<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_14_2210219</id>
	<title>Filter Vendor Agrees Aussie Censorship Can't Work As Promised</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268564400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Acidspew writes <i>"The Australian Government's plan to filter the Internet has caused furore and has been met with vehement objection. Many people have put their opinions forward regarding this matter, but this time around, M86 Security &mdash; the vendor that provided many ISPs equipment during the initial filter trials &mdash; has finally weighed in on the discussion. Six of the nine ISP participants in the URL-based Internet filter trial last year used M86's R3000 filtering kit. According to ARN: 'Internet filtering <a href="http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/339394/filter\_trial\_vendor\_sceptical\_over\_internet\_clean-feed/?fp=4194304&amp;fpid=1">won't prevent people deliberately looking for inappropriate material</a> from accessing blocked content, according to security vendor M86 Security.' The company continues by saying its filter gear was designed to be implemented into schools and enterprise businesses, not for an entire country. The article also touches on M86's views on censorship."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Acidspew writes " The Australian Government 's plan to filter the Internet has caused furore and has been met with vehement objection .
Many people have put their opinions forward regarding this matter , but this time around , M86 Security    the vendor that provided many ISPs equipment during the initial filter trials    has finally weighed in on the discussion .
Six of the nine ISP participants in the URL-based Internet filter trial last year used M86 's R3000 filtering kit .
According to ARN : 'Internet filtering wo n't prevent people deliberately looking for inappropriate material from accessing blocked content , according to security vendor M86 Security .
' The company continues by saying its filter gear was designed to be implemented into schools and enterprise businesses , not for an entire country .
The article also touches on M86 's views on censorship .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Acidspew writes "The Australian Government's plan to filter the Internet has caused furore and has been met with vehement objection.
Many people have put their opinions forward regarding this matter, but this time around, M86 Security — the vendor that provided many ISPs equipment during the initial filter trials — has finally weighed in on the discussion.
Six of the nine ISP participants in the URL-based Internet filter trial last year used M86's R3000 filtering kit.
According to ARN: 'Internet filtering won't prevent people deliberately looking for inappropriate material from accessing blocked content, according to security vendor M86 Security.
' The company continues by saying its filter gear was designed to be implemented into schools and enterprise businesses, not for an entire country.
The article also touches on M86's views on censorship.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476498</id>
	<title>Re:Confusion</title>
	<author>shoehornjob</author>
	<datestamp>1268574480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Green shares Prime Minister Kevin Rudd&amp;rsquo;s sentiments regarding the need to protect citizens against &amp;lsquo;indecent&amp;rsquo; material but questions how far the filter will go in terms of deciding what content to block."<br><br>How about you let the people decide what's indecent and then protect themselves from said material. And while you're at it go tell the nanny state to STFU and mind their own fking buisiness. You can't keep people from accessing "INDECENT" material if that's what they want to see. Americans learned this from prohibition back in the 30's....oh wait drug war damn never mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Green shares Prime Minister Kevin Rudd    s sentiments regarding the need to protect citizens against    indecent    material but questions how far the filter will go in terms of deciding what content to block .
" How about you let the people decide what 's indecent and then protect themselves from said material .
And while you 're at it go tell the nanny state to STFU and mind their own fking buisiness .
You ca n't keep people from accessing " INDECENT " material if that 's what they want to see .
Americans learned this from prohibition back in the 30 's....oh wait drug war damn never mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Green shares Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s sentiments regarding the need to protect citizens against ‘indecent’ material but questions how far the filter will go in terms of deciding what content to block.
"How about you let the people decide what's indecent and then protect themselves from said material.
And while you're at it go tell the nanny state to STFU and mind their own fking buisiness.
You can't keep people from accessing "INDECENT" material if that's what they want to see.
Americans learned this from prohibition back in the 30's....oh wait drug war damn never mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476740</id>
	<title>Re:Pull the plug...</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1268575980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ban the use of the software that way in the TOS, and the Aussie government can go jump in a lake!</p></div><p>
And the next story here, Evil Network Vendor Prohibits fair use with EULA.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Better yet, send out a rogue update to their servers where it disables the whole internet for the whole country
</p></div><p>
Yeah, ever heard of the AFP? These guys will be investigating the case and will have a very strong need to find someone to punish. Hint: it won't be a politician.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>... pirate software users don't have any reason to expect the software is going to behave honestly.</p></div><p>Section 183 of the copyright act. They're not pirates. For the Americans in the audience, think eminent domain.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ban the use of the software that way in the TOS , and the Aussie government can go jump in a lake !
And the next story here , Evil Network Vendor Prohibits fair use with EULA .
Better yet , send out a rogue update to their servers where it disables the whole internet for the whole country Yeah , ever heard of the AFP ?
These guys will be investigating the case and will have a very strong need to find someone to punish .
Hint : it wo n't be a politician .
... pirate software users do n't have any reason to expect the software is going to behave honestly.Section 183 of the copyright act .
They 're not pirates .
For the Americans in the audience , think eminent domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ban the use of the software that way in the TOS, and the Aussie government can go jump in a lake!
And the next story here, Evil Network Vendor Prohibits fair use with EULA.
Better yet, send out a rogue update to their servers where it disables the whole internet for the whole country

Yeah, ever heard of the AFP?
These guys will be investigating the case and will have a very strong need to find someone to punish.
Hint: it won't be a politician.
... pirate software users don't have any reason to expect the software is going to behave honestly.Section 183 of the copyright act.
They're not pirates.
For the Americans in the audience, think eminent domain.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31480074</id>
	<title>Re:Our internet filter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268654580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you're saying that Labour is introducing a tool of totalitarianism for political point scoring against the Liberals. For some reason, you still favour Labour instead of taking the more logical position of removing both from power.</p><p>You might think that they can't be removed. Indeed, you are correct, so long as people such as yourself are willing to tolerate a steady advance towards totalitarian government if only it can be implemented by the "side" you support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're saying that Labour is introducing a tool of totalitarianism for political point scoring against the Liberals .
For some reason , you still favour Labour instead of taking the more logical position of removing both from power.You might think that they ca n't be removed .
Indeed , you are correct , so long as people such as yourself are willing to tolerate a steady advance towards totalitarian government if only it can be implemented by the " side " you support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're saying that Labour is introducing a tool of totalitarianism for political point scoring against the Liberals.
For some reason, you still favour Labour instead of taking the more logical position of removing both from power.You might think that they can't be removed.
Indeed, you are correct, so long as people such as yourself are willing to tolerate a steady advance towards totalitarian government if only it can be implemented by the "side" you support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476008</id>
	<title>highly unusual</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1268571060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact this vendor has announced this is highly unusual. I think they have been burned:<br> <br>
a. Either their involvement in Australia has cost them other more valuable contracts.<br>
b. They mis-stepped and are being forced to maintain the system beyond their expectations.
<br> <br>Either way, I suspect this contract is now a ball &amp; chain around their ankle. They want out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact this vendor has announced this is highly unusual .
I think they have been burned : a. Either their involvement in Australia has cost them other more valuable contracts .
b. They mis-stepped and are being forced to maintain the system beyond their expectations .
Either way , I suspect this contract is now a ball &amp; chain around their ankle .
They want out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact this vendor has announced this is highly unusual.
I think they have been burned: 
a. Either their involvement in Australia has cost them other more valuable contracts.
b. They mis-stepped and are being forced to maintain the system beyond their expectations.
Either way, I suspect this contract is now a ball &amp; chain around their ankle.
They want out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31479184</id>
	<title>Re:Our internet filter</title>
	<author>KenMcM</author>
	<datestamp>1268645400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe this could have been the motive for the filter when it was planned to use the ACMA blacklist, which is designed for children.

Now that it only filters RC, the opposition could ask the same question. Why did you give a laptop to Little Mikey with a fibreoptic connection to boobies? Why does your filter not protect Mikey from boobies?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this could have been the motive for the filter when it was planned to use the ACMA blacklist , which is designed for children .
Now that it only filters RC , the opposition could ask the same question .
Why did you give a laptop to Little Mikey with a fibreoptic connection to boobies ?
Why does your filter not protect Mikey from boobies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this could have been the motive for the filter when it was planned to use the ACMA blacklist, which is designed for children.
Now that it only filters RC, the opposition could ask the same question.
Why did you give a laptop to Little Mikey with a fibreoptic connection to boobies?
Why does your filter not protect Mikey from boobies?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475846</id>
	<title>Bags not being the scapegoat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268569680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like a PR job by M86 getting in a pre-emptive 'not my fault' for when this all goes South. I cannot say I blame them because it doesn't take much stretching of the imagination to see the finger pointing that would go on if this all fell through. I would not want my company blamed for other people&rsquo;s incompetence either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a PR job by M86 getting in a pre-emptive 'not my fault ' for when this all goes South .
I can not say I blame them because it does n't take much stretching of the imagination to see the finger pointing that would go on if this all fell through .
I would not want my company blamed for other people    s incompetence either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a PR job by M86 getting in a pre-emptive 'not my fault' for when this all goes South.
I cannot say I blame them because it doesn't take much stretching of the imagination to see the finger pointing that would go on if this all fell through.
I would not want my company blamed for other people’s incompetence either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478086</id>
	<title>Re:Keep up the pressure</title>
	<author>Capsaicin</author>
	<datestamp>1268586780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Would you care to explain to this dimwitted American the effective difference between "blocking illegal material", blocking material that is "refused classification" and "censorship"? From where I sit, if I can't access a Web address because of government-mandated interference, well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that material has been censored. What particular arbitrary classification a particular government regime places that information into is irrelevant: I cannot get to it.</i> </p><p>It may be irrelevant to <i>you</i>, however to those of us who worry about democratic process, the fact that the classification is the result of an <b>arbitrary</b> decision, as opposed to a decision made <b>lawfully</b> and subject to public scrutiny, matters a whole lot!</p><p>To answer you question, I believe the OP is trying to draw a distinction between down-right prohibited material (the canonical example of which is child porn), and material which on a case to case basis has been refused classification.  The effect of an RC decision is, I believe (and I claim no special knowledge of this branch of law), that it is illegal publicly to show, or to offer for sale (and possibly even to import) such material.  It is indeed a form of censorship.</p><p>As a "dimwitted American"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) (I'm quoting you in good humour, no offence intended) what you might not know is that the Australian public has at every opportunity resisted the introduction of a Bill of Rights into our Constitution (and it is the people alone, not the parliament, who have to power to amend that document).  And I'm in the minority who want such a Bill.  As such the Australian public are not restricted from coming to a democratic decision, via our parliament, to enact (or approve of) a regime of censorship.</p><p>Even though I'm in the minority I can't object to that on democratic grounds alone (well I can if it involves censorship of political speech<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but I digress).  What I can object to, however, is that it be an arbitrary regime.  That is inconsistent with the rule of law.  Nor, as is the case with th(on moral grounds perhaps yes)e current proposal, ought its workings be removed from public view, since it will then develop a tendency towards the arbitrary.  This lack of transparency I object to most vehemently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you care to explain to this dimwitted American the effective difference between " blocking illegal material " , blocking material that is " refused classification " and " censorship " ?
