<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_17_2020246</id>
	<title>Mississippi Makes Caller ID Spoofing Illegal</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268814060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>marklyon writes <i>"<a href="http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2010/pdf/history/HB/HB0872.xml">HB 872</a>, recently signed into law by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, <a href="http://www.wdam.com/Global/story.asp?S=12154048">makes Caller ID spoofing illegal</a>. The law covers alterations to the caller's name, telephone number, or name and telephone number that is shown to a recipient of a call or otherwise presented to the network. The law applies to PSTN, wireless and VoIP calls.  Penalties for each violation can be up to $1,000 and one year in jail. Blocking of caller identification information is still permitted."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>marklyon writes " HB 872 , recently signed into law by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour , makes Caller ID spoofing illegal .
The law covers alterations to the caller 's name , telephone number , or name and telephone number that is shown to a recipient of a call or otherwise presented to the network .
The law applies to PSTN , wireless and VoIP calls .
Penalties for each violation can be up to $ 1,000 and one year in jail .
Blocking of caller identification information is still permitted .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>marklyon writes "HB 872, recently signed into law by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, makes Caller ID spoofing illegal.
The law covers alterations to the caller's name, telephone number, or name and telephone number that is shown to a recipient of a call or otherwise presented to the network.
The law applies to PSTN, wireless and VoIP calls.
Penalties for each violation can be up to $1,000 and one year in jail.
Blocking of caller identification information is still permitted.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516206</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>demonlapin</author>
	<datestamp>1268824200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in Mississippi; have my whole life. I have a noticeable if not particularly strong Southern accent.  And Mississippians still ask me - on a weekly basis - where I'm originally from.  <br> <br>Nobody would locate a general-purpose call center here.  <br> <br>As for how it will work, the answer is simple: they are going to go after in-state scammers. Once you start crossing state lines, the feds get interested in your frauds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in Mississippi ; have my whole life .
I have a noticeable if not particularly strong Southern accent .
And Mississippians still ask me - on a weekly basis - where I 'm originally from .
Nobody would locate a general-purpose call center here .
As for how it will work , the answer is simple : they are going to go after in-state scammers .
Once you start crossing state lines , the feds get interested in your frauds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in Mississippi; have my whole life.
I have a noticeable if not particularly strong Southern accent.
And Mississippians still ask me - on a weekly basis - where I'm originally from.
Nobody would locate a general-purpose call center here.
As for how it will work, the answer is simple: they are going to go after in-state scammers.
Once you start crossing state lines, the feds get interested in your frauds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515320</id>
	<title>Re:Collection Company's</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1268820420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could at least read <a href="http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2010/pdf/HB/0800-0899/HB0872SG.pdf" title="state.ms.us">the bill</a> [state.ms.us] before panicking.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"however, when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name, telephone number or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made, such information shall not be deemed false information."</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could at least read the bill [ state.ms.us ] before panicking .
" however , when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name , telephone number or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made , such information shall not be deemed false information .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could at least read the bill [state.ms.us] before panicking.
"however, when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name, telephone number or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made, such information shall not be deemed false information.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31521964</id>
	<title>This is just a fluff bill.</title>
	<author>DaysSinceTheDoor</author>
	<datestamp>1268923140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First off this bill is just fluff, all of the things it outlaws are already illegal under federal laws.

Second off this sort of legislation worthless as most of the companies committing this sort of fraud are located in other countries.  They operate with a VoIP connection and will call with one carrier for a while till the FTC or some state attorney general gets fed up and gets their VoIP connection shut down.  The company then turns around and in less than an hour has another VoIP connection through a different carrier.  There is basically nothing that can be done to stop them so long as VoIP carriers allow them to send out random caller id.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First off this bill is just fluff , all of the things it outlaws are already illegal under federal laws .
Second off this sort of legislation worthless as most of the companies committing this sort of fraud are located in other countries .
They operate with a VoIP connection and will call with one carrier for a while till the FTC or some state attorney general gets fed up and gets their VoIP connection shut down .
The company then turns around and in less than an hour has another VoIP connection through a different carrier .
There is basically nothing that can be done to stop them so long as VoIP carriers allow them to send out random caller id .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off this bill is just fluff, all of the things it outlaws are already illegal under federal laws.
Second off this sort of legislation worthless as most of the companies committing this sort of fraud are located in other countries.
They operate with a VoIP connection and will call with one carrier for a while till the FTC or some state attorney general gets fed up and gets their VoIP connection shut down.
The company then turns around and in less than an hour has another VoIP connection through a different carrier.
There is basically nothing that can be done to stop them so long as VoIP carriers allow them to send out random caller id.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515414</id>
	<title>Why bother spoofing?</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1268820720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why bother spoofing the caller ID when you can just block caller ID altogether? I'd just ignore "Unknown Caller" calls, except for the fact that my daughter's school makes emergency phone calls to parents with caller ID blocked... sigh. I point out to them every year that this is a problem, but they are too cheap to fix it. (Obviously they are using trunk lines from each school through the district headquarters, so if they displayed the number for the outgoing line, calling it back wouldn't put you in touch with the same person that called you. Also, they are too cheap to just use the main number for the district as a caller ID like every business in the country, 'cause then they would have to hire a receptionist to figure out who you actually wanted to contact.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why bother spoofing the caller ID when you can just block caller ID altogether ?
I 'd just ignore " Unknown Caller " calls , except for the fact that my daughter 's school makes emergency phone calls to parents with caller ID blocked... sigh. I point out to them every year that this is a problem , but they are too cheap to fix it .
( Obviously they are using trunk lines from each school through the district headquarters , so if they displayed the number for the outgoing line , calling it back would n't put you in touch with the same person that called you .
Also , they are too cheap to just use the main number for the district as a caller ID like every business in the country , 'cause then they would have to hire a receptionist to figure out who you actually wanted to contact .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why bother spoofing the caller ID when you can just block caller ID altogether?
I'd just ignore "Unknown Caller" calls, except for the fact that my daughter's school makes emergency phone calls to parents with caller ID blocked... sigh. I point out to them every year that this is a problem, but they are too cheap to fix it.
(Obviously they are using trunk lines from each school through the district headquarters, so if they displayed the number for the outgoing line, calling it back wouldn't put you in touch with the same person that called you.
Also, they are too cheap to just use the main number for the district as a caller ID like every business in the country, 'cause then they would have to hire a receptionist to figure out who you actually wanted to contact.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31518168</id>
	<title>Government Uses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268838180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if the NSA calls me and the caller-ID reads "Restricted" would they get fined?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if the NSA calls me and the caller-ID reads " Restricted " would they get fined ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if the NSA calls me and the caller-ID reads "Restricted" would they get fined?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516460</id>
	<title>Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea</title>
	<author>qazwart</author>
	<datestamp>1268825460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem isn't from Telcos. You can't spoof caller ID from a regular land line phone. This is for PBXs and 3rd party VOIP services where spoofing goes on all the time. In fact, I bet the local phone and cable companies are behind this bill since it causes problems for their customers.</p><p>Debt collectors are known to spoof caller IDs. For example, they'll spoof their number to that of a family member or employer. And, we recently had a spat of spoofed IDs a few months ago when that company in Missouri was selling extended auto warranties. In that case, they spoofed the number to hide their identity, so people couldn't complain.</p><p>FCC regulations already prohibit spoofing caller ID, but there really isn't any federal law which makes the regulations almost impossible to enforce.</p><p>There is a major problem with the bill. The bill only applies to people calling from Mississippi. The bill should have made it illegal to call a person or business in Mississippi using a spoofed caller ID.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't from Telcos .
