If a website is filtered is it possible to find out why?No.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31463134</id>
	<title>A modest proposal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268485200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A well-distributed botnet, with fast flux DNS switching, could be turned into a pretty good replacement for freenet, and an efficient way past these filters.  Somebody with a botnet could sell such a service.</p><p>There are several problems with trust.  One is how to trust the owner with your credit card details.  CCBill maybe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A well-distributed botnet , with fast flux DNS switching , could be turned into a pretty good replacement for freenet , and an efficient way past these filters .
Somebody with a botnet could sell such a service.There are several problems with trust .
One is how to trust the owner with your credit card details .
CCBill maybe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A well-distributed botnet, with fast flux DNS switching, could be turned into a pretty good replacement for freenet, and an efficient way past these filters.
Somebody with a botnet could sell such a service.There are several problems with trust.
One is how to trust the owner with your credit card details.
CCBill maybe?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449456</id>
	<title>circumvent to destabilize</title>
	<author>FriendlyLurker</author>
	<datestamp>1268387040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is apparently 'committed to helping people to circumvent government internet filtering,'</p> </div><p>You might have got that a bit confuzed: US only circumvents in the case of the Cuba's, Iran's etc of the world - it helps destabilize our enemies.  For everyone else like NZ, <a href="http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/reports-and-publications/archives/2008/2008-special-301-report" title="ustr.gov">WE are committed</a> [ustr.gov] to forcing <a href="http://www.iipa.com/countryreports.html" title="iipa.com">the world</a> [iipa.com] to filter as conditions on our trade treaties. (in this case, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (<a href="http://www.iipa.com/pdf/IIPANoticeofRequesttoTestifyandOralTestimonyonProposedTransPacFTA022509.pdf" title="iipa.com">TPP FTA</a> [iipa.com]) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is apparently 'committed to helping people to circumvent government internet filtering, ' You might have got that a bit confuzed : US only circumvents in the case of the Cuba 's , Iran 's etc of the world - it helps destabilize our enemies .
For everyone else like NZ , WE are committed [ ustr.gov ] to forcing the world [ iipa.com ] to filter as conditions on our trade treaties .
( in this case , the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement ( TPP FTA [ iipa.com ] ) with Singapore , Chile , New Zealand , Brunei Darussalam , Australia , Peru and Vietnam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is apparently 'committed to helping people to circumvent government internet filtering,' You might have got that a bit confuzed: US only circumvents in the case of the Cuba's, Iran's etc of the world - it helps destabilize our enemies.
For everyone else like NZ, WE are committed [ustr.gov] to forcing the world [iipa.com] to filter as conditions on our trade treaties.
(in this case, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA [iipa.com]) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449504</id>
	<title>Re:Um why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268387760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not voluntary.</p><p>If they don't their government will intervene.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not voluntary.If they do n't their government will intervene .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not voluntary.If they don't their government will intervene.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450224</id>
	<title>Re:NZ Filtering FAQ</title>
	<author>FrozenGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1268399640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So perhaps this is a good reason to encourage everyone to convert their web sites to HTTPS only?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So perhaps this is a good reason to encourage everyone to convert their web sites to HTTPS only ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So perhaps this is a good reason to encourage everyone to convert their web sites to HTTPS only?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449430</id>
	<title>Um why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268386680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would an ISP implement a filter voluntarily?<br>Unless this is a filter designed to reduce bandwidth use (Torrents, P2P) I truly don't understand the logic here.</p><p>I did RFTA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would an ISP implement a filter voluntarily ? Unless this is a filter designed to reduce bandwidth use ( Torrents , P2P ) I truly do n't understand the logic here.I did RFTA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would an ISP implement a filter voluntarily?Unless this is a filter designed to reduce bandwidth use (Torrents, P2P) I truly don't understand the logic here.I did RFTA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450098</id>
	<title>Re:NZ 2nd least corrupt government?!</title>
	<author>geezer nerd</author>
	<datestamp>1268398440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And how does this discussion relate to government corruption? Not at all that I can see.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how does this discussion relate to government corruption ?