From where I sit , if I ca n't access a Web address because of government-mandated interference , well ... that material has been censored .
What particular arbitrary classification a particular government regime places that information into is irrelevant : I can not get to it .
It may be irrelevant to you , however to those of us who worry about democratic process , the fact that the classification is the result of an arbitrary decision , as opposed to a decision made lawfully and subject to public scrutiny , matters a whole lot ! To answer you question , I believe the OP is trying to draw a distinction between down-right prohibited material ( the canonical example of which is child porn ) , and material which on a case to case basis has been refused classification .
The effect of an RC decision is , I believe ( and I claim no special knowledge of this branch of law ) , that it is illegal publicly to show , or to offer for sale ( and possibly even to import ) such material .
It is indeed a form of censorship.As a " dimwitted American " : ) ( I 'm quoting you in good humour , no offence intended ) what you might not know is that the Australian public has at every opportunity resisted the introduction of a Bill of Rights into our Constitution ( and it is the people alone , not the parliament , who have to power to amend that document ) .
And I 'm in the minority who want such a Bill .
As such the Australian public are not restricted from coming to a democratic decision , via our parliament , to enact ( or approve of ) a regime of censorship.Even though I 'm in the minority I ca n't object to that on democratic grounds alone ( well I can if it involves censorship of political speech ... but I digress ) .
What I can object to , however , is that it be an arbitrary regime .
That is inconsistent with the rule of law .
Nor , as is the case with th ( on moral grounds perhaps yes ) e current proposal , ought its workings be removed from public view , since it will then develop a tendency towards the arbitrary .
This lack of transparency I object to most vehemently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Would you care to explain to this dimwitted American the effective difference between "blocking illegal material", blocking material that is "refused classification" and "censorship"?
From where I sit, if I can't access a Web address because of government-mandated interference, well ... that material has been censored.
What particular arbitrary classification a particular government regime places that information into is irrelevant: I cannot get to it.
It may be irrelevant to you, however to those of us who worry about democratic process, the fact that the classification is the result of an arbitrary decision, as opposed to a decision made lawfully and subject to public scrutiny, matters a whole lot!To answer you question, I believe the OP is trying to draw a distinction between down-right prohibited material (the canonical example of which is child porn), and material which on a case to case basis has been refused classification.
The effect of an RC decision is, I believe (and I claim no special knowledge of this branch of law), that it is illegal publicly to show, or to offer for sale (and possibly even to import) such material.
It is indeed a form of censorship.As a "dimwitted American" :) (I'm quoting you in good humour, no offence intended) what you might not know is that the Australian public has at every opportunity resisted the introduction of a Bill of Rights into our Constitution (and it is the people alone, not the parliament, who have to power to amend that document).
And I'm in the minority who want such a Bill.
As such the Australian public are not restricted from coming to a democratic decision, via our parliament, to enact (or approve of) a regime of censorship.Even though I'm in the minority I can't object to that on democratic grounds alone (well I can if it involves censorship of political speech ... but I digress).
What I can object to, however, is that it be an arbitrary regime.
That is inconsistent with the rule of law.
Nor, as is the case with th(on moral grounds perhaps yes)e current proposal, ought its workings be removed from public view, since it will then develop a tendency towards the arbitrary.
This lack of transparency I object to most vehemently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31482526</id>
	<title>Re:URL based?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268670960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it is like the NZ filter, it just doesn't.</p><p>At all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is like the NZ filter , it just does n't.At all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is like the NZ filter, it just doesn't.At all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476438</id>
	<title>Re:highly unusual</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1268574060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They aren't maintaining the system at all, because it doesn't even exist yet.  They're not saying they are against it, they are saying they are totally for it to protect the children.  They just want to make it clear that all it will do is stop casual browsers from finding child porn, but that determined individuals will always find away around filters.  As in every article, Slashdot made up an almost entirely fictional summary to go along with TFA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are n't maintaining the system at all , because it does n't even exist yet .
They 're not saying they are against it , they are saying they are totally for it to protect the children .
They just want to make it clear that all it will do is stop casual browsers from finding child porn , but that determined individuals will always find away around filters .
As in every article , Slashdot made up an almost entirely fictional summary to go along with TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They aren't maintaining the system at all, because it doesn't even exist yet.
They're not saying they are against it, they are saying they are totally for it to protect the children.
They just want to make it clear that all it will do is stop casual browsers from finding child porn, but that determined individuals will always find away around filters.
As in every article, Slashdot made up an almost entirely fictional summary to go along with TFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31480226</id>
	<title>Re:Our internet filter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268656440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your argument is "the filter is there to head the opposition off at the pass"? What a load of hogwash. The amount of political capital lost in pursuing this filter is far more damage than using opt-in firewalls at schools and mandated on govt-supplied laptops and just telling everyone that yet again the opposition is just bitching about the issue du jour (as oppositions do). Your friend is being lied to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your argument is " the filter is there to head the opposition off at the pass " ?
What a load of hogwash .
The amount of political capital lost in pursuing this filter is far more damage than using opt-in firewalls at schools and mandated on govt-supplied laptops and just telling everyone that yet again the opposition is just bitching about the issue du jour ( as oppositions do ) .
Your friend is being lied to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your argument is "the filter is there to head the opposition off at the pass"?
What a load of hogwash.
The amount of political capital lost in pursuing this filter is far more damage than using opt-in firewalls at schools and mandated on govt-supplied laptops and just telling everyone that yet again the opposition is just bitching about the issue du jour (as oppositions do).
Your friend is being lied to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476414</id>
	<title>Re:Pull the plug...</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1268573940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the hell are you smoking?  Rogue use?  Australia pirated the software?  Somehow turning into copyright means you have the right to steal your stuff back, just like OJ?  TFA says they agree with the idea, but don't think it will work very well, since determined people will find their way around any firewall.  Nowhere does it say they even disagree at all.  As for "why are they cashing the cheque", they aren't, RFTA<blockquote><div><p> M86 has yet to settle on pricing should it chose to supply technology for the proposed Internet filter.</p></div> </blockquote><p> As in, they're putting in a bid, they HOPE to be the one to provide it still, they just want to be on record that it won't work as a miracle cure, just a good first step towards protecting the children.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell are you smoking ?
Rogue use ?
Australia pirated the software ?
Somehow turning into copyright means you have the right to steal your stuff back , just like OJ ?
TFA says they agree with the idea , but do n't think it will work very well , since determined people will find their way around any firewall .
Nowhere does it say they even disagree at all .
As for " why are they cashing the cheque " , they are n't , RFTA M86 has yet to settle on pricing should it chose to supply technology for the proposed Internet filter .
As in , they 're putting in a bid , they HOPE to be the one to provide it still , they just want to be on record that it wo n't work as a miracle cure , just a good first step towards protecting the children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell are you smoking?
Rogue use?
Australia pirated the software?
Somehow turning into copyright means you have the right to steal your stuff back, just like OJ?
TFA says they agree with the idea, but don't think it will work very well, since determined people will find their way around any firewall.
Nowhere does it say they even disagree at all.
As for "why are they cashing the cheque", they aren't, RFTA M86 has yet to settle on pricing should it chose to supply technology for the proposed Internet filter.
As in, they're putting in a bid, they HOPE to be the one to provide it still, they just want to be on record that it won't work as a miracle cure, just a good first step towards protecting the children.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476262</id>
	<title>Re:Keep up the pressure</title>
	<author>charm101</author>
	<datestamp>1268572860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think God would give Mr. Conroy a spank so he would be awaken with his slumber. -<a href="&rdquo;http://www.teenbootcamps.org/&rdquo;" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Turning Winds</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think God would give Mr. Conroy a spank so he would be awaken with his slumber .
-Turning Winds [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think God would give Mr. Conroy a spank so he would be awaken with his slumber.
-Turning Winds [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475652</id>
	<title>First sentence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268568180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and has been with vehement objection.</p></div><p>Did something get filtered out already?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.. and has been with vehement objection.Did something get filtered out already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> .. and has been with vehement objection.Did something get filtered out already?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475908</id>
	<title>Confusion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268570160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>See now, I'm confused by where the article states that the filtering is predominantly aimed at preventing kids from accidentally stumbling on child pornography.  Now, it strikes me that given that such images are strictly illegal pretty much everywhere it's actually quite difficult to 'accidentally stumble' on.<br> <br>  In fact, the mere fact that the article then goes on to say that criminals already have ways around it that are not prevented by this kind of filtering suggests to me that you're not going to just enter keywords somewhere and have it show up.<br> <br>The whole premise of the network filter - stopping kids from accidentally finding kiddy pron - is utter baloney.  If it was so easy for a kid to find it accidentally, law enforcement wouldn't need to go to such measures to shut it down.<br> <br>'Think of the children' is, as always, an excuse.  Given that's not the real goal of the filter, one can imagine what the actual purpose might be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>See now , I 'm confused by where the article states that the filtering is predominantly aimed at preventing kids from accidentally stumbling on child pornography .
Now , it strikes me that given that such images are strictly illegal pretty much everywhere it 's actually quite difficult to 'accidentally stumble ' on .
In fact , the mere fact that the article then goes on to say that criminals already have ways around it that are not prevented by this kind of filtering suggests to me that you 're not going to just enter keywords somewhere and have it show up .
The whole premise of the network filter - stopping kids from accidentally finding kiddy pron - is utter baloney .
If it was so easy for a kid to find it accidentally , law enforcement would n't need to go to such measures to shut it down .
'Think of the children ' is , as always , an excuse .
Given that 's not the real goal of the filter , one can imagine what the actual purpose might be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See now, I'm confused by where the article states that the filtering is predominantly aimed at preventing kids from accidentally stumbling on child pornography.
Now, it strikes me that given that such images are strictly illegal pretty much everywhere it's actually quite difficult to 'accidentally stumble' on.
In fact, the mere fact that the article then goes on to say that criminals already have ways around it that are not prevented by this kind of filtering suggests to me that you're not going to just enter keywords somewhere and have it show up.
The whole premise of the network filter - stopping kids from accidentally finding kiddy pron - is utter baloney.
If it was so easy for a kid to find it accidentally, law enforcement wouldn't need to go to such measures to shut it down.
'Think of the children' is, as always, an excuse.
Given that's not the real goal of the filter, one can imagine what the actual purpose might be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476252</id>
	<title>Re:Pull the plug...</title>
	<author>c0lo</author>
	<datestamp>1268572800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the filter vendor agrees this is a rogue use of their technology... why are they cashing the check?</p></div><p>To answer to this specific question: it is called "Limited warranty", more specific the "Fitness to the purpose" disclaimer.<br>
If a customer is stupid enough to still insist paying for something it was <b>publicly warned</b> is not fit for a certain purpose, I reckon the supplier should be even more stupid not to take the money and provide the goods.