You ca n't spoof caller ID from a regular land line phone .
This is for PBXs and 3rd party VOIP services where spoofing goes on all the time .
In fact , I bet the local phone and cable companies are behind this bill since it causes problems for their customers.Debt collectors are known to spoof caller IDs .
For example , they 'll spoof their number to that of a family member or employer .
And , we recently had a spat of spoofed IDs a few months ago when that company in Missouri was selling extended auto warranties .
In that case , they spoofed the number to hide their identity , so people could n't complain.FCC regulations already prohibit spoofing caller ID , but there really is n't any federal law which makes the regulations almost impossible to enforce.There is a major problem with the bill .
The bill only applies to people calling from Mississippi .
The bill should have made it illegal to call a person or business in Mississippi using a spoofed caller ID .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't from Telcos.
You can't spoof caller ID from a regular land line phone.
This is for PBXs and 3rd party VOIP services where spoofing goes on all the time.
In fact, I bet the local phone and cable companies are behind this bill since it causes problems for their customers.Debt collectors are known to spoof caller IDs.
For example, they'll spoof their number to that of a family member or employer.
And, we recently had a spat of spoofed IDs a few months ago when that company in Missouri was selling extended auto warranties.
In that case, they spoofed the number to hide their identity, so people couldn't complain.FCC regulations already prohibit spoofing caller ID, but there really isn't any federal law which makes the regulations almost impossible to enforce.There is a major problem with the bill.
The bill only applies to people calling from Mississippi.
The bill should have made it illegal to call a person or business in Mississippi using a spoofed caller ID.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515306</id>
	<title>Re:Does this make Google Voice illegal?</title>
	<author>iammani</author>
	<datestamp>1268820360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are not actually spoofing your caller ID. It is just that Google is calling you and the other person and conferencing you both. This can no way be construed as caller ID spoofing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are not actually spoofing your caller ID .
It is just that Google is calling you and the other person and conferencing you both .
This can no way be construed as caller ID spoofing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are not actually spoofing your caller ID.
It is just that Google is calling you and the other person and conferencing you both.
This can no way be construed as caller ID spoofing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514594</id>
	<title>Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268817780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There shouldn&rsquo;t need to be a <em>law</em> for this, though. Telcos should enforce it on their own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There shouldn    t need to be a law for this , though .
Telcos should enforce it on their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There shouldn’t need to be a law for this, though.
Telcos should enforce it on their own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515168</id>
	<title>Re:Collection Company's</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1268819940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone would have to sue them for it.  Since most customers probably \_want\_ to know that, rather than the name of the call center, it seems unlikely that anyone would pursue a case based on that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone would have to sue them for it .
Since most customers probably \ _want \ _ to know that , rather than the name of the call center , it seems unlikely that anyone would pursue a case based on that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone would have to sue them for it.
Since most customers probably \_want\_ to know that, rather than the name of the call center, it seems unlikely that anyone would pursue a case based on that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514984</id>
	<title>Re:Collection Company's</title>
	<author>Tihstae</author>
	<datestamp>1268819280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You people trying to use common sense and thinking about the details are ridiculous.  Lawmakers are too busy taking money our of our pockets to worry about these details and that money will be used to enforce this law which will require more of your money.  See, all clear now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You people trying to use common sense and thinking about the details are ridiculous .
Lawmakers are too busy taking money our of our pockets to worry about these details and that money will be used to enforce this law which will require more of your money .
See , all clear now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You people trying to use common sense and thinking about the details are ridiculous.
Lawmakers are too busy taking money our of our pockets to worry about these details and that money will be used to enforce this law which will require more of your money.
See, all clear now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514998</id>
	<title>Re:Collection Company's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268819340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, that's "Country Folks", you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , that 's " Country Folks " , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, that's "Country Folks", you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515248</id>
	<title>Re:Does this make Google Voice illegal?</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1268820120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You own the Google Voice number, and it is a number that can be called to reach you.  It's your number, not someone else's.  Therefore, using it as a return number is not entering "false" information.</p><p>From the actual law as passed:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>SECTION 2.  As used in this act:<br>[...]<br>(d)  "False information" means data that misrepresents the identity of the caller to the recipient of a call or to the network itself; however, when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name, telephone number or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made, such information shall not be deemed false information.</p></div><p>Google could easily be considered an "authorized agent" and they are putting in the telephone number they have issued to you.  Plus your Google Voice number does not misrepresent your identity.  So there are two outs in that provision that make Google Voice calls legit.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>SECTION 4.  This act does not apply to:<br>[...]<br>(d)  A telecommunications, broadband or voice-over-Internet service provider that is acting solely as an intermediary for the transmission of telephone service between the caller and the recipient.</p></div><p>This probably covers things like calling cards, where your call comes from some bizarr-o phone number your recipient has never heard of.  But it could easily apply to Google Voice.  Even if they used a random phone number from a list of numbers they own, they would not be in violation, as long as they didn't put someone else's name or a phone number actually belonging to someone else in there.  If you got a call from "UNKNOWN" at "1-800-GOOGLE1" and it was forwarded by Google, that's valid.  If you got a call from "INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE" "1-800-TAX-U-ASS" then that would be fraudulent.</p><p>Also, from a technical perspective, you are not calling the recipient from your cell phone.  The Google Voice app sends a signal to Google saying "the next call from this number should be forwarded to phone number (the number you asked it to dial) for account (you)".  Then it initiates a call to one of its access numbers, which uses your caller ID to figure out which Google Voice number to use on the outbound caller ID and who to call.  Technically, you are calling <b>Google</b> from your phone, and <b>they</b> are calling the recipient per your request, and presenting valid information about you to the recipient of the call.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You own the Google Voice number , and it is a number that can be called to reach you .
It 's your number , not someone else 's .
Therefore , using it as a return number is not entering " false " information.From the actual law as passed : SECTION 2 .
As used in this act : [ ... ] ( d ) " False information " means data that misrepresents the identity of the caller to the recipient of a call or to the network itself ; however , when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name , telephone number or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made , such information shall not be deemed false information.Google could easily be considered an " authorized agent " and they are putting in the telephone number they have issued to you .
Plus your Google Voice number does not misrepresent your identity .
So there are two outs in that provision that make Google Voice calls legit.SECTION 4 .
This act does not apply to : [ ... ] ( d ) A telecommunications , broadband or voice-over-Internet service provider that is acting solely as an intermediary for the transmission of telephone service between the caller and the recipient.This probably covers things like calling cards , where your call comes from some bizarr-o phone number your recipient has never heard of .
But it could easily apply to Google Voice .
Even if they used a random phone number from a list of numbers they own , they would not be in violation , as long as they did n't put someone else 's name or a phone number actually belonging to someone else in there .
If you got a call from " UNKNOWN " at " 1-800-GOOGLE1 " and it was forwarded by Google , that 's valid .
If you got a call from " INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE " " 1-800-TAX-U-ASS " then that would be fraudulent.Also , from a technical perspective , you are not calling the recipient from your cell phone .
The Google Voice app sends a signal to Google saying " the next call from this number should be forwarded to phone number ( the number you asked it to dial ) for account ( you ) " .
