<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_27_1819217</id>
	<title>It's Time To Split Up NSA Between Spooks and Geeks</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269714660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/slashdot/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Noah Shachtman writes in Wired that most of us know the National Security Agency as the supersecret spook shop that allegedly slurped up our email and phone calls after the September 11 attacks, but not so many know that the <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/03/st\_essay\_nsa/">NSA is actually home to two different agencies under one roof</a>: the signals-intelligence directorate, who can tap into any electronic communication, and the information-assurance directorate, the cybersecurity nerds who make sure our government's computers and telecommunications systems are hacker- and eavesdropper-free. 'The problem is, their goals are often in opposition,' writes Shachtman. 'One team wants to exploit software holes; the other wants to repair them.' Users want to know that Google is safeguarding their data and privacy. The trouble is that <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/04/131224/Google-and-NSA-Teaming-Up">when Google calls the NSA</a>, everyone watching sees it as a package deal. Google wants geeks, but it runs the risk of getting spies, too."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Noah Shachtman writes in Wired that most of us know the National Security Agency as the supersecret spook shop that allegedly slurped up our email and phone calls after the September 11 attacks , but not so many know that the NSA is actually home to two different agencies under one roof : the signals-intelligence directorate , who can tap into any electronic communication , and the information-assurance directorate , the cybersecurity nerds who make sure our government 's computers and telecommunications systems are hacker- and eavesdropper-free .
'The problem is , their goals are often in opposition, ' writes Shachtman .
'One team wants to exploit software holes ; the other wants to repair them .
' Users want to know that Google is safeguarding their data and privacy .
The trouble is that when Google calls the NSA , everyone watching sees it as a package deal .
Google wants geeks , but it runs the risk of getting spies , too .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Noah Shachtman writes in Wired that most of us know the National Security Agency as the supersecret spook shop that allegedly slurped up our email and phone calls after the September 11 attacks, but not so many know that the NSA is actually home to two different agencies under one roof: the signals-intelligence directorate, who can tap into any electronic communication, and the information-assurance directorate, the cybersecurity nerds who make sure our government's computers and telecommunications systems are hacker- and eavesdropper-free.
'The problem is, their goals are often in opposition,' writes Shachtman.
'One team wants to exploit software holes; the other wants to repair them.
' Users want to know that Google is safeguarding their data and privacy.
The trouble is that when Google calls the NSA, everyone watching sees it as a package deal.
Google wants geeks, but it runs the risk of getting spies, too.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641498</id>
	<title>Of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269718860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't have white hats without black hats</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't have white hats without black hats</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't have white hats without black hats</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643536</id>
	<title>Re:Hell No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269693120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They figured at best the war against terrorism would just end up in perpetual stalemate to never be won.<br>Yet there's tourism... Tourism sounds close enough to terrorism doesn't it? And we <i>can</i> win the war against tourism, can't we?</p><p>So now we have created the perfect agency to help us win that war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They figured at best the war against terrorism would just end up in perpetual stalemate to never be won.Yet there 's tourism... Tourism sounds close enough to terrorism does n't it ?
And we can win the war against tourism , ca n't we ? So now we have created the perfect agency to help us win that war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They figured at best the war against terrorism would just end up in perpetual stalemate to never be won.Yet there's tourism... Tourism sounds close enough to terrorism doesn't it?
And we can win the war against tourism, can't we?So now we have created the perfect agency to help us win that war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643504</id>
	<title>Re:They already did, and it made things worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269692940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd always assumed the idea of "NSA agents" was a myth, too.  But if you visit the National Cryptologic Museum, there's a memorial there - apparently a duplicate of the one at Fort Meade - honoring fallen cryptologists.  I seem to remember that a bunch of the names were actually just stars, because their identities were still secret.  From the museum's website:</p><p>"The Memorial Wall was designed by an NSA employee and is 12 feet wide and eight feet high, centered with a triangle. The words "They Served in Silence," etched into the polished stone at the cap of the triangle, recognize that cryptologic service has always been a silent service - secretive by its very nature. Below these words, the NSA seal and the names of 153 military and civilian cryptologists who have given their lives in service to their country are engraved in the granite. The names are at the base of the triangle because these cryptologists and their ideals - dedication to mission, dedication to workmate, and dedication to country - form the foundation for cryptologic service."</p><p>I have to say that 153 sounds like an awfully high death toll if we're talking about desk workers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd always assumed the idea of " NSA agents " was a myth , too .