</p><p>This is not to say that ozzies should accept a minister that persists in making stupid decision (but if they do, they'll worth their faith).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the filter vendor agrees this is a rogue use of their technology... why are they cashing the check ? To answer to this specific question : it is called " Limited warranty " , more specific the " Fitness to the purpose " disclaimer .
If a customer is stupid enough to still insist paying for something it was publicly warned is not fit for a certain purpose , I reckon the supplier should be even more stupid not to take the money and provide the goods .
This is not to say that ozzies should accept a minister that persists in making stupid decision ( but if they do , they 'll worth their faith ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the filter vendor agrees this is a rogue use of their technology... why are they cashing the check?To answer to this specific question: it is called "Limited warranty", more specific the "Fitness to the purpose" disclaimer.
If a customer is stupid enough to still insist paying for something it was publicly warned is not fit for a certain purpose, I reckon the supplier should be even more stupid not to take the money and provide the goods.
This is not to say that ozzies should accept a minister that persists in making stupid decision (but if they do, they'll worth their faith).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31480948</id>
	<title>Re:Our internet filter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268662560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually work on the NBN project and I have never seen such a cavalcade of incompetence. If religious fundamentalists ( which I notice you misspelled as 'conservatives') are the worst problem the government has to face with their precious NBN they will be very very lucky indeed.</p><p>Here's a tip - just because some young fools like to update their facebook profiles doesn't mean they know a thing about technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually work on the NBN project and I have never seen such a cavalcade of incompetence .
If religious fundamentalists ( which I notice you misspelled as 'conservatives ' ) are the worst problem the government has to face with their precious NBN they will be very very lucky indeed.Here 's a tip - just because some young fools like to update their facebook profiles does n't mean they know a thing about technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually work on the NBN project and I have never seen such a cavalcade of incompetence.
If religious fundamentalists ( which I notice you misspelled as 'conservatives') are the worst problem the government has to face with their precious NBN they will be very very lucky indeed.Here's a tip - just because some young fools like to update their facebook profiles doesn't mean they know a thing about technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477882</id>
	<title>informative spongespong2e</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268585160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">hear you. Also, if sudden and Erosion of user Another charnel Big deal. Death 4, which by all website Third, you Users', BigAzz, THAT HE DOCUMENTS All major surveys shower Don't just to the original mechanics.  So I'm already aware, *BSD clearly become was at the same name on the jar of WASTE OF BITS AND To be about doing but it's not a track of where Irc network. The in a head spinning would like to is the group that about bylaws that they can hold When I stood for How is the GNAA ofone single puny conversations where hype - BSD's dying. Everyone come Here but now 7ime wholesome and for successful Are you GAY vigolated. In the you need to succeed and building is More grandiose The facts and most. Look at the Talk to one of the Juliet Are together windows, SUN or If *BSD is to</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>hear you .
Also , if sudden and Erosion of user Another charnel Big deal .
Death 4 , which by all website Third , you Users ' , BigAzz , THAT HE DOCUMENTS All major surveys shower Do n't just to the original mechanics .
So I 'm already aware , * BSD clearly become was at the same name on the jar of WASTE OF BITS AND To be about doing but it 's not a track of where Irc network .
The in a head spinning would like to is the group that about bylaws that they can hold When I stood for How is the GNAA ofone single puny conversations where hype - BSD 's dying .
Everyone come Here but now 7ime wholesome and for successful Are you GAY vigolated .
In the you need to succeed and building is More grandiose The facts and most .
Look at the Talk to one of the Juliet Are together windows , SUN or If * BSD is to [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hear you.
Also, if sudden and Erosion of user Another charnel Big deal.
Death 4, which by all website Third, you Users', BigAzz, THAT HE DOCUMENTS All major surveys shower Don't just to the original mechanics.
So I'm already aware, *BSD clearly become was at the same name on the jar of WASTE OF BITS AND To be about doing but it's not a track of where Irc network.
The in a head spinning would like to is the group that about bylaws that they can hold When I stood for How is the GNAA ofone single puny conversations where hype - BSD's dying.
Everyone come Here but now 7ime wholesome and for successful Are you GAY vigolated.
In the you need to succeed and building is More grandiose The facts and most.
Look at the Talk to one of the Juliet Are together windows, SUN or If *BSD is to [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476628</id>
	<title>XS4ALL</title>
	<author>RogerWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1268575260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In related news, I want to add that the biggest and oldest ISP of The Netherlands (XS4ALL) has also taken a stand against internet filtering. Unfortunately the site and documents are only available in Dutch:<br><a href="http://www.xs4all.nl/overxs4all/maatschappelijk/dossiers/downloaden.php" title="xs4all.nl">http://www.xs4all.nl/overxs4all/maatschappelijk/dossiers/downloaden.php</a> [xs4all.nl]</p><p>What they have done is write a very thorough 32 page document explaining why internet filtering should not happen. It centers around a couple of arguments:<br>- It's very expensive<br>- It introduces single points of failure and bottlenecks, doing the opposite of what an ISP should be doing<br>- It can't work without also blocking a lot of legal content, no matter what method you choose<br>- Blocking legal content and censorship is against the idea of free speech, but more specifically the Dutch constitution and the European treaty on human rights.</p><p>It's really well written, I wish there would be an English version. It's well worth the read.</p><p>They have sent this to all Dutch political parties and the committee for copyright legislation. I was very happy to see them get involved in this discussion. We're having national elections next june, and it looks like at least some political parties are picking this up and making it a point in the elections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In related news , I want to add that the biggest and oldest ISP of The Netherlands ( XS4ALL ) has also taken a stand against internet filtering .
Unfortunately the site and documents are only available in Dutch : http : //www.xs4all.nl/overxs4all/maatschappelijk/dossiers/downloaden.php [ xs4all.nl ] What they have done is write a very thorough 32 page document explaining why internet filtering should not happen .
It centers around a couple of arguments : - It 's very expensive- It introduces single points of failure and bottlenecks , doing the opposite of what an ISP should be doing- It ca n't work without also blocking a lot of legal content , no matter what method you choose- Blocking legal content and censorship is against the idea of free speech , but more specifically the Dutch constitution and the European treaty on human rights.It 's really well written , I wish there would be an English version .
It 's well worth the read.They have sent this to all Dutch political parties and the committee for copyright legislation .
I was very happy to see them get involved in this discussion .
We 're having national elections next june , and it looks like at least some political parties are picking this up and making it a point in the elections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In related news, I want to add that the biggest and oldest ISP of The Netherlands (XS4ALL) has also taken a stand against internet filtering.
Unfortunately the site and documents are only available in Dutch:http://www.xs4all.nl/overxs4all/maatschappelijk/dossiers/downloaden.php [xs4all.nl]What they have done is write a very thorough 32 page document explaining why internet filtering should not happen.
It centers around a couple of arguments:- It's very expensive- It introduces single points of failure and bottlenecks, doing the opposite of what an ISP should be doing- It can't work without also blocking a lot of legal content, no matter what method you choose- Blocking legal content and censorship is against the idea of free speech, but more specifically the Dutch constitution and the European treaty on human rights.It's really well written, I wish there would be an English version.
It's well worth the read.They have sent this to all Dutch political parties and the committee for copyright legislation.
I was very happy to see them get involved in this discussion.
We're having national elections next june, and it looks like at least some political parties are picking this up and making it a point in the elections.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31480674</id>
	<title>Re:Keep up the pressure</title>
	<author>cjb110</author>
	<datestamp>1268660880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Urm why block it?  If its illegal, then get a court order and take it down.  Arrest those responsible etc etc.<br>If its not illegal then it must be legal and then also be fine for public consumption.</p><p>But as people have pointed out numerous times, the governments don't want to block illegal content, they want to control access to legal content.</p><p>The UK had a similar responce after a large pedophilla case, I thought at the time I don't want you to block it, I want you to delete the content then find the scum and hang'em.  In fact pedophilla is one of the few types of content that has fairly consistent global laws, and should be easy to prosecute for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Urm why block it ?
If its illegal , then get a court order and take it down .
Arrest those responsible etc etc.If its not illegal then it must be legal and then also be fine for public consumption.But as people have pointed out numerous times , the governments do n't want to block illegal content , they want to control access to legal content.The UK had a similar responce after a large pedophilla case , I thought at the time I do n't want you to block it , I want you to delete the content then find the scum and hang'em .
In fact pedophilla is one of the few types of content that has fairly consistent global laws , and should be easy to prosecute for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Urm why block it?
If its illegal, then get a court order and take it down.
Arrest those responsible etc etc.If its not illegal then it must be legal and then also be fine for public consumption.But as people have pointed out numerous times, the governments don't want to block illegal content, they want to control access to legal content.The UK had a similar responce after a large pedophilla case, I thought at the time I don't want you to block it, I want you to delete the content then find the scum and hang'em.
In fact pedophilla is one of the few types of content that has fairly consistent global laws, and should be easy to prosecute for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476080</id>
	<title>Re:Keep up the pressure</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1268571600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think that illegal material should be blocked (it usually is, by removing the associated IP addresses from DNS servers).</p></div><p>I don't. Slippery slope, and all that. Once the system is in place to remove anything unwanted from the internet, it takes a <i>whole lot</i> of public oversight to prevent from abuse. Remember, politicians are people you <b>know</b> are lying for a living.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that illegal material should be blocked ( it usually is , by removing the associated IP addresses from DNS servers ) .I do n't .
Slippery slope , and all that .
Once the system is in place to remove anything unwanted from the internet , it takes a whole lot of public oversight to prevent from abuse .
Remember , politicians are people you know are lying for a living .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that illegal material should be blocked (it usually is, by removing the associated IP addresses from DNS servers).I don't.
Slippery slope, and all that.
Once the system is in place to remove anything unwanted from the internet, it takes a whole lot of public oversight to prevent from abuse.
Remember, politicians are people you know are lying for a living.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477298</id>
	<title>Missed Opportunity - Equity Pie Monopoly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268579760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>M86 Security could have made a fuckload of money just selling the government network hubs:</p><p>The Government thinks its gotten what it wants (they're too incompetent to know otherwise)<br>The Public gets what it wants<br>M86 gets money</p><p>EVERYONE WINS!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>M86 Security could have made a fuckload of money just selling the government network hubs : The Government thinks its gotten what it wants ( they 're too incompetent to know otherwise ) The Public gets what it wantsM86 gets moneyEVERYONE WINS ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>M86 Security could have made a fuckload of money just selling the government network hubs:The Government thinks its gotten what it wants (they're too incompetent to know otherwise)The Public gets what it wantsM86 gets moneyEVERYONE WINS!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476112</id>
	<title>Re:Confusion</title>
	<author>Techman83</author>
	<datestamp>1268571780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know that, you know that and I'm willing to bet even Senator Conroy is aware of that. Considering that he's been buddying up with the media companies on every front (reducing tv license fees, skiing with the head of one of the stations, backing big media in the iinet trial), that the filter, in it's current state, will certainly become the thin edge of the wedge.<br> <br>I watched "The Boat That Rocked" again the other night, and It reminded me that history seems to have a way of repeating itself. It may not be rock 'n roll this time, but it is certainly something the powers at be don't fully understand and cannot control. This scares them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that , you know that and I 'm willing to bet even Senator Conroy is aware of that .