Then it initiates a call to one of its access numbers , which uses your caller ID to figure out which Google Voice number to use on the outbound caller ID and who to call .
Technically , you are calling Google from your phone , and they are calling the recipient per your request , and presenting valid information about you to the recipient of the call .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You own the Google Voice number, and it is a number that can be called to reach you.
It's your number, not someone else's.
Therefore, using it as a return number is not entering "false" information.From the actual law as passed:SECTION 2.
As used in this act:[...](d)  "False information" means data that misrepresents the identity of the caller to the recipient of a call or to the network itself; however, when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name, telephone number or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made, such information shall not be deemed false information.Google could easily be considered an "authorized agent" and they are putting in the telephone number they have issued to you.
Plus your Google Voice number does not misrepresent your identity.
So there are two outs in that provision that make Google Voice calls legit.SECTION 4.
This act does not apply to:[...](d)  A telecommunications, broadband or voice-over-Internet service provider that is acting solely as an intermediary for the transmission of telephone service between the caller and the recipient.This probably covers things like calling cards, where your call comes from some bizarr-o phone number your recipient has never heard of.
But it could easily apply to Google Voice.
Even if they used a random phone number from a list of numbers they own, they would not be in violation, as long as they didn't put someone else's name or a phone number actually belonging to someone else in there.
If you got a call from "UNKNOWN" at "1-800-GOOGLE1" and it was forwarded by Google, that's valid.
If you got a call from "INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE" "1-800-TAX-U-ASS" then that would be fraudulent.Also, from a technical perspective, you are not calling the recipient from your cell phone.
The Google Voice app sends a signal to Google saying "the next call from this number should be forwarded to phone number (the number you asked it to dial) for account (you)".
Then it initiates a call to one of its access numbers, which uses your caller ID to figure out which Google Voice number to use on the outbound caller ID and who to call.
Technically, you are calling Google from your phone, and they are calling the recipient per your request, and presenting valid information about you to the recipient of the call.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31517570</id>
	<title>All laws have dangerous side-effects.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268833200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People supporting this legislation need to understand that passing a law isn't the same as waving a magic wand and making all your desires come true exactly as you envision then, with no unintended consequences at all!</p><p>All laws have enforcement costs, bureaucratic / legislative costs, costs from encouraging spammers to turn to the black market, etc...  But the worst costs of all is the cost to the citizens' ability to solve problems without the use of government force, ignoring the much more elegant and effective solutions that can be found in the free market.  The whole idea of "anyone can make your phone ring" telephones is severely outdated, but what's keeping it alive is government red tape!</p><p>And you can't trust Mommy Government to cut your meat and wipe your poo for you without some serious consequences to individual freedom, if not immediately then a generation or two from now.</p><p>"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."   --Thomas Jefferson</p><p>(Signed:  Alex Libman's sock-puppet.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People supporting this legislation need to understand that passing a law is n't the same as waving a magic wand and making all your desires come true exactly as you envision then , with no unintended consequences at all ! All laws have enforcement costs , bureaucratic / legislative costs , costs from encouraging spammers to turn to the black market , etc... But the worst costs of all is the cost to the citizens ' ability to solve problems without the use of government force , ignoring the much more elegant and effective solutions that can be found in the free market .
The whole idea of " anyone can make your phone ring " telephones is severely outdated , but what 's keeping it alive is government red tape ! And you ca n't trust Mommy Government to cut your meat and wipe your poo for you without some serious consequences to individual freedom , if not immediately then a generation or two from now .
" A government big enough to supply you with everything you need , is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.... " --Thomas Jefferson ( Signed : Alex Libman 's sock-puppet .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People supporting this legislation need to understand that passing a law isn't the same as waving a magic wand and making all your desires come true exactly as you envision then, with no unintended consequences at all!All laws have enforcement costs, bureaucratic / legislative costs, costs from encouraging spammers to turn to the black market, etc...  But the worst costs of all is the cost to the citizens' ability to solve problems without the use of government force, ignoring the much more elegant and effective solutions that can be found in the free market.
The whole idea of "anyone can make your phone ring" telephones is severely outdated, but what's keeping it alive is government red tape!And you can't trust Mommy Government to cut your meat and wipe your poo for you without some serious consequences to individual freedom, if not immediately then a generation or two from now.
"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."   --Thomas Jefferson(Signed:  Alex Libman's sock-puppet.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31521072</id>
	<title>telemarketing jobs</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1268917740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>consists of interrupting people in the privacy of their homes, and trying to convince them to buy crap they don't need, and doing your damnedest to keep them from hanging up</p><p>telemarketing jobs should not exist, period. they are harassment, especially in regards to the elderly. even if half the population is unemployed: fuck telemarketers, burn the entire industry to the ground</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>consists of interrupting people in the privacy of their homes , and trying to convince them to buy crap they do n't need , and doing your damnedest to keep them from hanging uptelemarketing jobs should not exist , period .
they are harassment , especially in regards to the elderly .
even if half the population is unemployed : fuck telemarketers , burn the entire industry to the ground</tokentext>
<sentencetext>consists of interrupting people in the privacy of their homes, and trying to convince them to buy crap they don't need, and doing your damnedest to keep them from hanging uptelemarketing jobs should not exist, period.
they are harassment, especially in regards to the elderly.
even if half the population is unemployed: fuck telemarketers, burn the entire industry to the ground</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31518910</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268844660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have PHONES in Mississippi? Who knew?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have PHONES in Mississippi ?
Who knew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have PHONES in Mississippi?
Who knew?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31517538</id>
	<title>Re:Collection Company's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268833020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But... but... but... it's much easier to complain about how lawmakers are stupid and just want to take our money, like another reply to GP did. (I guess that would be this post's uncle?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But... but... but... it 's much easier to complain about how lawmakers are stupid and just want to take our money , like another reply to GP did .
( I guess that would be this post 's uncle ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But... but... but... it's much easier to complain about how lawmakers are stupid and just want to take our money, like another reply to GP did.
(I guess that would be this post's uncle?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516712</id>
	<title>Libertarian blather...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268827020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are really being idiots if you think Telco's are going to enforce a policy on their own. What's their incentive!? If anything, they would offer a service to allow you to spoof that info and charge for it.</p><p>Businesses are out to make money... why would they do something that is going to do nothing to either make them money, or worse, push their customers to another Telco that doesn't prevent spoofing.</p><p>"Libertarians" really need to think before they talk sometimes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are really being idiots if you think Telco 's are going to enforce a policy on their own .
What 's their incentive ! ?
If anything , they would offer a service to allow you to spoof that info and charge for it.Businesses are out to make money... why would they do something that is going to do nothing to either make them money , or worse , push their customers to another Telco that does n't prevent spoofing .
" Libertarians " really need to think before they talk sometimes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are really being idiots if you think Telco's are going to enforce a policy on their own.
What's their incentive!?
If anything, they would offer a service to allow you to spoof that info and charge for it.Businesses are out to make money... why would they do something that is going to do nothing to either make them money, or worse, push their customers to another Telco that doesn't prevent spoofing.
"Libertarians" really need to think before they talk sometimes...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31518842</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268844120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh wrong wrong wrong. NO state needs telemarketing jobs. It is not a legit profession.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wrong wrong wrong .
NO state needs telemarketing jobs .
It is not a legit profession .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wrong wrong wrong.