But if you visit the National Cryptologic Museum , there 's a memorial there - apparently a duplicate of the one at Fort Meade - honoring fallen cryptologists .
I seem to remember that a bunch of the names were actually just stars , because their identities were still secret .
From the museum 's website : " The Memorial Wall was designed by an NSA employee and is 12 feet wide and eight feet high , centered with a triangle .
The words " They Served in Silence , " etched into the polished stone at the cap of the triangle , recognize that cryptologic service has always been a silent service - secretive by its very nature .
Below these words , the NSA seal and the names of 153 military and civilian cryptologists who have given their lives in service to their country are engraved in the granite .
The names are at the base of the triangle because these cryptologists and their ideals - dedication to mission , dedication to workmate , and dedication to country - form the foundation for cryptologic service .
" I have to say that 153 sounds like an awfully high death toll if we 're talking about desk workers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd always assumed the idea of "NSA agents" was a myth, too.
But if you visit the National Cryptologic Museum, there's a memorial there - apparently a duplicate of the one at Fort Meade - honoring fallen cryptologists.
I seem to remember that a bunch of the names were actually just stars, because their identities were still secret.
From the museum's website:"The Memorial Wall was designed by an NSA employee and is 12 feet wide and eight feet high, centered with a triangle.
The words "They Served in Silence," etched into the polished stone at the cap of the triangle, recognize that cryptologic service has always been a silent service - secretive by its very nature.
Below these words, the NSA seal and the names of 153 military and civilian cryptologists who have given their lives in service to their country are engraved in the granite.
The names are at the base of the triangle because these cryptologists and their ideals - dedication to mission, dedication to workmate, and dedication to country - form the foundation for cryptologic service.
"I have to say that 153 sounds like an awfully high death toll if we're talking about desk workers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642068</id>
	<title>Re:This is all wrong.</title>
	<author>LurkerXXX</author>
	<datestamp>1269723120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The entire idea behind the NSA isn't to spy on Americans.  It's to spy on EVERYONE.  They spend a fortune monitoring all they can on just about every country on the planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire idea behind the NSA is n't to spy on Americans .
It 's to spy on EVERYONE .
They spend a fortune monitoring all they can on just about every country on the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire idea behind the NSA isn't to spy on Americans.
It's to spy on EVERYONE.
They spend a fortune monitoring all they can on just about every country on the planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643284</id>
	<title>This is not nonsense nor stupid,</title>
	<author>dragisha</author>
	<datestamp>1269689940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is only part of cover story on Chinese vs. Google fiasco.</p><p>Obviously, Chinese used earlier Google "teaming up" with NSA as part of action pretext, and now someone is wrapping up things. That was not so, it is this, and so on. A bit oblique, but it must be...</p><p>Too bad Chinese won't buy it.</p><p>One possibility is - they already "did". And stories like these are to cover tracks when both Google and Chinese pull their moves back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is only part of cover story on Chinese vs. Google fiasco.Obviously , Chinese used earlier Google " teaming up " with NSA as part of action pretext , and now someone is wrapping up things .
That was not so , it is this , and so on .
A bit oblique , but it must be...Too bad Chinese wo n't buy it.One possibility is - they already " did " .
And stories like these are to cover tracks when both Google and Chinese pull their moves back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is only part of cover story on Chinese vs. Google fiasco.Obviously, Chinese used earlier Google "teaming up" with NSA as part of action pretext, and now someone is wrapping up things.
That was not so, it is this, and so on.
A bit oblique, but it must be...Too bad Chinese won't buy it.One possibility is - they already "did".