Not at all that I can see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how does this discussion relate to government corruption?
Not at all that I can see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449566</id>
	<title>It's just stupidity and ignorance of technology.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268388720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>New Zealand is a country of <a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nz.html" title="cia.gov" rel="nofollow">4 million people</a> [cia.gov] and 60 million sheep. No, I mean actual sheep.

<br> <br>There was a site about New Zealand called <a href="http://www.owensworld.com/funnyimages/view-1127.htm" title="owensworld.com" rel="nofollow">Adult Sheep Finder</a> [owensworld.com]. I notice that it has been shut down, but that image shows how it looked.

<br> <br> <i>"Why would an ISP implement a filter voluntarily?"</i>

<br> <br>A lot of stupid things happen in the government of New Zealand. However, they have not been stupid enough to invade Iraq, so they don't qualify as being <i>really</i> stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>New Zealand is a country of 4 million people [ cia.gov ] and 60 million sheep .
No , I mean actual sheep .
There was a site about New Zealand called Adult Sheep Finder [ owensworld.com ] .
I notice that it has been shut down , but that image shows how it looked .
" Why would an ISP implement a filter voluntarily ?
" A lot of stupid things happen in the government of New Zealand .
However , they have not been stupid enough to invade Iraq , so they do n't qualify as being really stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New Zealand is a country of 4 million people [cia.gov] and 60 million sheep.
No, I mean actual sheep.
There was a site about New Zealand called Adult Sheep Finder [owensworld.com].
I notice that it has been shut down, but that image shows how it looked.
"Why would an ISP implement a filter voluntarily?
"

 A lot of stupid things happen in the government of New Zealand.
However, they have not been stupid enough to invade Iraq, so they don't qualify as being really stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31456350</id>
	<title>Re:Um why</title>
	<author>Torrance</author>
	<datestamp>1268387700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect it is because the government has $1.5 billion awaiting to be awarded to an ISP or ISPs to implement a next generation broadband network across the country. They're all biting at the bit to be awarded part of the contract, and I suspect that they think complying with a voluntary filter will increase their chances.</p><p>More a case of the carrot than the stick, and politics carries on as usual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect it is because the government has $ 1.5 billion awaiting to be awarded to an ISP or ISPs to implement a next generation broadband network across the country .
They 're all biting at the bit to be awarded part of the contract , and I suspect that they think complying with a voluntary filter will increase their chances.More a case of the carrot than the stick , and politics carries on as usual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect it is because the government has $1.5 billion awaiting to be awarded to an ISP or ISPs to implement a next generation broadband network across the country.
They're all biting at the bit to be awarded part of the contract, and I suspect that they think complying with a voluntary filter will increase their chances.More a case of the carrot than the stick, and politics carries on as usual.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449542</id>
	<title>Democracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268388360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this becomes a real problem, it would become a test for democracy. Next elections nobody concerned should vote the current party in power. Next time they'll think about that before doing something so stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this becomes a real problem , it would become a test for democracy .
Next elections nobody concerned should vote the current party in power .
Next time they 'll think about that before doing something so stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this becomes a real problem, it would become a test for democracy.
Next elections nobody concerned should vote the current party in power.
Next time they'll think about that before doing something so stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31454966</id>
	<title>Re:Human Rights?</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1268425080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>these minor differences pale in comparison to the disadvantages inherent in government itself, of any type.</p></div><p>lol......you seriously are trying to get rid of government?  Well, there has to be a certain amount of admiration for anyone who attacks windmills, but, personally I think you are an idiot.  I fully support the use of force by government in many cases, especially for cases like arresting murderers and enforcing contracts.<br> <br>
You seem mainly annoyed that a large group of people can push a smaller group around, but this isn't a problem of government, it's a problem wherever there is a large group of people.  Living in society together is hard.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>these minor differences pale in comparison to the disadvantages inherent in government itself , of any type.lol......you seriously are trying to get rid of government ?
Well , there has to be a certain amount of admiration for anyone who attacks windmills , but , personally I think you are an idiot .