NO state needs telemarketing jobs.
It is not a legit profession.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515556</id>
	<title>Blocked</title>
	<author>r\_jensen11</author>
	<datestamp>1268821320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who is this Blocked person, and why does he keep calling me?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is this Blocked person , and why does he keep calling me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is this Blocked person, and why does he keep calling me?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515948</id>
	<title>Re:Collection Company's</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1268823180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hello, this is the Extraneous Apostrophe Collection Company. We're here to collect one extraneous apostrophe from ironicsky. Are you him?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello , this is the Extraneous Apostrophe Collection Company .
We 're here to collect one extraneous apostrophe from ironicsky .
Are you him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello, this is the Extraneous Apostrophe Collection Company.
We're here to collect one extraneous apostrophe from ironicsky.
Are you him?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31517438</id>
	<title>Re:All spoofing isn't bad</title>
	<author>AZURERAZOR</author>
	<datestamp>1268832120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think not, as the law is pretty clear about requiring<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...THE INTENT TO DECEIVE, DEFRAUD OR MISLEAD;</p><p>and since your Google Voice number is still a number belonging to you, I doubt it would be a crime to use it as your caller id.<br>--<br>Ask Slashdot: Where bad ideas meet poor googling skills.</p></div><p>This would nicely eliminate any of the positive spooking incidents from violating the law.</p><p>Intent to deceive is required and would not qualify under the circumstances you mention.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think not , as the law is pretty clear about requiring ...THE INTENT TO DECEIVE , DEFRAUD OR MISLEAD ; and since your Google Voice number is still a number belonging to you , I doubt it would be a crime to use it as your caller id.--Ask Slashdot : Where bad ideas meet poor googling skills.This would nicely eliminate any of the positive spooking incidents from violating the law.Intent to deceive is required and would not qualify under the circumstances you mention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think not, as the law is pretty clear about requiring ...THE INTENT TO DECEIVE, DEFRAUD OR MISLEAD;and since your Google Voice number is still a number belonging to you, I doubt it would be a crime to use it as your caller id.--Ask Slashdot: Where bad ideas meet poor googling skills.This would nicely eliminate any of the positive spooking incidents from violating the law.Intent to deceive is required and would not qualify under the circumstances you mention.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515106</id>
	<title>Re:Does this make Google Voice illegal?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1268819700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the key here is twofold:</p><p>When you call someone, does the name in the caller ID it say it&rsquo;s you?</p><p>If they return the call to the number it displayed, will they reach you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the key here is twofold : When you call someone , does the name in the caller ID it say it    s you ? If they return the call to the number it displayed , will they reach you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the key here is twofold:When you call someone, does the name in the caller ID it say it’s you?If they return the call to the number it displayed, will they reach you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514838</id>
	<title>Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1268818680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Telcos should enforce it on their own.</p></div><p>Yeah and corporations <i>should</i> do all sorts of things they <i>don't</i> do.  Which is why the government has to step in to <i>make</i> them do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Telcos should enforce it on their own.Yeah and corporations should do all sorts of things they do n't do .
Which is why the government has to step in to make them do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Telcos should enforce it on their own.Yeah and corporations should do all sorts of things they don't do.
Which is why the government has to step in to make them do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516642</id>
	<title>Collection Agencies have been...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268826600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This will put a hick up in collection company's practices</i></p><p>Collection Agencies have already been employing hicks for years. Who else can they get to work in a place where your job is to be an asshole and harass some poor schmuck who's buried under a pile of debt.  Most hicks are already belligerent and they tend to own guns too, so the job fits their nature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will put a hick up in collection company 's practicesCollection Agencies have already been employing hicks for years .
Who else can they get to work in a place where your job is to be an asshole and harass some poor schmuck who 's buried under a pile of debt .
Most hicks are already belligerent and they tend to own guns too , so the job fits their nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will put a hick up in collection company's practicesCollection Agencies have already been employing hicks for years.
Who else can they get to work in a place where your job is to be an asshole and harass some poor schmuck who's buried under a pile of debt.
Most hicks are already belligerent and they tend to own guns too, so the job fits their nature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515782</id>
	<title>Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea</title>
	<author>Naturalis Philosopho</author>
	<datestamp>1268822400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think about it. That's not spoofing, that's giving an alternate callback number for the same entity. Spoofing a callback is saying you're someone else; like, say, a car "warrantee" company using a little old ladies number as their callback. Again, your bank agent is <em>not</em> spoofing by giving his own company's 1-800 number. I'm pretty sure that all of the phone companies already know how to route calls between networks and who owns them. How the heck do you think calls are routed currently? </p><p>
Since this law allows for blocking, it's actually pretty good. I can think of no legitimate reason to want to initiate a call and pretend to be someone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about it .
That 's not spoofing , that 's giving an alternate callback number for the same entity .
Spoofing a callback is saying you 're someone else ; like , say , a car " warrantee " company using a little old ladies number as their callback .
Again , your bank agent is not spoofing by giving his own company 's 1-800 number .
I 'm pretty sure that all of the phone companies already know how to route calls between networks and who owns them .
How the heck do you think calls are routed currently ?
Since this law allows for blocking , it 's actually pretty good .
I can think of no legitimate reason to want to initiate a call and pretend to be someone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about it.
That's not spoofing, that's giving an alternate callback number for the same entity.
Spoofing a callback is saying you're someone else; like, say, a car "warrantee" company using a little old ladies number as their callback.
Again, your bank agent is not spoofing by giving his own company's 1-800 number.
I'm pretty sure that all of the phone companies already know how to route calls between networks and who owns them.
How the heck do you think calls are routed currently?
Since this law allows for blocking, it's actually pretty good.
I can think of no legitimate reason to want to initiate a call and pretend to be someone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514972</id>
	<title>Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268819220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I totally agree. But in the mean time, to fight off spoofers, it's best that you never pick up the phone at all for personal lines. To receive calls, merely let it run to the answering machine and, once the person has been identified, return the call to them. Do not call people that you do not know. You should not be receiving calls from people you do not know... ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree .
But in the mean time , to fight off spoofers , it 's best that you never pick up the phone at all for personal lines .
To receive calls , merely let it run to the answering machine and , once the person has been identified , return the call to them .
Do not call people that you do not know .
You should not be receiving calls from people you do not know... ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree.
But in the mean time, to fight off spoofers, it's best that you never pick up the phone at all for personal lines.
To receive calls, merely let it run to the answering machine and, once the person has been identified, return the call to them.
Do not call people that you do not know.
You should not be receiving calls from people you do not know... ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515236</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1268820120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would they do that? They can still block caller ID and they can still show any number they own. Why would they want to show someone else's phone number, and why should we let them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would they do that ?
They can still block caller ID and they can still show any number they own .
Why would they want to show someone else 's phone number , and why should we let them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would they do that?
They can still block caller ID and they can still show any number they own.
Why would they want to show someone else's phone number, and why should we let them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516592</id>
	<title>Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea</title>
	<author>raju1kabir</author>
	<datestamp>1268826180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Since this law allows for blocking, it's actually pretty good. I can think of no legitimate reason to want to initiate a call and pretend to be someone else.</p></div></blockquote><p>As I mentioned elsewhere, I effectively do this many times a day, to no nefarious end.