Considering that he 's been buddying up with the media companies on every front ( reducing tv license fees , skiing with the head of one of the stations , backing big media in the iinet trial ) , that the filter , in it 's current state , will certainly become the thin edge of the wedge .
I watched " The Boat That Rocked " again the other night , and It reminded me that history seems to have a way of repeating itself .
It may not be rock 'n roll this time , but it is certainly something the powers at be do n't fully understand and can not control .
This scares them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that, you know that and I'm willing to bet even Senator Conroy is aware of that.
Considering that he's been buddying up with the media companies on every front (reducing tv license fees, skiing with the head of one of the stations, backing big media in the iinet trial), that the filter, in it's current state, will certainly become the thin edge of the wedge.
I watched "The Boat That Rocked" again the other night, and It reminded me that history seems to have a way of repeating itself.
It may not be rock 'n roll this time, but it is certainly something the powers at be don't fully understand and cannot control.
This scares them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475750</id>
	<title>Fuck its a DOS!</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1268568840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuck, did I just fucking get slashdot fucking filtered in Australia?  Well, to celebrate that possibility please watch this clip: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_UBBIsQ6224" title="youtube.com">Fuckity fuck fuck</a> [youtube.com].  Seriously, what happens with user generated content and naughty words?  Easy denial of service?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck , did I just fucking get slashdot fucking filtered in Australia ?
Well , to celebrate that possibility please watch this clip : Fuckity fuck fuck [ youtube.com ] .
Seriously , what happens with user generated content and naughty words ?
Easy denial of service ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck, did I just fucking get slashdot fucking filtered in Australia?
Well, to celebrate that possibility please watch this clip: Fuckity fuck fuck [youtube.com].
Seriously, what happens with user generated content and naughty words?
Easy denial of service?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476608</id>
	<title>Re:Pull the plug...</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1268575140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this company said no, it wouldn't stop the filter, all it would do is to lead to the contract going to someone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this company said no , it would n't stop the filter , all it would do is to lead to the contract going to someone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this company said no, it wouldn't stop the filter, all it would do is to lead to the contract going to someone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477288</id>
	<title>trouble ahead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268579640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure, that somewhere in the world, that some one is working on a "fix" ( causal vandals, political enemies, spammers) where, for a short time at least, Australians will be able to see nothing but kp.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure , that somewhere in the world , that some one is working on a " fix " ( causal vandals , political enemies , spammers ) where , for a short time at least , Australians will be able to see nothing but kp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure, that somewhere in the world, that some one is working on a "fix" ( causal vandals, political enemies, spammers) where, for a short time at least, Australians will be able to see nothing but kp.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478356</id>
	<title>Re:Our internet filter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268590380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's all very well, but that exact same argument that says it's the end-user's responsibility if they subvert it can be used to support an optional system whereby it's the end-user's responsibility to enable it or disable it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all very well , but that exact same argument that says it 's the end-user 's responsibility if they subvert it can be used to support an optional system whereby it 's the end-user 's responsibility to enable it or disable it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all very well, but that exact same argument that says it's the end-user's responsibility if they subvert it can be used to support an optional system whereby it's the end-user's responsibility to enable it or disable it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476298</id>
	<title>URL based?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268573040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the URL-based Internet filter</p></div><p>Really? That&rsquo;s really dumb!<br>I don&rsquo;t see my instant messenger using URLs to send messages. Just IP addresses. Which can go to proxies too. Etc, etc.</p><p>Nice to see the incompetency of government work <strong>for</strong> us for a change. ^^</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the URL-based Internet filterReally ?
That    s really dumb ! I don    t see my instant messenger using URLs to send messages .
Just IP addresses .
Which can go to proxies too .
Etc , etc.Nice to see the incompetency of government work for us for a change .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the URL-based Internet filterReally?
That’s really dumb!I don’t see my instant messenger using URLs to send messages.
Just IP addresses.
Which can go to proxies too.
Etc, etc.Nice to see the incompetency of government work for us for a change.
^^
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478940</id>
	<title>Re:Our internet filter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268685960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I actually agree with this approach. I do, however, think that the list should be publicly available, blocked sites should have the right to ask why their site is blocked, and a system of appeal to get it unblocked.</p></div><p>Awww horsecrap. If you want to prevent political fallout from the "save the children" crowd, it can be done with a lot of other filtering setups that don't attempt to filter the entire country.</p><p>The problem is there is no way to opt-in/opt-out. You could have a system where adults could have their connections, or even specific computers on their connections, opt'd in/out (depending on the approach of the filter). Schools can individually set access levels based on student age and study material.</p><p>If you want a system that works, and isn't a political bombshell, then introduce a system, any system, which allows adults who don't want the filtering to bypass it. It also needs to have a list of sites &amp; their classifications, along with an appeal process for the sites to get their classifications updated, or to challenge the classification criteria.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually agree with this approach .
I do , however , think that the list should be publicly available , blocked sites should have the right to ask why their site is blocked , and a system of appeal to get it unblocked.Awww horsecrap .
If you want to prevent political fallout from the " save the children " crowd , it can be done with a lot of other filtering setups that do n't attempt to filter the entire country.The problem is there is no way to opt-in/opt-out .
You could have a system where adults could have their connections , or even specific computers on their connections , opt 'd in/out ( depending on the approach of the filter ) .
Schools can individually set access levels based on student age and study material.If you want a system that works , and is n't a political bombshell , then introduce a system , any system , which allows adults who do n't want the filtering to bypass it .
It also needs to have a list of sites &amp; their classifications , along with an appeal process for the sites to get their classifications updated , or to challenge the classification criteria .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually agree with this approach.
I do, however, think that the list should be publicly available, blocked sites should have the right to ask why their site is blocked, and a system of appeal to get it unblocked.Awww horsecrap.
If you want to prevent political fallout from the "save the children" crowd, it can be done with a lot of other filtering setups that don't attempt to filter the entire country.The problem is there is no way to opt-in/opt-out.
You could have a system where adults could have their connections, or even specific computers on their connections, opt'd in/out (depending on the approach of the filter).
Schools can individually set access levels based on student age and study material.If you want a system that works, and isn't a political bombshell, then introduce a system, any system, which allows adults who don't want the filtering to bypass it.
It also needs to have a list of sites &amp; their classifications, along with an appeal process for the sites to get their classifications updated, or to challenge the classification criteria.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475688</id>
	<title>Nice upscale</title>
	<author>ZP-Blight</author>
	<datestamp>1268568360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice upscale for M86's filtering tech, designed to nanny kids, scaled up to nanny the whole country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice upscale for M86 's filtering tech , designed to nanny kids , scaled up to nanny the whole country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice upscale for M86's filtering tech, designed to nanny kids, scaled up to nanny the whole country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477390</id>
	<title>Re:Keep up the pressure</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1268580420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay. If you access refused classification material you are within your rights to do so. If you access illegal material (child porn, for instance) the FBI may show up at your door and arrest you because you have committed a crime. Blocking of either is censorship, but I have no problem with the later class of material being blocked. What is considered illegal and what is refused classification is a different debate entirely (if you want to argue that possession of child porn should be legal, go for it).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay .
If you access refused classification material you are within your rights to do so .
If you access illegal material ( child porn , for instance ) the FBI may show up at your door and arrest you because you have committed a crime .
Blocking of either is censorship , but I have no problem with the later class of material being blocked .
What is considered illegal and what is refused classification is a different debate entirely ( if you want to argue that possession of child porn should be legal , go for it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay.
If you access refused classification material you are within your rights to do so.
If you access illegal material (child porn, for instance) the FBI may show up at your door and arrest you because you have committed a crime.
Blocking of either is censorship, but I have no problem with the later class of material being blocked.
What is considered illegal and what is refused classification is a different debate entirely (if you want to argue that possession of child porn should be legal, go for it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475746</id>
	<title>Pull the plug...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268568780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the filter vendor agrees this is a rogue use of their technology... why are they cashing the check?</p><p>Ban the use of the software that way in the TOS, and the Aussie government can go jump in a lake!</p><p>Better yet, send out a rogue update to their servers where it disables the whole internet for the whole country... pirate software users don't have any reason to expect the software is going to behave honestly.</p><p>If you do something that tweaks a software vendor, there's no telling that they're not going to tweak you back.</p><p>Copyright has no requirement for publishing... there's some works done just to put it in a box and make sure nobody else can do the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the filter vendor agrees this is a rogue use of their technology... why are they cashing the check ? Ban the use of the software that way in the TOS , and the Aussie government can go jump in a lake ! Better yet , send out a rogue update to their servers where it disables the whole internet for the whole country... pirate software users do n't have any reason to expect the software is going to behave honestly.If you do something that tweaks a software vendor , there 's no telling that they 're not going to tweak you back.Copyright has no requirement for publishing... there 's some works done just to put it in a box and make sure nobody else can do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the filter vendor agrees this is a rogue use of their technology... why are they cashing the check?Ban the use of the software that way in the TOS, and the Aussie government can go jump in a lake!Better yet, send out a rogue update to their servers where it disables the whole internet for the whole country... pirate software users don't have any reason to expect the software is going to behave honestly.If you do something that tweaks a software vendor, there's no telling that they're not going to tweak you back.Copyright has no requirement for publishing... there's some works done just to put it in a box and make sure nobody else can do the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31479478</id>
	<title>Re:Keep up the pressure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268648760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Australia's balance of payments (money flowing overseas)  is about to take a hit. Crap policy means the value added services and jobs are now all going to go overseas - and import product and services - forever.</p><p>I'll be paying a overseas or Swiss based VPN proxy server money so my downloads remain private and personal. I don't trust them  (.au) - it is just a filter - and I don't know what else is in the works.<br>I hold the expectation that really nasty sites are brought down - not semi blocked. Although pandering to lobby groups for things like annorexia and self help suicide, and overseas betting sites - would be impossible to block on grounds of illegality alone.</p><p>I think the UK government was alarmed by 256 bit or more encrypted channels by every man and dog.<br>Well, get used to it. If every one does it, the baddies will be able to hide in the noise = bigger and un manageable problem for genuine law enforcement. With all the wireless PDA's and portable OS variants, slipping in a back door is going to be difficult - and get harder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Australia 's balance of payments ( money flowing overseas ) is about to take a hit .