And stories like these are to cover tracks when both Google and Chinese pull their moves back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642044</id>
	<title>They already did, and it made things worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269723000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This is old info, but NSA used to have a big internal division - the important stuff was at Fort Meade, and the less important stuff was at "FANX", the "Friendship Annex" (out near Friendship Airport, now called Baltimore Washington International).
Support functions like personnel were at FANX, and still are.
</p><p>
Computer security was at FANX.  Which was a problem.  Being banished to FANX was bad for your career.  The top NSA people didn't go to the computer security side of the house.  So computer security languished for years.
</p><p>
All this was back when the USSR was the enemy, and NSA has changed a lot since then.  But they still have Fort Meade and FANX, and less important stuff is still at FANX.
</p><p>
For a while, in the 1980s and 1990s, NSA did do serious computer security evaluations.  Industry hated it, because products could fail.  The original policy was that a company could submit products for evaluation by NSA.  In the first round of evaluation, the NSA people told the company what was wrong, and gave them a chance to fix it.  The second round was pass/fail; if NSA could break into it, it failed.  There was no third round.  Some highly secure systems did pass the tests, but they were not mainstream systems.
</p><p>
The process is now more <a href="http://www.niap-ccevs.org/" title="niap-ccevs.org">"industry friendly".</a> [niap-ccevs.org]  Evaluations are made by outside labs, paid by the companies being evaluated.  Companies can keep trying over and over until they pass.  Failures are not publicized.
There are versions of Windows that have passed some level of Common Criteria testing.

</p><p>
The "geeks and spies" division in the article is bogus. NSA is all geeks.  (Mostly the middle-aged federal employee version thereof.) It's buildings full of people working at desks.   There are no "NSA agents".  The spies and the guys with guns are at CIA, FBI, DIA, and in the intelligence units of the armed services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is old info , but NSA used to have a big internal division - the important stuff was at Fort Meade , and the less important stuff was at " FANX " , the " Friendship Annex " ( out near Friendship Airport , now called Baltimore Washington International ) .
Support functions like personnel were at FANX , and still are .
Computer security was at FANX .
Which was a problem .
Being banished to FANX was bad for your career .
The top NSA people did n't go to the computer security side of the house .
So computer security languished for years .
All this was back when the USSR was the enemy , and NSA has changed a lot since then .
But they still have Fort Meade and FANX , and less important stuff is still at FANX .
For a while , in the 1980s and 1990s , NSA did do serious computer security evaluations .
Industry hated it , because products could fail .
The original policy was that a company could submit products for evaluation by NSA .
In the first round of evaluation , the NSA people told the company what was wrong , and gave them a chance to fix it .
The second round was pass/fail ; if NSA could break into it , it failed .
There was no third round .
Some highly secure systems did pass the tests , but they were not mainstream systems .
The process is now more " industry friendly " .
[ niap-ccevs.org ] Evaluations are made by outside labs , paid by the companies being evaluated .
Companies can keep trying over and over until they pass .
Failures are not publicized .
There are versions of Windows that have passed some level of Common Criteria testing .
The " geeks and spies " division in the article is bogus .
NSA is all geeks .
( Mostly the middle-aged federal employee version thereof .
) It 's buildings full of people working at desks .
There are no " NSA agents " .
The spies and the guys with guns are at CIA , FBI , DIA , and in the intelligence units of the armed services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This is old info, but NSA used to have a big internal division - the important stuff was at Fort Meade, and the less important stuff was at "FANX", the "Friendship Annex" (out near Friendship Airport, now called Baltimore Washington International).
Support functions like personnel were at FANX, and still are.
Computer security was at FANX.
Which was a problem.
Being banished to FANX was bad for your career.
The top NSA people didn't go to the computer security side of the house.
So computer security languished for years.
All this was back when the USSR was the enemy, and NSA has changed a lot since then.
But they still have Fort Meade and FANX, and less important stuff is still at FANX.
For a while, in the 1980s and 1990s, NSA did do serious computer security evaluations.
Industry hated it, because products could fail.