</p><p>When a call comes to my office number and I don't pick it up, my phone system dials my mobile phone, spoofing the number so as to pretend to be the original caller, so I can see on my screen whether I want to answer it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since this law allows for blocking , it 's actually pretty good .
I can think of no legitimate reason to want to initiate a call and pretend to be someone else.As I mentioned elsewhere , I effectively do this many times a day , to no nefarious end .
When a call comes to my office number and I do n't pick it up , my phone system dials my mobile phone , spoofing the number so as to pretend to be the original caller , so I can see on my screen whether I want to answer it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since this law allows for blocking, it's actually pretty good.
I can think of no legitimate reason to want to initiate a call and pretend to be someone else.As I mentioned elsewhere, I effectively do this many times a day, to no nefarious end.
When a call comes to my office number and I don't pick it up, my phone system dials my mobile phone, spoofing the number so as to pretend to be the original caller, so I can see on my screen whether I want to answer it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31533502</id>
	<title>Good Idea. Wish California Had This.</title>
	<author>Blackjack Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1268941020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Today I got an obvious spam call that was spoofed. Caller-id stated "Name Unavailable" and the phone number was "000-000-7774". Of course, there's no 000 area code. I didn't answer and whoever it was didn't leave a message. I'm on the do-not-call list, so I can't report this caller as violating that either due to the spoofing. I also have the feature from my phone company that doesn't allow calls that have caller-id blocked to ring my phone, but it doesn't consider an invalid phone number as being a blocked number.</p><p>I've been considering contacting my phone-service provider about enhancing that feature to at least stop these obviously false phone numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Today I got an obvious spam call that was spoofed .
Caller-id stated " Name Unavailable " and the phone number was " 000-000-7774 " .
Of course , there 's no 000 area code .
I did n't answer and whoever it was did n't leave a message .
I 'm on the do-not-call list , so I ca n't report this caller as violating that either due to the spoofing .
I also have the feature from my phone company that does n't allow calls that have caller-id blocked to ring my phone , but it does n't consider an invalid phone number as being a blocked number.I 've been considering contacting my phone-service provider about enhancing that feature to at least stop these obviously false phone numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today I got an obvious spam call that was spoofed.
Caller-id stated "Name Unavailable" and the phone number was "000-000-7774".
Of course, there's no 000 area code.
I didn't answer and whoever it was didn't leave a message.
I'm on the do-not-call list, so I can't report this caller as violating that either due to the spoofing.
I also have the feature from my phone company that doesn't allow calls that have caller-id blocked to ring my phone, but it doesn't consider an invalid phone number as being a blocked number.I've been considering contacting my phone-service provider about enhancing that feature to at least stop these obviously false phone numbers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516476</id>
	<title>Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea</title>
	<author>Schraegstrichpunkt</author>
	<datestamp>1268825580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Any customer with a phone switch or PBX is now in violation of this law.</p></div><p> <a href="http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2010/html/HB/0800-0899/HB0872SG.htm" title="state.ms.us">RTFL</a> [state.ms.us].  It's very short.  Quoting it:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2(d)  "False information" means data that misrepresents the identity of the caller to the recipient of a call or to the network itself; however, <strong>when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name, telephone number or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made, such information shall not be deemed false information</strong>.</p></div><p>and also:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3(1)  A person may not enter or cause to be entered false information into a telephone caller identification system with the intent to deceive, defraud or mislead the recipient of a call.<br>(2)  A person may not place a call knowing that false information was entered into the telephone caller identification system with the intent to deceive, defraud or mislead the recipient of the call.</p></div><p>So it's "with intent".  I don't see anything wrong with the law as it stands.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any customer with a phone switch or PBX is now in violation of this law .
RTFL [ state.ms.us ] .
It 's very short .
Quoting it : 2 ( d ) " False information " means data that misrepresents the identity of the caller to the recipient of a call or to the network itself ; however , when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name , telephone number or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made , such information shall not be deemed false information.and also : 3 ( 1 ) A person may not enter or cause to be entered false information into a telephone caller identification system with the intent to deceive , defraud or mislead the recipient of a call .
( 2 ) A person may not place a call knowing that false information was entered into the telephone caller identification system with the intent to deceive , defraud or mislead the recipient of the call.So it 's " with intent " .
I do n't see anything wrong with the law as it stands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any customer with a phone switch or PBX is now in violation of this law.
RTFL [state.ms.us].
It's very short.
Quoting it:2(d)  "False information" means data that misrepresents the identity of the caller to the recipient of a call or to the network itself; however, when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name, telephone number or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made, such information shall not be deemed false information.and also:3(1)  A person may not enter or cause to be entered false information into a telephone caller identification system with the intent to deceive, defraud or mislead the recipient of a call.
(2)  A person may not place a call knowing that false information was entered into the telephone caller identification system with the intent to deceive, defraud or mislead the recipient of the call.So it's "with intent".
I don't see anything wrong with the law as it stands.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515072</id>
	<title>Prank Calls</title>
	<author>electricprof</author>
	<datestamp>1268819580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now I can't spoof my identity as Bea O'Problem or Amanda Hugginkiss<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I ca n't spoof my identity as Bea O'Problem or Amanda Hugginkiss .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I can't spoof my identity as Bea O'Problem or Amanda Hugginkiss ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515698</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>mishehu</author>
	<datestamp>1268822100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Telemarketers will call from another state and use a PSTN gateway in yet another state/country. All this does is move telemarketing jobs out of a state that badly needs any jobs it can get.</p></div><p>Funny, I could understand the Bangalore tech support staff better than I could the Mississippi telemarketing staff.  *grin*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Telemarketers will call from another state and use a PSTN gateway in yet another state/country .
All this does is move telemarketing jobs out of a state that badly needs any jobs it can get.Funny , I could understand the Bangalore tech support staff better than I could the Mississippi telemarketing staff .
* grin *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Telemarketers will call from another state and use a PSTN gateway in yet another state/country.
All this does is move telemarketing jobs out of a state that badly needs any jobs it can get.Funny, I could understand the Bangalore tech support staff better than I could the Mississippi telemarketing staff.
*grin*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516196</id>
	<title>Re:Collection Company's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268824140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... call centers normally spoof the caller ID to match the company they are calling on behalf of.</p></div><p>In that case there is no <i> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens\_rea" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">mens rea</a> [wikipedia.org] </i>.  To find criminal spoofing, this law requires "the intent to deceive, defraud or mislead".</p><p>captcha: "missed".  I think you did.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... call centers normally spoof the caller ID to match the company they are calling on behalf of.In that case there is no mens rea [ wikipedia.org ] .
To find criminal spoofing , this law requires " the intent to deceive , defraud or mislead " .captcha : " missed " .
I think you did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... call centers normally spoof the caller ID to match the company they are calling on behalf of.In that case there is no  mens rea [wikipedia.org] .
To find criminal spoofing, this law requires "the intent to deceive, defraud or mislead".captcha: "missed".
I think you did.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31519054</id>
	<title>Stern</title>
	<author>corychristison</author>
	<datestamp>1268846160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well there goes Richard and Sal's day jobs...</p><p>(if anyone get's the reference, sturdy Bababooey to you all!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well there goes Richard and Sal 's day jobs... ( if anyone get 's the reference , sturdy Bababooey to you all !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well there goes Richard and Sal's day jobs...(if anyone get's the reference, sturdy Bababooey to you all!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830</id>
	<title>Collection Company's</title>
	<author>ironicsky</author>
	<datestamp>1268818620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will put a hick up in collection company's practices since they do it all the time. I wonder how it will affect call centers since call centers normally spoof the caller ID to match the company they are calling on behalf of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will put a hick up in collection company 's practices since they do it all the time .