I fully support the use of force by government in many cases , especially for cases like arresting murderers and enforcing contracts .
You seem mainly annoyed that a large group of people can push a smaller group around , but this is n't a problem of government , it 's a problem wherever there is a large group of people .
Living in society together is hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>these minor differences pale in comparison to the disadvantages inherent in government itself, of any type.lol......you seriously are trying to get rid of government?
Well, there has to be a certain amount of admiration for anyone who attacks windmills, but, personally I think you are an idiot.
I fully support the use of force by government in many cases, especially for cases like arresting murderers and enforcing contracts.
You seem mainly annoyed that a large group of people can push a smaller group around, but this isn't a problem of government, it's a problem wherever there is a large group of people.
Living in society together is hard.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31452922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31478258</id>
	<title>Re:Um why</title>
	<author>harryjohnston</author>
	<datestamp>1268589000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not all that complicated, you just have to look at it from the right perspective.</p><p>Most ISPs in NZ probably trust the DIA.  Our civil service, by and large, is fairly trustworthy, so this wouldn't be particularly surprising.  (We lack the American tradition of always mistrusting any part of the government as a matter of principle.)</p><p>The filter appears to be technically sound, and to have minimal impact on the ISP and customers.</p><p>It seems likely that many customers would be in favour of an anti-child-porn filter, and only a few would object.  Probably a PR win on the whole, or at worst only a slight downside.</p><p>The ISP management (like most people) are probably opposed to child porn as a matter of principle, so if it doesn't cost them much to filter it out, why not?  I suspect at the end of the day this may have been the bottom line in many cases.</p><p>Management might also be worried that one of their customers will turn out to be running a child-porn server, and want to paint themselves in the best possible light in advance as it were.</p><p>No doubt there are other possible motivations.  I see no reason to dream up conspiracy theories to explain it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not all that complicated , you just have to look at it from the right perspective.Most ISPs in NZ probably trust the DIA .
Our civil service , by and large , is fairly trustworthy , so this would n't be particularly surprising .
( We lack the American tradition of always mistrusting any part of the government as a matter of principle .
) The filter appears to be technically sound , and to have minimal impact on the ISP and customers.It seems likely that many customers would be in favour of an anti-child-porn filter , and only a few would object .
Probably a PR win on the whole , or at worst only a slight downside.The ISP management ( like most people ) are probably opposed to child porn as a matter of principle , so if it does n't cost them much to filter it out , why not ?
I suspect at the end of the day this may have been the bottom line in many cases.Management might also be worried that one of their customers will turn out to be running a child-porn server , and want to paint themselves in the best possible light in advance as it were.No doubt there are other possible motivations .
I see no reason to dream up conspiracy theories to explain it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not all that complicated, you just have to look at it from the right perspective.Most ISPs in NZ probably trust the DIA.
Our civil service, by and large, is fairly trustworthy, so this wouldn't be particularly surprising.
(We lack the American tradition of always mistrusting any part of the government as a matter of principle.
)The filter appears to be technically sound, and to have minimal impact on the ISP and customers.It seems likely that many customers would be in favour of an anti-child-porn filter, and only a few would object.
Probably a PR win on the whole, or at worst only a slight downside.The ISP management (like most people) are probably opposed to child porn as a matter of principle, so if it doesn't cost them much to filter it out, why not?
I suspect at the end of the day this may have been the bottom line in many cases.Management might also be worried that one of their customers will turn out to be running a child-porn server, and want to paint themselves in the best possible light in advance as it were.No doubt there are other possible motivations.