The original policy was that a company could submit products for evaluation by NSA.
In the first round of evaluation, the NSA people told the company what was wrong, and gave them a chance to fix it.
The second round was pass/fail; if NSA could break into it, it failed.
There was no third round.
Some highly secure systems did pass the tests, but they were not mainstream systems.
The process is now more "industry friendly".
[niap-ccevs.org]  Evaluations are made by outside labs, paid by the companies being evaluated.
Companies can keep trying over and over until they pass.
Failures are not publicized.
There are versions of Windows that have passed some level of Common Criteria testing.
The "geeks and spies" division in the article is bogus.
NSA is all geeks.
(Mostly the middle-aged federal employee version thereof.
) It's buildings full of people working at desks.
There are no "NSA agents".
The spies and the guys with guns are at CIA, FBI, DIA, and in the intelligence units of the armed services.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642296</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Google need to 'partner' with the NSA?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269681720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not exactly.  Protecting US communications via cryptography is the other main function.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not exactly .
Protecting US communications via cryptography is the other main function .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not exactly.
Protecting US communications via cryptography is the other main function.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642496</id>
	<title>Moral Responsibility</title>
	<author>HotNeedleOfInquiry</author>
	<datestamp>1269683400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Splitting the two seems like an unfortunate way to let otherwise socially responsible geeks do morally questionable things.  Keep the two groups together.  Let them be totally aware that they <b>are</b> spies and there is a heavy price for deception and living a lie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Splitting the two seems like an unfortunate way to let otherwise socially responsible geeks do morally questionable things .
Keep the two groups together .
Let them be totally aware that they are spies and there is a heavy price for deception and living a lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Splitting the two seems like an unfortunate way to let otherwise socially responsible geeks do morally questionable things.
Keep the two groups together.
Let them be totally aware that they are spies and there is a heavy price for deception and living a lie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643722</id>
	<title>Re:Hell No</title>
	<author>linzeal</author>
	<datestamp>1269694980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The TSA is supposed to herd air travelers in ever larger targets for terrorists in front of machines they use to find shampoo bottles in.</p><p>Seriously, how long is it going to take for some terrorist to walk into an airport with a suitcase bomb, sit in line for the TSA till he is in the middle of 100's or even 1000's of people during the holiday season and blow himself up ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The TSA is supposed to herd air travelers in ever larger targets for terrorists in front of machines they use to find shampoo bottles in.Seriously , how long is it going to take for some terrorist to walk into an airport with a suitcase bomb , sit in line for the TSA till he is in the middle of 100 's or even 1000 's of people during the holiday season and blow himself up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The TSA is supposed to herd air travelers in ever larger targets for terrorists in front of machines they use to find shampoo bottles in.Seriously, how long is it going to take for some terrorist to walk into an airport with a suitcase bomb, sit in line for the TSA till he is in the middle of 100's or even 1000's of people during the holiday season and blow himself up ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643404</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Google need to 'partner' with the NSA?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269691860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup because they got numb3rs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup because they got numb3rs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup because they got numb3rs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641604</id>
	<title>And???</title>
	<author>bit9</author>
	<datestamp>1269719580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google wants geeks, but it runs the risk of getting spies, too.</p></div></blockquote><p>

How exactly will splitting the NSA fix this? It's a government agency. If the government wants to give you spies, you get spies. Doesn't matter which 3-letter acronym organization they get their paychecks from.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google wants geeks , but it runs the risk of getting spies , too .
How exactly will splitting the NSA fix this ?
It 's a government agency .
If the government wants to give you spies , you get spies .
Does n't matter which 3-letter acronym organization they get their paychecks from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google wants geeks, but it runs the risk of getting spies, too.
How exactly will splitting the NSA fix this?
It's a government agency.
If the government wants to give you spies, you get spies.