I wonder how it will affect call centers since call centers normally spoof the caller ID to match the company they are calling on behalf of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will put a hick up in collection company's practices since they do it all the time.
I wonder how it will affect call centers since call centers normally spoof the caller ID to match the company they are calling on behalf of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515766</id>
	<title>Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1268822340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There shouldn&rsquo;t need to be a <em>law</em> for this, though. Telcos should enforce it on their own.</p></div><p>Score:4, Insightful</p><p>If I  hadn't just spent my last mod point, you'd just now be at +5 Funny. Telcos, acting right without the law forcing them... good one!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There shouldn    t need to be a law for this , though .
Telcos should enforce it on their own.Score : 4 , InsightfulIf I had n't just spent my last mod point , you 'd just now be at + 5 Funny .
Telcos , acting right without the law forcing them... good one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There shouldn’t need to be a law for this, though.
Telcos should enforce it on their own.Score:4, InsightfulIf I  hadn't just spent my last mod point, you'd just now be at +5 Funny.
Telcos, acting right without the law forcing them... good one!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31517988</id>
	<title>Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1268836740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How? Seriously, how the hell would they enforce it?</p></div><p>They know it&rsquo;s happening. They know <em>when</em> it happens.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Companies use caller ID spoofing all the time!</p></div><p>The list of companies doing it is finite, and once a company has been whitelisted for spoofing (i.e. they&rsquo;re using a number they own, to route calls back to a central company switchboard), they&rsquo;d only need to be re-investigated if complaints started arising.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How ?
Seriously , how the hell would they enforce it ? They know it    s happening .
They know when it happens.Companies use caller ID spoofing all the time ! The list of companies doing it is finite , and once a company has been whitelisted for spoofing ( i.e .
they    re using a number they own , to route calls back to a central company switchboard ) , they    d only need to be re-investigated if complaints started arising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How?
Seriously, how the hell would they enforce it?They know it’s happening.
They know when it happens.Companies use caller ID spoofing all the time!The list of companies doing it is finite, and once a company has been whitelisted for spoofing (i.e.
they’re using a number they own, to route calls back to a central company switchboard), they’d only need to be re-investigated if complaints started arising.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515126</id>
	<title>Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1268819760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How?  Seriously, how the hell would they enforce it?  Companies use caller ID spoofing all the time!  Look when an agent at your bank calls you from their call center.  Does their phone number show up?  Nope, its the 800 number, that you can call back the company on.  Isn't that the same as spoofing?  I mean, technically, its the exact same steps in the PBX to do it maliciously or not.</p><p>Then, you might have one call center in one region have a nice fat pipe coming in from ATT, a second call center handled by Verizon, but your 800 number is handled by sprint over in California. So how would ATT or verizon enforce the "spoofing rule" without having any knowledge or control over your 800 number?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How ?
Seriously , how the hell would they enforce it ?
Companies use caller ID spoofing all the time !
Look when an agent at your bank calls you from their call center .
Does their phone number show up ?
Nope , its the 800 number , that you can call back the company on .
Is n't that the same as spoofing ?
I mean , technically , its the exact same steps in the PBX to do it maliciously or not.Then , you might have one call center in one region have a nice fat pipe coming in from ATT , a second call center handled by Verizon , but your 800 number is handled by sprint over in California .
So how would ATT or verizon enforce the " spoofing rule " without having any knowledge or control over your 800 number ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How?
Seriously, how the hell would they enforce it?
Companies use caller ID spoofing all the time!
Look when an agent at your bank calls you from their call center.
Does their phone number show up?
Nope, its the 800 number, that you can call back the company on.
Isn't that the same as spoofing?
I mean, technically, its the exact same steps in the PBX to do it maliciously or not.Then, you might have one call center in one region have a nice fat pipe coming in from ATT, a second call center handled by Verizon, but your 800 number is handled by sprint over in California.
So how would ATT or verizon enforce the "spoofing rule" without having any knowledge or control over your 800 number?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31518204</id>
	<title>Is the FCC ok with this?</title>
	<author>schwit1</author>
	<datestamp>1268838480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was under the impression that congress gave exclusive authority to regulate the communications industry to the FCC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that congress gave exclusive authority to regulate the communications industry to the FCC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that congress gave exclusive authority to regulate the communications industry to the FCC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515356</id>
	<title>Re:Collection Company's</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1268820480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This will put a hick up in collection company's practices since they do it all the time.</p> </div><p>I think that impersonation as a means to collect a debt was made illegal over a decade ago, check the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act for the details.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will put a hick up in collection company 's practices since they do it all the time .
I think that impersonation as a means to collect a debt was made illegal over a decade ago , check the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act for the details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will put a hick up in collection company's practices since they do it all the time.
I think that impersonation as a means to collect a debt was made illegal over a decade ago, check the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act for the details.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514824</id>
	<title>Does this make Google Voice illegal?</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1268818620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Google Voice app on my Blackberry will allow me to initiate calls from my cell that show my Google Voice number on the caller ID, rather than my cell phone's number.  Through the Google Voice web page, I can initiate calls from nearly any phone but my GV number will be displayed to recipients.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Google Voice app on my Blackberry will allow me to initiate calls from my cell that show my Google Voice number on the caller ID , rather than my cell phone 's number .
Through the Google Voice web page , I can initiate calls from nearly any phone but my GV number will be displayed to recipients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Google Voice app on my Blackberry will allow me to initiate calls from my cell that show my Google Voice number on the caller ID, rather than my cell phone's number.
Through the Google Voice web page, I can initiate calls from nearly any phone but my GV number will be displayed to recipients.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31518060</id>
	<title>re: shouldn't need a law...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268837520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are two problems with the idea that telcos should enforce this:<br>a. Telcos connect to other telcos, PBXs, etc.  Caller ID info is much like the name shown in your email, it is basically supplied by the client.  In other words, the telco believes whatever the equipment connected to it tells them.  How would you propose to fix this?  The only real way is to use PKI or something.</p><p>b. Even more to the point, nobody should make a law to make something that's technically trivial to do illegal in most cases.  It's like me making a law against opening an unlocked door.  If you don't want the door opened, first at least lock it with a real lock.  Then make a law against *breaking* in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two problems with the idea that telcos should enforce this : a. Telcos connect to other telcos , PBXs , etc .
Caller ID info is much like the name shown in your email , it is basically supplied by the client .
In other words , the telco believes whatever the equipment connected to it tells them .
How would you propose to fix this ?
The only real way is to use PKI or something.b .
Even more to the point , nobody should make a law to make something that 's technically trivial to do illegal in most cases .
It 's like me making a law against opening an unlocked door .
If you do n't want the door opened , first at least lock it with a real lock .
Then make a law against * breaking * in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two problems with the idea that telcos should enforce this:a. Telcos connect to other telcos, PBXs, etc.
Caller ID info is much like the name shown in your email, it is basically supplied by the client.
In other words, the telco believes whatever the equipment connected to it tells them.
How would you propose to fix this?
The only real way is to use PKI or something.b.
Even more to the point, nobody should make a law to make something that's technically trivial to do illegal in most cases.
It's like me making a law against opening an unlocked door.