I see no reason to dream up conspiracy theories to explain it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31454588</id>
	<title>Re:Like many fads,</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1268423520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps the uncensored internet is the fad coming already to a close?</p></div><p>Maybe, but I think this is going to be a country by country thing. In America, the concern won't be things like child porn, it'll be bandwidth and piracy. I don't think you'll see ISP's blocking what you can get, as much as throttling what you can get if you spend all night downloading DVD's. While in places like Europe and Australia and NZ, it'll be less of a broadband concern and more of a nanny state thing. People will download movies relatively freely, but their ISP's... at the behest of their governments... will monitor and report all "uncorrect" browsing.</p><p>The Americas will have politically uncensored but commerce-throttled Internet, and Europe and Asia will have free wheeling downloading with heavy censorship. Russia and China will eventually all but lock down their gateways to only government-approved sites.</p><p>While this may surprise people, it shouldn't. New Zealand is one of the most liberal countries in the world... a no nukes policy, an Air Force with no fighter planes, etc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but along with that comes a nanny state attitude by leaders.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the uncensored internet is the fad coming already to a close ? Maybe , but I think this is going to be a country by country thing .
In America , the concern wo n't be things like child porn , it 'll be bandwidth and piracy .
I do n't think you 'll see ISP 's blocking what you can get , as much as throttling what you can get if you spend all night downloading DVD 's .
While in places like Europe and Australia and NZ , it 'll be less of a broadband concern and more of a nanny state thing .
People will download movies relatively freely , but their ISP 's... at the behest of their governments... will monitor and report all " uncorrect " browsing.The Americas will have politically uncensored but commerce-throttled Internet , and Europe and Asia will have free wheeling downloading with heavy censorship .
Russia and China will eventually all but lock down their gateways to only government-approved sites.While this may surprise people , it should n't .
New Zealand is one of the most liberal countries in the world... a no nukes policy , an Air Force with no fighter planes , etc .
... but along with that comes a nanny state attitude by leaders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the uncensored internet is the fad coming already to a close?Maybe, but I think this is going to be a country by country thing.
In America, the concern won't be things like child porn, it'll be bandwidth and piracy.
I don't think you'll see ISP's blocking what you can get, as much as throttling what you can get if you spend all night downloading DVD's.
While in places like Europe and Australia and NZ, it'll be less of a broadband concern and more of a nanny state thing.
People will download movies relatively freely, but their ISP's... at the behest of their governments... will monitor and report all "uncorrect" browsing.The Americas will have politically uncensored but commerce-throttled Internet, and Europe and Asia will have free wheeling downloading with heavy censorship.
Russia and China will eventually all but lock down their gateways to only government-approved sites.While this may surprise people, it shouldn't.
New Zealand is one of the most liberal countries in the world... a no nukes policy, an Air Force with no fighter planes, etc.
... but along with that comes a nanny state attitude by leaders.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449892</id>
	<title>Re:Um why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268394420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First they came for the Pedophiles...</p><p>While this filter <i>ostensibly</i> targets child pornography, what is to stop it from being used to censor other 'obscene' or 'unwanted' material?  It would not take much to tailor this filter to target political speech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First they came for the Pedophiles...While this filter ostensibly targets child pornography , what is to stop it from being used to censor other 'obscene ' or 'unwanted ' material ?
It would not take much to tailor this filter to target political speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First they came for the Pedophiles...While this filter ostensibly targets child pornography, what is to stop it from being used to censor other 'obscene' or 'unwanted' material?
It would not take much to tailor this filter to target political speech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449900</id>
	<title>Re:Same "it's voluntary" ploy here in Finland</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268394720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's basically the same ploy that was used here in Finland to get ISPs to censor certain (claimed to be) child porn domains. If the ISPs wouldn't do it "voluntarily", then it was understood that government would step in and make it mandatory. Interestingly, after a couple of years, some ISPs have turned off the censoring by default and allow people to explicitly order the censorship "service". Basically it felt like it was all about making politicians look good at that moment, nobody really cared about if it worked or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's basically the same ploy that was used here in Finland to get ISPs to censor certain ( claimed to be ) child porn domains .
If the ISPs would n't do it " voluntarily " , then it was understood that government would step in and make it mandatory .
Interestingly , after a couple of years , some ISPs have turned off the censoring by default and allow people to explicitly order the censorship " service " .
Basically it felt like it was all about making politicians look good at that moment , nobody really cared about if it worked or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's basically the same ploy that was used here in Finland to get ISPs to censor certain (claimed to be) child porn domains.