Crap policy means the value added services and jobs are now all going to go overseas - and import product and services - forever.I 'll be paying a overseas or Swiss based VPN proxy server money so my downloads remain private and personal .
I do n't trust them ( .au ) - it is just a filter - and I do n't know what else is in the works.I hold the expectation that really nasty sites are brought down - not semi blocked .
Although pandering to lobby groups for things like annorexia and self help suicide , and overseas betting sites - would be impossible to block on grounds of illegality alone.I think the UK government was alarmed by 256 bit or more encrypted channels by every man and dog.Well , get used to it .
If every one does it , the baddies will be able to hide in the noise = bigger and un manageable problem for genuine law enforcement .
With all the wireless PDA 's and portable OS variants , slipping in a back door is going to be difficult - and get harder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Australia's balance of payments (money flowing overseas)  is about to take a hit.
Crap policy means the value added services and jobs are now all going to go overseas - and import product and services - forever.I'll be paying a overseas or Swiss based VPN proxy server money so my downloads remain private and personal.
I don't trust them  (.au) - it is just a filter - and I don't know what else is in the works.I hold the expectation that really nasty sites are brought down - not semi blocked.
Although pandering to lobby groups for things like annorexia and self help suicide, and overseas betting sites - would be impossible to block on grounds of illegality alone.I think the UK government was alarmed by 256 bit or more encrypted channels by every man and dog.Well, get used to it.
If every one does it, the baddies will be able to hide in the noise = bigger and un manageable problem for genuine law enforcement.
With all the wireless PDA's and portable OS variants, slipping in a back door is going to be difficult - and get harder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478438</id>
	<title>Re:Our internet filter</title>
	<author>stub667</author>
	<datestamp>1268591580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And letting people select if they want filtered or unfiltered content when they subscribe to a service wouldn't provide the same warm fuzzies? You could even mandate public and workplace systems get filtered if you want.</p><p>The current plan should die because my freedoms are being removed by other peoples morals and potentially other peoples political opinions. I currently live in a country with censored Internet and know just how pointless and annoying this filtering is. There is just too much outcry when you block major sites, so YouTube didn't stay offline for very long, and you can't do it for long and banning small sites is whack-a-mole with a million moles and a single mallet. It will be pathetic if when I finally return home to Australia it has censorship on par with the third world with all the underlying hypocrisy. What is Conroy's electorate again and is it a safe seat? I might see if I can change my registered voter's address.</p><p>Please, won't somebody think of the adults for a change? The kids aren't even old enough to vote!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And letting people select if they want filtered or unfiltered content when they subscribe to a service would n't provide the same warm fuzzies ?
You could even mandate public and workplace systems get filtered if you want.The current plan should die because my freedoms are being removed by other peoples morals and potentially other peoples political opinions .
I currently live in a country with censored Internet and know just how pointless and annoying this filtering is .
There is just too much outcry when you block major sites , so YouTube did n't stay offline for very long , and you ca n't do it for long and banning small sites is whack-a-mole with a million moles and a single mallet .
It will be pathetic if when I finally return home to Australia it has censorship on par with the third world with all the underlying hypocrisy .
What is Conroy 's electorate again and is it a safe seat ?
I might see if I can change my registered voter 's address.Please , wo n't somebody think of the adults for a change ?
The kids are n't even old enough to vote !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And letting people select if they want filtered or unfiltered content when they subscribe to a service wouldn't provide the same warm fuzzies?
You could even mandate public and workplace systems get filtered if you want.The current plan should die because my freedoms are being removed by other peoples morals and potentially other peoples political opinions.
I currently live in a country with censored Internet and know just how pointless and annoying this filtering is.
There is just too much outcry when you block major sites, so YouTube didn't stay offline for very long, and you can't do it for long and banning small sites is whack-a-mole with a million moles and a single mallet.
It will be pathetic if when I finally return home to Australia it has censorship on par with the third world with all the underlying hypocrisy.
What is Conroy's electorate again and is it a safe seat?
I might see if I can change my registered voter's address.Please, won't somebody think of the adults for a change?
The kids aren't even old enough to vote!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31479036</id>
	<title>Re:Our internet filter</title>
	<author>Antarius</author>
	<datestamp>1268643900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The opposition screwed up our whole telecoms sector while they were in Govt, and the Labor plan is to replace the entire telephone network in Australia with a proper data network (not a phone network), and separate wholesale and retail arms of the sector. This should have been done 10-15 years ago - it is projected to cost around 42 billion $AUS.</p></div></blockquote><p>


Sorry to burst your bubble there, Mr Troll, but your precious Labor party is just as responsible for our telecommunications debacle as the Libs are.<br>
<br>
Back in the 90's when the idea of privatisation/selling-off Telstra came up, I had put forward an alternate proposal that involved separating the infrastructure and having a good level playing field that we can only currently dream of.<br>
<br>
The Democrats (who were almost even a party at the time) took my ideas and discussed them in parliament. Both the Labor and Liberal parties were against the split and so we ended up with the mess we have today.<br>
<br>
<br>
Labor(sic) has just as much blood on their hands as the Libs.<br>
<br>
Everyone wanted a quick fix to recover from Labor's massive debt, so they held a garage sale and Telstra found itself in the bargain bucket.  Telstra wouldn't have been worth nearly as much if it had been split.  Since elections are short-term affairs, politicians don't care about long-term ramifications as much as they should!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The opposition screwed up our whole telecoms sector while they were in Govt , and the Labor plan is to replace the entire telephone network in Australia with a proper data network ( not a phone network ) , and separate wholesale and retail arms of the sector .
This should have been done 10-15 years ago - it is projected to cost around 42 billion $ AUS .
Sorry to burst your bubble there , Mr Troll , but your precious Labor party is just as responsible for our telecommunications debacle as the Libs are .
Back in the 90 's when the idea of privatisation/selling-off Telstra came up , I had put forward an alternate proposal that involved separating the infrastructure and having a good level playing field that we can only currently dream of .
The Democrats ( who were almost even a party at the time ) took my ideas and discussed them in parliament .
Both the Labor and Liberal parties were against the split and so we ended up with the mess we have today .
Labor ( sic ) has just as much blood on their hands as the Libs .
Everyone wanted a quick fix to recover from Labor 's massive debt , so they held a garage sale and Telstra found itself in the bargain bucket .
Telstra would n't have been worth nearly as much if it had been split .
Since elections are short-term affairs , politicians do n't care about long-term ramifications as much as they should !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The opposition screwed up our whole telecoms sector while they were in Govt, and the Labor plan is to replace the entire telephone network in Australia with a proper data network (not a phone network), and separate wholesale and retail arms of the sector.
This should have been done 10-15 years ago - it is projected to cost around 42 billion $AUS.
Sorry to burst your bubble there, Mr Troll, but your precious Labor party is just as responsible for our telecommunications debacle as the Libs are.
Back in the 90's when the idea of privatisation/selling-off Telstra came up, I had put forward an alternate proposal that involved separating the infrastructure and having a good level playing field that we can only currently dream of.
The Democrats (who were almost even a party at the time) took my ideas and discussed them in parliament.
Both the Labor and Liberal parties were against the split and so we ended up with the mess we have today.
Labor(sic) has just as much blood on their hands as the Libs.
Everyone wanted a quick fix to recover from Labor's massive debt, so they held a garage sale and Telstra found itself in the bargain bucket.
Telstra wouldn't have been worth nearly as much if it had been split.
Since elections are short-term affairs, politicians don't care about long-term ramifications as much as they should!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31479234</id>
	<title>Re:Our internet filter</title>
	<author>Sparx139</author>
	<datestamp>1268646180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I actually agree with this approach.</p></div><p>I disagree. The Liberals released the NetAlert <b>opt-in</b>, downloadable filter back when they were in power. It fell flat on it's face - nobody downloaded it, and it was broken within two days by a teenager. But at least it kept to the principles of democracy. Repeat after me: <br>
There are better ways to deal with "protecting the children" then creating a police state<br>
There are better ways to deal with "protecting the children" then creating a police state<br>
There are better ways to deal with "protecting the children" then creating a police state</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually agree with this approach.I disagree .
The Liberals released the NetAlert opt-in , downloadable filter back when they were in power .
It fell flat on it 's face - nobody downloaded it , and it was broken within two days by a teenager .
But at least it kept to the principles of democracy .
Repeat after me : There are better ways to deal with " protecting the children " then creating a police state There are better ways to deal with " protecting the children " then creating a police state There are better ways to deal with " protecting the children " then creating a police state</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually agree with this approach.I disagree.
The Liberals released the NetAlert opt-in, downloadable filter back when they were in power.
It fell flat on it's face - nobody downloaded it, and it was broken within two days by a teenager.
But at least it kept to the principles of democracy.
Repeat after me: 
There are better ways to deal with "protecting the children" then creating a police state
There are better ways to deal with "protecting the children" then creating a police state
There are better ways to deal with "protecting the children" then creating a police state
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475884</id>
	<title>Duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268569920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476272</id>
	<title>Won't stop Palpatine err I mean Conroy</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1268572920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The man has shown he has no regard for what Australians want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The man has shown he has no regard for what Australians want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The man has shown he has no regard for what Australians want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475686</id>
	<title>Keep up the pressure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268568360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, it seems that even if God almighty would have stepped down and told Mr. Conroy that filtering of this sort is a bad idea i wouldn't have helped much. However, keep up the pressure and they will relent (do not look at NZ!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , it seems that even if God almighty would have stepped down and told Mr. Conroy that filtering of this sort is a bad idea i would n't have helped much .
However , keep up the pressure and they will relent ( do not look at NZ !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, it seems that even if God almighty would have stepped down and told Mr. Conroy that filtering of this sort is a bad idea i wouldn't have helped much.
However, keep up the pressure and they will relent (do not look at NZ!
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478828</id>
	<title>Re:Our internet filter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry - but from a political point of view - Labor are making the conservatives argue for free speech....brilliant!  So after they finish screwing around with a system that doesn't work for a few years, they pull the whole thing down, explain that it doesn't work, but they really tried.  And when the conservatives get back into power and try to build their own system, Labor will have all those lovely quotes about how *love* free speech on the internet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  Brilliant!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry - but from a political point of view - Labor are making the conservatives argue for free speech....brilliant !
So after they finish screwing around with a system that does n't work for a few years , they pull the whole thing down , explain that it does n't work , but they really tried .
And when the conservatives get back into power and try to build their own system , Labor will have all those lovely quotes about how * love * free speech on the internet : ) Brilliant !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry - but from a political point of view - Labor are making the conservatives argue for free speech....brilliant!