If you don't want the door opened, first at least lock it with a real lock.
Then make a law against *breaking* in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31518128</id>
	<title>Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268837880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But who gets to decide what we should do?  This is the slipperiest slope around...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But who gets to decide what we should do ?
This is the slipperiest slope around.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But who gets to decide what we should do?
This is the slipperiest slope around...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31521438</id>
	<title>Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1268920200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Old-fashioned answering machines were nice. They answered the phone, let you hear the caller leave their message, and if you wanted to pick up the phone and interrupt, you could.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Old-fashioned answering machines were nice .
They answered the phone , let you hear the caller leave their message , and if you wanted to pick up the phone and interrupt , you could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old-fashioned answering machines were nice.
They answered the phone, let you hear the caller leave their message, and if you wanted to pick up the phone and interrupt, you could.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516298</id>
	<title>Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1268824680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There shouldn't need to be a law for this, though. Telcos should enforce it on their own.</p></div><p>Any customer with a phone switch or PBX is now in violation of this law.</p><p>If I had to guess, that would be pretty much all corporations with 25 or more phones, since using T1 channels becomes cost effective at that point.</p><p>I suppose the largest corporations aren't breaking that law, assuming each and every last handset in the company has an external phone number and DID tied to it.  But just ONE internal only phone line, and they are in violation of this law every time someone lifts it and hits 9, as the phone number is 'spoofed' to the main company number.</p><p>Where I work for example, we have about 60 DIDs (outside phone numbers) yet over 100 phone extensions.<br>The internal 40 can make outside calls, but the phone system will spoof in our main reception phone number, so if someone actually called the number on caller ID, they will still get to us (And through the receptionist, to the extension they wanted to reach)</p><p>Pretty much every phone switch has the ability to not assign an external phone number, so any caller ID data will be spoofed.  The only other option is to send the private or unavailable codes, which brings all the undesirable non-answering of calls such things typically bring.</p><p>Think of this feature as a form of NAT for phone lines.<br>In fact, for the short time the California law was in place that made IP spoofing illegal, everyone in the state using NAT was breaking the law.  (Though to be totally fair, Cali also outlawed possession of water for a week or two as well...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There should n't need to be a law for this , though .
Telcos should enforce it on their own.Any customer with a phone switch or PBX is now in violation of this law.If I had to guess , that would be pretty much all corporations with 25 or more phones , since using T1 channels becomes cost effective at that point.I suppose the largest corporations are n't breaking that law , assuming each and every last handset in the company has an external phone number and DID tied to it .
But just ONE internal only phone line , and they are in violation of this law every time someone lifts it and hits 9 , as the phone number is 'spoofed ' to the main company number.Where I work for example , we have about 60 DIDs ( outside phone numbers ) yet over 100 phone extensions.The internal 40 can make outside calls , but the phone system will spoof in our main reception phone number , so if someone actually called the number on caller ID , they will still get to us ( And through the receptionist , to the extension they wanted to reach ) Pretty much every phone switch has the ability to not assign an external phone number , so any caller ID data will be spoofed .
The only other option is to send the private or unavailable codes , which brings all the undesirable non-answering of calls such things typically bring.Think of this feature as a form of NAT for phone lines.In fact , for the short time the California law was in place that made IP spoofing illegal , everyone in the state using NAT was breaking the law .
( Though to be totally fair , Cali also outlawed possession of water for a week or two as well... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There shouldn't need to be a law for this, though.
Telcos should enforce it on their own.Any customer with a phone switch or PBX is now in violation of this law.If I had to guess, that would be pretty much all corporations with 25 or more phones, since using T1 channels becomes cost effective at that point.I suppose the largest corporations aren't breaking that law, assuming each and every last handset in the company has an external phone number and DID tied to it.
But just ONE internal only phone line, and they are in violation of this law every time someone lifts it and hits 9, as the phone number is 'spoofed' to the main company number.Where I work for example, we have about 60 DIDs (outside phone numbers) yet over 100 phone extensions.The internal 40 can make outside calls, but the phone system will spoof in our main reception phone number, so if someone actually called the number on caller ID, they will still get to us (And through the receptionist, to the extension they wanted to reach)Pretty much every phone switch has the ability to not assign an external phone number, so any caller ID data will be spoofed.
The only other option is to send the private or unavailable codes, which brings all the undesirable non-answering of calls such things typically bring.Think of this feature as a form of NAT for phone lines.In fact, for the short time the California law was in place that made IP spoofing illegal, everyone in the state using NAT was breaking the law.
(Though to be totally fair, Cali also outlawed possession of water for a week or two as well...)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516730</id>
	<title>All spoofing isn't bad</title>
	<author>Whuffo</author>
	<datestamp>1268827080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are everyday situations where having the caller ID number be other than the actual phone number is a good thing. Most companies do this - they'll have dozens or hundreds of phone lines and all of them show the "master" number for the company as their caller ID.</p><p>
Or for VOIP users like me - my phone lines show the POTS number you should call to reach me, not the "hidden" number of the VOIP line. In both of these situations (and probably others) "spoofing" makes the caller ID information more useful. The option to configure the outgoing caller ID information is built into almost all telephone switching equipment for just this reason.</p><p>
The misuse of this ability is the problem, not the ability itself. Laws like this one are likely to cause more harm than good; the current situation where some bad guys spoof their caller ID information isn't totally bad - they almost always choose obviously incorrect numbers. That makes it easy for me to just look at the phone and if it's a call from 000-000-0000 then it's not going to be answered.</p><p>
If the government actually took violations of the "do not call" list seriously - and if various stores (on and off line) didn't sell your name and phone number to anyone with the price - then these problems would be greatly minimized. The telephone company has the actual phone numbers for every phone call - that data is accurate and not the same as the caller ID information. Maybe even the phone company could block calls with invalid caller ID information? There are things that could be done that would really be useful.</p><p>
But this kind of political grandstanding where they want to tinker with a system that they don't understand - this is stupid. But that's nothing new these days...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are everyday situations where having the caller ID number be other than the actual phone number is a good thing .
Most companies do this - they 'll have dozens or hundreds of phone lines and all of them show the " master " number for the company as their caller ID .
Or for VOIP users like me - my phone lines show the POTS number you should call to reach me , not the " hidden " number of the VOIP line .
In both of these situations ( and probably others ) " spoofing " makes the caller ID information more useful .
The option to configure the outgoing caller ID information is built into almost all telephone switching equipment for just this reason .
The misuse of this ability is the problem , not the ability itself .
Laws like this one are likely to cause more harm than good ; the current situation where some bad guys spoof their caller ID information is n't totally bad - they almost always choose obviously incorrect numbers .
That makes it easy for me to just look at the phone and if it 's a call from 000-000-0000 then it 's not going to be answered .
If the government actually took violations of the " do not call " list seriously - and if various stores ( on and off line ) did n't sell your name and phone number to anyone with the price - then these problems would be greatly minimized .
The telephone company has the actual phone numbers for every phone call - that data is accurate and not the same as the caller ID information .
Maybe even the phone company could block calls with invalid caller ID information ?
There are things that could be done that would really be useful .
But this kind of political grandstanding where they want to tinker with a system that they do n't understand - this is stupid .
But that 's nothing new these days.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are everyday situations where having the caller ID number be other than the actual phone number is a good thing.