If the ISPs wouldn't do it "voluntarily", then it was understood that government would step in and make it mandatory.
Interestingly, after a couple of years, some ISPs have turned off the censoring by default and allow people to explicitly order the censorship "service".
Basically it felt like it was all about making politicians look good at that moment, nobody really cared about if it worked or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449696</id>
	<title>A bad precedent</title>
	<author>Cimexus</author>
	<datestamp>1268390940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nooo...</p><p>That means there's more chance the proposed filter might come to fruition in Australia. Now the Government can point and say "see, NZ did it!".</p><p>Although it's sorta funny<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I was being berated by a kiwi on this very forum a few weeks ago, who was going on about how crap Australia was and that he couldn't wait to go home to NZ where there was "no chance of an internet filter". Joke's on him now, I guess. At least our 'filter' is still only an (unpopular) proposal, rather than actually implemented. Yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nooo...That means there 's more chance the proposed filter might come to fruition in Australia .
Now the Government can point and say " see , NZ did it !
" .Although it 's sorta funny ... I was being berated by a kiwi on this very forum a few weeks ago , who was going on about how crap Australia was and that he could n't wait to go home to NZ where there was " no chance of an internet filter " .
Joke 's on him now , I guess .
At least our 'filter ' is still only an ( unpopular ) proposal , rather than actually implemented .
Yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nooo...That means there's more chance the proposed filter might come to fruition in Australia.
Now the Government can point and say "see, NZ did it!
".Although it's sorta funny ... I was being berated by a kiwi on this very forum a few weeks ago, who was going on about how crap Australia was and that he couldn't wait to go home to NZ where there was "no chance of an internet filter".
Joke's on him now, I guess.
At least our 'filter' is still only an (unpopular) proposal, rather than actually implemented.
Yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449682</id>
	<title>Re:Human Rights?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268390640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A democracy is just a dictatorship trough sock puppets. The puppets can change to simulate non-existing free choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A democracy is just a dictatorship trough sock puppets .
The puppets can change to simulate non-existing free choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A democracy is just a dictatorship trough sock puppets.
The puppets can change to simulate non-existing free choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449584</id>
	<title>Hah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268388960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice RSS Widget for replying!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice RSS Widget for replying !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice RSS Widget for replying!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31478182</id>
	<title>Re:Um why</title>
	<author>harryjohnston</author>
	<datestamp>1268588160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt it.  The filter comes from the civil service.  To make it mandatory, parliament would have to intervene.  That might happen later, but there's no talk about it at the moment, and it isn't likely to happen simply because ISPs don't voluntarily sign on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt it .
The filter comes from the civil service .
To make it mandatory , parliament would have to intervene .
That might happen later , but there 's no talk about it at the moment , and it is n't likely to happen simply because ISPs do n't voluntarily sign on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt it.
The filter comes from the civil service.
To make it mandatory, parliament would have to intervene.
That might happen later, but there's no talk about it at the moment, and it isn't likely to happen simply because ISPs don't voluntarily sign on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31453272</id>
	<title>Re:Filtering NEVER works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268417460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't actually believe that the filters' purpose are for stopping child porn, do you?  You can't possibly be that naive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't actually believe that the filters ' purpose are for stopping child porn , do you ?
You ca n't possibly be that naive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't actually believe that the filters' purpose are for stopping child porn, do you?
You can't possibly be that naive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450566</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31453854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31456992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31451262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31456350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31451450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31476858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31454588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31454822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31455864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31452458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31478182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31455674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31453596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31476846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31476810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31457226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31452992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31477754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31454966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31452922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31454158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31451674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31478258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31453272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31505638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_0722225_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31454720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31455342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449700
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31454588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31456992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31455864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450572
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31457226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31453854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31451262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31452922
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31454966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31477754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31476846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31451674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31454158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31453286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31453596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31452992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31453272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31476810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31505638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31476858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31454822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31455674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31478182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31454720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31450294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31478258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31456350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31451450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_0722225.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31449456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_0722225.31452458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