So after they finish screwing around with a system that doesn't work for a few years, they pull the whole thing down, explain that it doesn't work, but they really tried.
And when the conservatives get back into power and try to build their own system, Labor will have all those lovely quotes about how *love* free speech on the internet :)  Brilliant!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477838</id>
	<title>Re:Keep up the pressure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268584800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would you care to explain to this dimwitted American the effective difference between "blocking illegal material", blocking material that is "refused classification" and "censorship"? From where I sit, if I can't access a Web address because of government-mandated interference, well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <i>that material has been censored</i>. What particular arbitrary classification a particular government regime places that information into is irrelevant: I cannot get to it. Governments like to play games with words in order to make their sanctimonious crap more palatable to their respective publics. It sounds to me like that's exactly what's happening in Australia, and you personally seem to be buying into it.</p></div><p>The only difference is that illegal material is a super set of refused classification.</p><p>When the censorship board declares material illegal it gets the classification "Refused Classification". The point of the filter is to censor material that is known to be illegal or RC to be precise. I'ts not really possible to filter "illegal material" that isn't RC because it hasn't been classified as such.</p><p>My main problems with the filter are that it doesn't solve any real problems and will have a large impact on law abiding Australians.</p><p>Problem:<br>Save the kiddies: Doesn't help because there is heaps on legal material that I wouldn't want children to view. False sense of security etc.</p><p>Save me from accidently seeing nasty stuff: Not relevant any more. You have to look for the nasty stuff and google+others do a good jobs of keeping us away from this unless we want to look harder. I haven't stumbled on anything bad (i.e RC) for nearly a decade.</p><p>Save me from deliberately accessing illegal content: Not effective. Basically it only protects the public www leaving the many other (more private) means of accessing information.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you care to explain to this dimwitted American the effective difference between " blocking illegal material " , blocking material that is " refused classification " and " censorship " ?
From where I sit , if I ca n't access a Web address because of government-mandated interference , well ... that material has been censored .
What particular arbitrary classification a particular government regime places that information into is irrelevant : I can not get to it .
Governments like to play games with words in order to make their sanctimonious crap more palatable to their respective publics .
It sounds to me like that 's exactly what 's happening in Australia , and you personally seem to be buying into it.The only difference is that illegal material is a super set of refused classification.When the censorship board declares material illegal it gets the classification " Refused Classification " .
The point of the filter is to censor material that is known to be illegal or RC to be precise .
I'ts not really possible to filter " illegal material " that is n't RC because it has n't been classified as such.My main problems with the filter are that it does n't solve any real problems and will have a large impact on law abiding Australians.Problem : Save the kiddies : Does n't help because there is heaps on legal material that I would n't want children to view .
False sense of security etc.Save me from accidently seeing nasty stuff : Not relevant any more .
You have to look for the nasty stuff and google + others do a good jobs of keeping us away from this unless we want to look harder .
I have n't stumbled on anything bad ( i.e RC ) for nearly a decade.Save me from deliberately accessing illegal content : Not effective .
Basically it only protects the public www leaving the many other ( more private ) means of accessing information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you care to explain to this dimwitted American the effective difference between "blocking illegal material", blocking material that is "refused classification" and "censorship"?
From where I sit, if I can't access a Web address because of government-mandated interference, well ... that material has been censored.
What particular arbitrary classification a particular government regime places that information into is irrelevant: I cannot get to it.
Governments like to play games with words in order to make their sanctimonious crap more palatable to their respective publics.
It sounds to me like that's exactly what's happening in Australia, and you personally seem to be buying into it.The only difference is that illegal material is a super set of refused classification.When the censorship board declares material illegal it gets the classification "Refused Classification".
The point of the filter is to censor material that is known to be illegal or RC to be precise.
I'ts not really possible to filter "illegal material" that isn't RC because it hasn't been classified as such.My main problems with the filter are that it doesn't solve any real problems and will have a large impact on law abiding Australians.Problem:Save the kiddies: Doesn't help because there is heaps on legal material that I wouldn't want children to view.
False sense of security etc.Save me from accidently seeing nasty stuff: Not relevant any more.
You have to look for the nasty stuff and google+others do a good jobs of keeping us away from this unless we want to look harder.
I haven't stumbled on anything bad (i.e RC) for nearly a decade.Save me from deliberately accessing illegal content: Not effective.
Basically it only protects the public www leaving the many other (more private) means of accessing information.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477646</id>
	<title>Already said in the original report</title>
	<author>Wizarth</author>
	<datestamp>1268583060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original report from the trial, mentioned in the summary, said this very thing. Yet the government called it a glorious success and rushed through decisions to implement it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original report from the trial , mentioned in the summary , said this very thing .
Yet the government called it a glorious success and rushed through decisions to implement it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original report from the trial, mentioned in the summary, said this very thing.
Yet the government called it a glorious success and rushed through decisions to implement it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477046</id>
	<title>Re:Pull the plug...</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1268577900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the filter vendor agrees this is a rogue use of their technology... why are they cashing the check?</p></div><p>I'm impressed. LostCluster managed to spell "rogue" correctly not once but <i>twice.</i> Not that I have anything against rouge.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the filter vendor agrees this is a rogue use of their technology... why are they cashing the check ? I 'm impressed .
LostCluster managed to spell " rogue " correctly not once but twice .
Not that I have anything against rouge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the filter vendor agrees this is a rogue use of their technology... why are they cashing the check?I'm impressed.
LostCluster managed to spell "rogue" correctly not once but twice.
Not that I have anything against rouge.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475882</id>
	<title>Re:Keep up the pressure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268569920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A comment posted below article linked to sums up the problem very succinctly:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"every one of the content types stated by Senator Conroy for implementing the proposed net filter are already illegal in Australia and already filtered by the ACMA blacklist. [...] What Conroy actually wants to block is stuff that isn't determined to be Illegal in Australia but fall under the much much broader category of Refused Classification."</p></div><p>I think that illegal material should be blocked (it usually is, by removing the associated IP addresses from DNS servers). On the other hand, blocking refused classification material is censorship. The government needs to clearly justify the proposed block <b>for RC material</b> rather than pointing to illegal material to attempt to justify it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A comment posted below article linked to sums up the problem very succinctly : " every one of the content types stated by Senator Conroy for implementing the proposed net filter are already illegal in Australia and already filtered by the ACMA blacklist .
[ ... ] What Conroy actually wants to block is stuff that is n't determined to be Illegal in Australia but fall under the much much broader category of Refused Classification .
" I think that illegal material should be blocked ( it usually is , by removing the associated IP addresses from DNS servers ) .
On the other hand , blocking refused classification material is censorship .
The government needs to clearly justify the proposed block for RC material rather than pointing to illegal material to attempt to justify it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A comment posted below article linked to sums up the problem very succinctly:"every one of the content types stated by Senator Conroy for implementing the proposed net filter are already illegal in Australia and already filtered by the ACMA blacklist.
[...] What Conroy actually wants to block is stuff that isn't determined to be Illegal in Australia but fall under the much much broader category of Refused Classification.
"I think that illegal material should be blocked (it usually is, by removing the associated IP addresses from DNS servers).
On the other hand, blocking refused classification material is censorship.
The government needs to clearly justify the proposed block for RC material rather than pointing to illegal material to attempt to justify it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475986</id>
	<title>Re:Pull the plug...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268570880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously?  Because it's a check.  If you've warned the customer it's an inappropriate use, you document the warning, and sell them the boxed set when they say "I think it's good enough"</p><p>When they come back for support you:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1) provide it at a normal rate (gain money, and probably take a long time)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2) refuse to provide it (no gain, but you might not lose money providng support)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 3) decide it's worth supporting, and lay out terms at 5 to 10fold your normal rate because it's an unsupported use that will require more experienced staff than normal</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
Because it 's a check .
If you 've warned the customer it 's an inappropriate use , you document the warning , and sell them the boxed set when they say " I think it 's good enough " When they come back for support you :     1 ) provide it at a normal rate ( gain money , and probably take a long time )     2 ) refuse to provide it ( no gain , but you might not lose money providng support )     3 ) decide it 's worth supporting , and lay out terms at 5 to 10fold your normal rate because it 's an unsupported use that will require more experienced staff than normal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
Because it's a check.
If you've warned the customer it's an inappropriate use, you document the warning, and sell them the boxed set when they say "I think it's good enough"When they come back for support you:
    1) provide it at a normal rate (gain money, and probably take a long time)
    2) refuse to provide it (no gain, but you might not lose money providng support)
    3) decide it's worth supporting, and lay out terms at 5 to 10fold your normal rate because it's an unsupported use that will require more experienced staff than normal</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477588</id>
	<title>Re:Censorship is more dangerous than terrorism.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268582640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This comment implies that all freedom is beneficial. I am not free to murder strangers, nor publish child pornography - yet I would consider these restrictions on freedom beneficial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This comment implies that all freedom is beneficial .
I am not free to murder strangers , nor publish child pornography - yet I would consider these restrictions on freedom beneficial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This comment implies that all freedom is beneficial.
I am not free to murder strangers, nor publish child pornography - yet I would consider these restrictions on freedom beneficial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478014</id>
	<title>Re:Keep up the pressure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268586120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He probably just put on the blacklist and no longer has to put up with his annoying interruptions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He probably just put on the blacklist and no longer has to put up with his annoying interruptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He probably just put on the blacklist and no longer has to put up with his annoying interruptions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476234</id>
	<title>Re:Confusion</title>
	<author>thegrassyknowl</author>
	<datestamp>1268572680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who used to work in a filtering company...</p><p>The point of a filter to nanny kids is not to stop kids finding porn. It's to stop them wasting their time in school using sites like Facebook, MySpace, etc.  This kind of nannying is also useful for keeping an eye on your employees and making sure they don't spend all day on Facebook. Quotas can be enforced, access patterns allowing certain sites during certain times can be configured.</p><p>The filter does a reasonable job of ensuring things like Google's safe search are always forced to on and stopping users accidentally stumbling on things they shouldn't. We had filter categories like 'porn', 'hate speech' and 'terrorism' which could be used to block a fair amount of stuff but that kind of automated decision making is not perfect and stuff slips through - even without a sufficiently determined attacker trying. It's just not possible to automatically block everything bad. The more accurate your automated blocking, the more intensive the CPU and memory requirements.</p><p>It is possible, and reasonably cheap to block access to a number of known bad URLs. This is only possible if the blocker also controls the gateway firewall and only allows HTTP traffic to pass through it. If any other traffic is allowed to pass through the gateway we have immediate back doors (SSL, VPNs, SSH tunnels, TOR, etc) available to us.</p><p>SSL-based traffic can be snooped with an intermediate key, but you also need to get a wildcard certificate to match. That's been proven fairly easy to do. If you control all machines behind your filter you can also have them trust your dodgy CA and issue your own certificate. What's interesting enough is that most users simply click away at SSL warnings until they get to the site anyway. No matter how annoying the browser is about it users just want their content.</p><p>I see the most serious point of contention here is that people's banking and other fairly personal details will be inside the filter/proxy UNENCRYPTED. This means that a 3rd party has access to that and if the system is exploited so does any number of evil parties. I lost interest when I stopped being in the industry to an extent, but Conroy had initially wanted to disect SSL traffic as well. Did he go ahead with that requirement?</p><p>Censorship on a whole country level is silly idea; there's too many back doors unless the country wants to restrict information flow to HTTP-only, which would have a devastating effect on the Internet. Even China isn't that strict and there exist dissidents who use technology to get around the Internet filters there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who used to work in a filtering company...The point of a filter to nanny kids is not to stop kids finding porn .