Most companies do this - they'll have dozens or hundreds of phone lines and all of them show the "master" number for the company as their caller ID.
Or for VOIP users like me - my phone lines show the POTS number you should call to reach me, not the "hidden" number of the VOIP line.
In both of these situations (and probably others) "spoofing" makes the caller ID information more useful.
The option to configure the outgoing caller ID information is built into almost all telephone switching equipment for just this reason.
The misuse of this ability is the problem, not the ability itself.
Laws like this one are likely to cause more harm than good; the current situation where some bad guys spoof their caller ID information isn't totally bad - they almost always choose obviously incorrect numbers.
That makes it easy for me to just look at the phone and if it's a call from 000-000-0000 then it's not going to be answered.
If the government actually took violations of the "do not call" list seriously - and if various stores (on and off line) didn't sell your name and phone number to anyone with the price - then these problems would be greatly minimized.
The telephone company has the actual phone numbers for every phone call - that data is accurate and not the same as the caller ID information.
Maybe even the phone company could block calls with invalid caller ID information?
There are things that could be done that would really be useful.
But this kind of political grandstanding where they want to tinker with a system that they don't understand - this is stupid.
But that's nothing new these days...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514794</id>
	<title>Simple solution</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1268818500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Telemarketers will call from another state and use a PSTN gateway in yet another state/country. All this does is move telemarketing jobs out of a state that badly needs any jobs it can get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Telemarketers will call from another state and use a PSTN gateway in yet another state/country .
All this does is move telemarketing jobs out of a state that badly needs any jobs it can get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Telemarketers will call from another state and use a PSTN gateway in yet another state/country.
All this does is move telemarketing jobs out of a state that badly needs any jobs it can get.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514934</id>
	<title>business use</title>
	<author>blackC0pter</author>
	<datestamp>1268819100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about if I want to use caller ID spoofing for my business lines.  I operate my own PBX (asterix) for my business and in order to provide a single point of contact for my customers, I link all of my phones to the same phone line.  So calling from my desk phone or from my home phone will show up as the same phone number so that I can be working regardless of my physical location.  I have also considered setting up a redirect system from my cell phone so that I call into my PBX and then it calls someone for me so I can mask the caller ID of my cell phone.  This way I don't give out my cell phone's number and customers only see my single phone line.
<br> <br>
Which part of the above becomes illegal by this new law?  Or would any of this be considered illegal?  Is it only wrong if you are spoofing a number you don't own?
<br> <br>
Also, when you have low level control over a pbx and direct access to a voip wholesale provider, the caller id name and number are just settings you define.  I actually noticed a bug in some of my caller scripts recently that improperly setup the caller id for some internal redirects to the outside world.  Would I be liable for not properly setting the caller ID on all of my lines in this scenario under this new law?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about if I want to use caller ID spoofing for my business lines .
I operate my own PBX ( asterix ) for my business and in order to provide a single point of contact for my customers , I link all of my phones to the same phone line .
So calling from my desk phone or from my home phone will show up as the same phone number so that I can be working regardless of my physical location .
I have also considered setting up a redirect system from my cell phone so that I call into my PBX and then it calls someone for me so I can mask the caller ID of my cell phone .
This way I do n't give out my cell phone 's number and customers only see my single phone line .
Which part of the above becomes illegal by this new law ?
Or would any of this be considered illegal ?
Is it only wrong if you are spoofing a number you do n't own ?
Also , when you have low level control over a pbx and direct access to a voip wholesale provider , the caller id name and number are just settings you define .
I actually noticed a bug in some of my caller scripts recently that improperly setup the caller id for some internal redirects to the outside world .
Would I be liable for not properly setting the caller ID on all of my lines in this scenario under this new law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about if I want to use caller ID spoofing for my business lines.
I operate my own PBX (asterix) for my business and in order to provide a single point of contact for my customers, I link all of my phones to the same phone line.
So calling from my desk phone or from my home phone will show up as the same phone number so that I can be working regardless of my physical location.
I have also considered setting up a redirect system from my cell phone so that I call into my PBX and then it calls someone for me so I can mask the caller ID of my cell phone.
This way I don't give out my cell phone's number and customers only see my single phone line.
Which part of the above becomes illegal by this new law?
Or would any of this be considered illegal?
Is it only wrong if you are spoofing a number you don't own?
Also, when you have low level control over a pbx and direct access to a voip wholesale provider, the caller id name and number are just settings you define.
I actually noticed a bug in some of my caller scripts recently that improperly setup the caller id for some internal redirects to the outside world.
Would I be liable for not properly setting the caller ID on all of my lines in this scenario under this new law?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516796</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1268827560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, won't someone please think of the poor spammers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , wo n't someone please think of the poor spammers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, won't someone please think of the poor spammers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515264</id>
	<title>Re:Collection Company's</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1268820180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really need to read the law:  "however, when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name, telephone number or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made, such information shall not be deemed false information."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You really need to read the law : " however , when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name , telephone number or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made , such information shall not be deemed false information .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really need to read the law:  "however, when a person making an authorized call on behalf of another person inserts the name, telephone number or name and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made, such information shall not be deemed false information.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515278</id>
	<title>Re:Not a bad idea... in fact, an obvious good idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268820240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Small question but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what happens when all the people you know implement your philosophy? How do call somebody back when they have a policy of never picking up the phone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Small question but ... what happens when all the people you know implement your philosophy ?
How do call somebody back when they have a policy of never picking up the phone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Small question but ... what happens when all the people you know implement your philosophy?
How do call somebody back when they have a policy of never picking up the phone?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515694</id>
	<title>My cell number still has the previous owners name</title>
	<author>zero\_out</author>
	<datestamp>1268822100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Despite repeated attempts to get my cell phone company to change the name that shows up when I call someone, it still shows that person's name.  So in this case, who would be breaking the law?  Common sense would say that it's the cell phone company's fault because they control what name is shown, and I have tried to get it changed.  Unfortunately, common sense doesn't apply to most laws.  Could I now call someone in Mississippi, report to that state's government that the name is showing up incorrectly, and get my cell phone company to pay a fine every time I make such a call?  That would get them to change it real fast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite repeated attempts to get my cell phone company to change the name that shows up when I call someone , it still shows that person 's name .
So in this case , who would be breaking the law ?
Common sense would say that it 's the cell phone company 's fault because they control what name is shown , and I have tried to get it changed .
Unfortunately , common sense does n't apply to most laws .
Could I now call someone in Mississippi , report to that state 's government that the name is showing up incorrectly , and get my cell phone company to pay a fine every time I make such a call ?
That would get them to change it real fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite repeated attempts to get my cell phone company to change the name that shows up when I call someone, it still shows that person's name.
So in this case, who would be breaking the law?
Common sense would say that it's the cell phone company's fault because they control what name is shown, and I have tried to get it changed.
Unfortunately, common sense doesn't apply to most laws.
Could I now call someone in Mississippi, report to that state's government that the name is showing up incorrectly, and get my cell phone company to pay a fine every time I make such a call?
That would get them to change it real fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31517538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31517438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31521072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31521438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31518128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31518910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31518842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31517988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2020246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_2020246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_2020246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31518060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_2020246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515782
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31517988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515278
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31521438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31518128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_2020246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_2020246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31518910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31521072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31518842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_2020246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_2020246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_2020246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_2020246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31517538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31515948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31514998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_2020246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31516730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2020246.31517438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