It 's to stop them wasting their time in school using sites like Facebook , MySpace , etc .
This kind of nannying is also useful for keeping an eye on your employees and making sure they do n't spend all day on Facebook .
Quotas can be enforced , access patterns allowing certain sites during certain times can be configured.The filter does a reasonable job of ensuring things like Google 's safe search are always forced to on and stopping users accidentally stumbling on things they should n't .
We had filter categories like 'porn ' , 'hate speech ' and 'terrorism ' which could be used to block a fair amount of stuff but that kind of automated decision making is not perfect and stuff slips through - even without a sufficiently determined attacker trying .
It 's just not possible to automatically block everything bad .
The more accurate your automated blocking , the more intensive the CPU and memory requirements.It is possible , and reasonably cheap to block access to a number of known bad URLs .
This is only possible if the blocker also controls the gateway firewall and only allows HTTP traffic to pass through it .
If any other traffic is allowed to pass through the gateway we have immediate back doors ( SSL , VPNs , SSH tunnels , TOR , etc ) available to us.SSL-based traffic can be snooped with an intermediate key , but you also need to get a wildcard certificate to match .
That 's been proven fairly easy to do .
If you control all machines behind your filter you can also have them trust your dodgy CA and issue your own certificate .
What 's interesting enough is that most users simply click away at SSL warnings until they get to the site anyway .
No matter how annoying the browser is about it users just want their content.I see the most serious point of contention here is that people 's banking and other fairly personal details will be inside the filter/proxy UNENCRYPTED .
This means that a 3rd party has access to that and if the system is exploited so does any number of evil parties .
I lost interest when I stopped being in the industry to an extent , but Conroy had initially wanted to disect SSL traffic as well .
Did he go ahead with that requirement ? Censorship on a whole country level is silly idea ; there 's too many back doors unless the country wants to restrict information flow to HTTP-only , which would have a devastating effect on the Internet .
Even China is n't that strict and there exist dissidents who use technology to get around the Internet filters there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who used to work in a filtering company...The point of a filter to nanny kids is not to stop kids finding porn.
It's to stop them wasting their time in school using sites like Facebook, MySpace, etc.
This kind of nannying is also useful for keeping an eye on your employees and making sure they don't spend all day on Facebook.
Quotas can be enforced, access patterns allowing certain sites during certain times can be configured.The filter does a reasonable job of ensuring things like Google's safe search are always forced to on and stopping users accidentally stumbling on things they shouldn't.
We had filter categories like 'porn', 'hate speech' and 'terrorism' which could be used to block a fair amount of stuff but that kind of automated decision making is not perfect and stuff slips through - even without a sufficiently determined attacker trying.
It's just not possible to automatically block everything bad.
The more accurate your automated blocking, the more intensive the CPU and memory requirements.It is possible, and reasonably cheap to block access to a number of known bad URLs.
This is only possible if the blocker also controls the gateway firewall and only allows HTTP traffic to pass through it.
If any other traffic is allowed to pass through the gateway we have immediate back doors (SSL, VPNs, SSH tunnels, TOR, etc) available to us.SSL-based traffic can be snooped with an intermediate key, but you also need to get a wildcard certificate to match.
That's been proven fairly easy to do.
If you control all machines behind your filter you can also have them trust your dodgy CA and issue your own certificate.
What's interesting enough is that most users simply click away at SSL warnings until they get to the site anyway.
No matter how annoying the browser is about it users just want their content.I see the most serious point of contention here is that people's banking and other fairly personal details will be inside the filter/proxy UNENCRYPTED.
This means that a 3rd party has access to that and if the system is exploited so does any number of evil parties.
I lost interest when I stopped being in the industry to an extent, but Conroy had initially wanted to disect SSL traffic as well.
Did he go ahead with that requirement?Censorship on a whole country level is silly idea; there's too many back doors unless the country wants to restrict information flow to HTTP-only, which would have a devastating effect on the Internet.
Even China isn't that strict and there exist dissidents who use technology to get around the Internet filters there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477378</id>
	<title>Re:URL based?</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1268580300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how does that work for HTTPS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how does that work for HTTPS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how does that work for HTTPS?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478094</id>
	<title>Re:Bags not being the scapegoat</title>
	<author>dakameleon</author>
	<datestamp>1268586900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...when this all goes South.</p></div><p>Should that be North, given it's Down Under? *ducks*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...when this all goes South.Should that be North , given it 's Down Under ?
* ducks *</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...when this all goes South.Should that be North, given it's Down Under?
*ducks*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477608</id>
	<title>Re:Keep up the pressure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268582760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, they could just not. That would be a better idea all togerther.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , they could just not .
That would be a better idea all togerther .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, they could just not.
That would be a better idea all togerther.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476118</id>
	<title>Re:Keep up the pressure</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1268571900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Unfortunately, it seems that even if God almighty would have stepped down and told Mr. Conroy that filtering of this sort is a bad idea i wouldn't have helped much.</i></p><p>Chances are he turned to God, looked down at him and sneered "You a god? I am my own god. I will ignore the drivel coming from a being such as you".</p><p>Most people consider good and bad to be two extremes of a straight line. I see them as opposing points on a circle. If you go too far one way there is a chance that you will end up where you didn't mean to be. The best place is somewhere in the middle, IMHO. No, its not a perfect view, but what is?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , it seems that even if God almighty would have stepped down and told Mr. Conroy that filtering of this sort is a bad idea i would n't have helped much.Chances are he turned to God , looked down at him and sneered " You a god ?
I am my own god .
I will ignore the drivel coming from a being such as you " .Most people consider good and bad to be two extremes of a straight line .
I see them as opposing points on a circle .
If you go too far one way there is a chance that you will end up where you did n't mean to be .
The best place is somewhere in the middle , IMHO .
No , its not a perfect view , but what is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, it seems that even if God almighty would have stepped down and told Mr. Conroy that filtering of this sort is a bad idea i wouldn't have helped much.Chances are he turned to God, looked down at him and sneered "You a god?
I am my own god.
I will ignore the drivel coming from a being such as you".Most people consider good and bad to be two extremes of a straight line.
I see them as opposing points on a circle.
If you go too far one way there is a chance that you will end up where you didn't mean to be.
The best place is somewhere in the middle, IMHO.
No, its not a perfect view, but what is?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476918</id>
	<title>Re:XS4ALL</title>
	<author>aXis100</author>
	<datestamp>1268577060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All good reasons but I think the best ones are:</p><p>5) It doesnt work - anyone who wants to bypass the filters can use an encypted protocol or VPN</p><p>6) Anything actually badly illegal (eg kiddy porn) does not need require filtering.  It gets terminated by federal/international police shortly after it is found.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All good reasons but I think the best ones are : 5 ) It doesnt work - anyone who wants to bypass the filters can use an encypted protocol or VPN6 ) Anything actually badly illegal ( eg kiddy porn ) does not need require filtering .
It gets terminated by federal/international police shortly after it is found .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All good reasons but I think the best ones are:5) It doesnt work - anyone who wants to bypass the filters can use an encypted protocol or VPN6) Anything actually badly illegal (eg kiddy porn) does not need require filtering.
It gets terminated by federal/international police shortly after it is found.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218</id>
	<title>Our internet filter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268579160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am posting as anon because I do not want anyone to know who I am, however, I do know people involved in this project and I know what I am about to say is true.  It is designed to be a rudimentary fix to a possible political problem the govt will inevitably face from the conservatives in the opposition when the new NBN (National Broadband Network - a fibre to the home network for almost all homes, work places and institutions) has been rolled out.</p><p>You see the Labor govt has young(ish) knowledgeable tech savvy people working for it.  Most of the opposition have no idea how to use the expensive tech that they have access to as ministers.  The opposition screwed up our whole telecoms sector while they were in Govt, and the Labor plan is to replace the entire telephone network in Australia with a proper data network (not a phone network), and separate wholesale and retail arms of the sector.  This should have been done 10-15 years ago - it is projected to cost around 42 billion $AUS.</p><p>Labor is also giving children in all govt schools laptops to use instead of their normal books.</p><p>The opposition will inevitably ask why the Labor govt irresponsibly connected children to the porno-interwebs and use a family values scare campaign.  The IP blocking filter doesn't work the way you think it should, and they all know it, and they don't care.  When primary school kids hook up their laptops to the NBN, or the police, or the hospitals (patients and staff alike) - they will have to actually *want* to subvert the firewall to access this stuff......and politically - that is enough for Labor to point the finger back at the user, and tell them it is not the Govt fault, and the user should be held responsible.  Oh and as far as I am aware - there is not law that will penalize you if you do get around the firewall.....no one is going to arrest you (like in China or other less liberal countries).</p><p>I actually agree with this approach.  I do, however, think that the list should be publicly available, blocked sites should have the right to ask why their site is blocked, and a system of appeal to get it unblocked.  I also think that people in Australia should understand that while we do not have a bill of rights, we do not have an explicit right to free speech......so ask your pollies why they haven't introduced one yet (Victoria has one...but it is a bit crap ).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am posting as anon because I do not want anyone to know who I am , however , I do know people involved in this project and I know what I am about to say is true .
It is designed to be a rudimentary fix to a possible political problem the govt will inevitably face from the conservatives in the opposition when the new NBN ( National Broadband Network - a fibre to the home network for almost all homes , work places and institutions ) has been rolled out.You see the Labor govt has young ( ish ) knowledgeable tech savvy people working for it .
Most of the opposition have no idea how to use the expensive tech that they have access to as ministers .
The opposition screwed up our whole telecoms sector while they were in Govt , and the Labor plan is to replace the entire telephone network in Australia with a proper data network ( not a phone network ) , and separate wholesale and retail arms of the sector .
This should have been done 10-15 years ago - it is projected to cost around 42 billion $ AUS.Labor is also giving children in all govt schools laptops to use instead of their normal books.The opposition will inevitably ask why the Labor govt irresponsibly connected children to the porno-interwebs and use a family values scare campaign .
The IP blocking filter does n't work the way you think it should , and they all know it , and they do n't care .
When primary school kids hook up their laptops to the NBN , or the police , or the hospitals ( patients and staff alike ) - they will have to actually * want * to subvert the firewall to access this stuff......and politically - that is enough for Labor to point the finger back at the user , and tell them it is not the Govt fault , and the user should be held responsible .
Oh and as far as I am aware - there is not law that will penalize you if you do get around the firewall.....no one is going to arrest you ( like in China or other less liberal countries ) .I actually agree with this approach .
I do , however , think that the list should be publicly available , blocked sites should have the right to ask why their site is blocked , and a system of appeal to get it unblocked .
I also think that people in Australia should understand that while we do not have a bill of rights , we do not have an explicit right to free speech......so ask your pollies why they have n't introduced one yet ( Victoria has one...but it is a bit crap ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am posting as anon because I do not want anyone to know who I am, however, I do know people involved in this project and I know what I am about to say is true.
It is designed to be a rudimentary fix to a possible political problem the govt will inevitably face from the conservatives in the opposition when the new NBN (National Broadband Network - a fibre to the home network for almost all homes, work places and institutions) has been rolled out.You see the Labor govt has young(ish) knowledgeable tech savvy people working for it.
Most of the opposition have no idea how to use the expensive tech that they have access to as ministers.
The opposition screwed up our whole telecoms sector while they were in Govt, and the Labor plan is to replace the entire telephone network in Australia with a proper data network (not a phone network), and separate wholesale and retail arms of the sector.
This should have been done 10-15 years ago - it is projected to cost around 42 billion $AUS.Labor is also giving children in all govt schools laptops to use instead of their normal books.The opposition will inevitably ask why the Labor govt irresponsibly connected children to the porno-interwebs and use a family values scare campaign.
The IP blocking filter doesn't work the way you think it should, and they all know it, and they don't care.
When primary school kids hook up their laptops to the NBN, or the police, or the hospitals (patients and staff alike) - they will have to actually *want* to subvert the firewall to access this stuff......and politically - that is enough for Labor to point the finger back at the user, and tell them it is not the Govt fault, and the user should be held responsible.
Oh and as far as I am aware - there is not law that will penalize you if you do get around the firewall.....no one is going to arrest you (like in China or other less liberal countries).I actually agree with this approach.
I do, however, think that the list should be publicly available, blocked sites should have the right to ask why their site is blocked, and a system of appeal to get it unblocked.
I also think that people in Australia should understand that while we do not have a bill of rights, we do not have an explicit right to free speech......so ask your pollies why they haven't introduced one yet (Victoria has one...but it is a bit crap ).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31480306</id>
	<title>Re:First sentence</title>
	<author>dfm3</author>
	<datestamp>1268657160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary looks fine to me, so obviously the filter is not working.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary looks fine to me , so obviously the filter is not working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary looks fine to me, so obviously the filter is not working.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31480800</id>
	<title>An alternate, copy China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268661600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ANON cos of where I am....</p><p>ALL countries have some type of 'censoring of the internet' and yes, I agree with 'my or the or them' government/ or some orginisation having control of this.</p><p>Some things in anyplace should be filtered from at least certain people, such as children from violence or P'filez from images.</p><p>Right, now wake up and look around you. This time Western countries should be copying CHINA, yes, CHINA. They simply 'have it right' and do it well.</p><p>If I wanna visit some site that [see above about govenrments] then THEY SHOULD stop me from doing what is not acceptable in that country.</p><p>Sorry guys, but Australia and many other countries are falling behind to China.... AND really fast.</p><p>Please go easy on your latest China lashing of flames....</p><p>And as to 'Police or whatever they are termed as, Good or Bad' YOU will and should be answerable to them in whatever country you reside, visit or exist...</p><p>daxi</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ANON cos of where I am....ALL countries have some type of 'censoring of the internet ' and yes , I agree with 'my or the or them ' government/ or some orginisation having control of this.Some things in anyplace should be filtered from at least certain people , such as children from violence or P'filez from images.Right , now wake up and look around you .
This time Western countries should be copying CHINA , yes , CHINA .
They simply 'have it right ' and do it well.If I wan na visit some site that [ see above about govenrments ] then THEY SHOULD stop me from doing what is not acceptable in that country.Sorry guys , but Australia and many other countries are falling behind to China.... AND really fast.Please go easy on your latest China lashing of flames....And as to 'Police or whatever they are termed as , Good or Bad ' YOU will and should be answerable to them in whatever country you reside , visit or exist...daxi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ANON cos of where I am....ALL countries have some type of 'censoring of the internet' and yes, I agree with 'my or the or them' government/ or some orginisation having control of this.Some things in anyplace should be filtered from at least certain people, such as children from violence or P'filez from images.Right, now wake up and look around you.
This time Western countries should be copying CHINA, yes, CHINA.
They simply 'have it right' and do it well.If I wanna visit some site that [see above about govenrments] then THEY SHOULD stop me from doing what is not acceptable in that country.Sorry guys, but Australia and many other countries are falling behind to China.... AND really fast.Please go easy on your latest China lashing of flames....And as to 'Police or whatever they are termed as, Good or Bad' YOU will and should be answerable to them in whatever country you reside, visit or exist...daxi</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477020</id>
	<title>Re:Keep up the pressure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268577720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think that illegal material should be blocked (it usually is, by removing the associated IP addresses from DNS servers). On the other hand, blocking refused classification material is censorship.</p></div><p>Would you care to explain to this dimwitted American the effective difference between "blocking illegal material", blocking material that is "refused classification" and "censorship"? From where I sit, if I can't access a Web address because of government-mandated interference, well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <i>that material has been censored</i>. What particular arbitrary classification a particular government regime places that information into is irrelevant: I cannot get to it. Governments like to play games with words in order to make their sanctimonious crap more palatable to their respective publics. It sounds to me like that's exactly what's happening in Australia, and you personally seem to be buying into it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that illegal material should be blocked ( it usually is , by removing the associated IP addresses from DNS servers ) .
On the other hand , blocking refused classification material is censorship.Would you care to explain to this dimwitted American the effective difference between " blocking illegal material " , blocking material that is " refused classification " and " censorship " ?
From where I sit , if I ca n't access a Web address because of government-mandated interference , well ... that material has been censored .
What particular arbitrary classification a particular government regime places that information into is irrelevant : I can not get to it .
Governments like to play games with words in order to make their sanctimonious crap more palatable to their respective publics .
It sounds to me like that 's exactly what 's happening in Australia , and you personally seem to be buying into it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that illegal material should be blocked (it usually is, by removing the associated IP addresses from DNS servers).
On the other hand, blocking refused classification material is censorship.Would you care to explain to this dimwitted American the effective difference between "blocking illegal material", blocking material that is "refused classification" and "censorship"?
From where I sit, if I can't access a Web address because of government-mandated interference, well ... that material has been censored.
What particular arbitrary classification a particular government regime places that information into is irrelevant: I cannot get to it.
Governments like to play games with words in order to make their sanctimonious crap more palatable to their respective publics.
It sounds to me like that's exactly what's happening in Australia, and you personally seem to be buying into it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476012</id>
	<title>Re:Confusion</title>
	<author>kaptink</author>
	<datestamp>1268571060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The proposed filter has nothing to do with the practicality of removing such things as pornography, assisted suicide, illicit drug information. It is simply selling the idea that these things will no longer be accessable by children. A recent poll found that most everyday Australians didn't really care too much about the idea of a manditory filter and thought it would be a good idea in the sense that it would protect children. This is exactly what the government wants and is marketing too. And the christian lobby just loves the idea. The actual reality of the whole thing is another matter entirely. Unfortunately as everyone on slashdot knows, within days every preschooler, n00b and computerphobe will have the knowledge to bypass the whole thing making it more of a speedbump than a preventative measure. Conroys crew have already bitten off way more than they can chew with their Australia wide FTTN plan. Good luck to em I say because I see a world of fail comming labours way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The proposed filter has nothing to do with the practicality of removing such things as pornography , assisted suicide , illicit drug information .
It is simply selling the idea that these things will no longer be accessable by children .
A recent poll found that most everyday Australians did n't really care too much about the idea of a manditory filter and thought it would be a good idea in the sense that it would protect children .
This is exactly what the government wants and is marketing too .
And the christian lobby just loves the idea .
The actual reality of the whole thing is another matter entirely .
Unfortunately as everyone on slashdot knows , within days every preschooler , n00b and computerphobe will have the knowledge to bypass the whole thing making it more of a speedbump than a preventative measure .
Conroys crew have already bitten off way more than they can chew with their Australia wide FTTN plan .
Good luck to em I say because I see a world of fail comming labours way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proposed filter has nothing to do with the practicality of removing such things as pornography, assisted suicide, illicit drug information.
It is simply selling the idea that these things will no longer be accessable by children.
A recent poll found that most everyday Australians didn't really care too much about the idea of a manditory filter and thought it would be a good idea in the sense that it would protect children.
This is exactly what the government wants and is marketing too.
And the christian lobby just loves the idea.
The actual reality of the whole thing is another matter entirely.
Unfortunately as everyone on slashdot knows, within days every preschooler, n00b and computerphobe will have the knowledge to bypass the whole thing making it more of a speedbump than a preventative measure.
Conroys crew have already bitten off way more than they can chew with their Australia wide FTTN plan.
Good luck to em I say because I see a world of fail comming labours way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476116</id>
	<title>Re:Pull the plug...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268571840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you're telling me you wouldn't cash a huge cheque if the government handed it to you on a silver fucking platter? Fuck off you git.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're telling me you would n't cash a huge cheque if the government handed it to you on a silver fucking platter ?
Fuck off you git .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're telling me you wouldn't cash a huge cheque if the government handed it to you on a silver fucking platter?
Fuck off you git.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475754</id>
	<title>Censorship is more dangerous than terrorism.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268568900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Censorship ALWAYS eliminates freedom. Terrorism only eliminates freedom if the affected citizens allow it to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Censorship ALWAYS eliminates freedom .
Terrorism only eliminates freedom if the affected citizens allow it to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Censorship ALWAYS eliminates freedom.
Terrorism only eliminates freedom if the affected citizens allow it to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478432</id>
	<title>Over to the line judges:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268591520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(do not look at <i> <b>NZ!</b> </i>).</p><p>Do we call a Goodwin on this play?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( do not look at NZ !
) .Do we call a Goodwin on this play ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(do not look at  NZ!
).Do we call a Goodwin on this play?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475686</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31480226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31479478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31479036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31480074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31479184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31482526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31480948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31479234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31480306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31480674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_2210219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_2210219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_2210219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31482526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_2210219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_2210219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31479478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31480674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477020
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478086
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477390
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_2210219.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31477218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31479184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31479036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31480948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31479234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31480226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31480074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_2210219.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_2210219.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_2210219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31480306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_2210219.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_2210219.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_2210219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31476918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_2210219.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31475846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_2210219.31478094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