Doesn't matter which 3-letter acronym organization they get their paychecks from.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641446</id>
	<title>The NSA practices equal opportunities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269718380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hats of all colors welcome!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hats of all colors welcome !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hats of all colors welcome!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31644496</id>
	<title>Close and shut down the NSA</title>
	<author>HooliganIntellectual</author>
	<datestamp>1269703920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NSA has no business existing. Shut down the agency. Secret government agencies have no place operating in an open, free democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NSA has no business existing .
Shut down the agency .
Secret government agencies have no place operating in an open , free democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NSA has no business existing.
Shut down the agency.
Secret government agencies have no place operating in an open, free democracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643776</id>
	<title>Re:They already did, and it made things worse</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1269695880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"banishment" was coined since it was a pain to get to the annex and the facilities (back 10yrs ago) we crap. It's changed over the years AND a lot of stuff is done there now since the agency's outsourcing to <a href="http://www.csc.com/eaglealliance/press\_releases/1253-csc\_led\_alliance\_receives\_three\_year\_option\_for\_national\_security\_agency\_groundbreaker\_contract" title="csc.com">Eagle Alliance</a> [csc.com]--most of the IT/IA side is heading in that type of arrangement due to budget cuts.
<br>
And a lot of important stuff was done there from time to time. And the real important stuff? Not at the Fort. That was done <i>somewhere else</i>. Though the fort does have the cool (at least to us techies), lower priority projects.
<br>
<br>
<br>
To the op, FYI, annex by acronym maynot be a good idea (when was your or friend's last LS)?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>" banishment " was coined since it was a pain to get to the annex and the facilities ( back 10yrs ago ) we crap .
It 's changed over the years AND a lot of stuff is done there now since the agency 's outsourcing to Eagle Alliance [ csc.com ] --most of the IT/IA side is heading in that type of arrangement due to budget cuts .
And a lot of important stuff was done there from time to time .
And the real important stuff ?
Not at the Fort .
That was done somewhere else .
Though the fort does have the cool ( at least to us techies ) , lower priority projects .
To the op , FYI , annex by acronym maynot be a good idea ( when was your or friend 's last LS ) ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"banishment" was coined since it was a pain to get to the annex and the facilities (back 10yrs ago) we crap.
It's changed over the years AND a lot of stuff is done there now since the agency's outsourcing to Eagle Alliance [csc.com]--most of the IT/IA side is heading in that type of arrangement due to budget cuts.
And a lot of important stuff was done there from time to time.
And the real important stuff?
Not at the Fort.
That was done somewhere else.
Though the fort does have the cool (at least to us techies), lower priority projects.
To the op, FYI, annex by acronym maynot be a good idea (when was your or friend's last LS)?
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643328</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsensical ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269690840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Am I missing something here, or is there some magical reason why this new agency won't have spooks embedded there, and it should be trusted any more than the NSA?</p></div><p>Their charter will say "no spooks embedded, you can trust us".  It'll have the same validity of your average corporate mission statement, e.g. <i>don't be evil</i> and so on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I missing something here , or is there some magical reason why this new agency wo n't have spooks embedded there , and it should be trusted any more than the NSA ? Their charter will say " no spooks embedded , you can trust us " .
It 'll have the same validity of your average corporate mission statement , e.g .
do n't be evil and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I missing something here, or is there some magical reason why this new agency won't have spooks embedded there, and it should be trusted any more than the NSA?Their charter will say "no spooks embedded, you can trust us".
It'll have the same validity of your average corporate mission statement, e.g.
don't be evil and so on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31646478</id>
	<title>Re:Two sides of the same coin</title>
	<author>Etyme</author>
	<datestamp>1269780480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see two good reasons to split the NSA, neither of which is really discussed by the article:

1.)Computer security is not part of the NSA's mandate. Currently its stated purpose is just spying; it's being pressed into a cybersecurity role because it's the only agency with the talent needed. That means security is secondary to spying. We could change this, but the current system is not optimal from a security point of view.

2.)Perception. The NSA is widely known as a spy agency and that is intimidating. Companies need to trust an entity to seek network defense help from it and an agency that only handled security would probably be viewed as more trustworthy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see two good reasons to split the NSA , neither of which is really discussed by the article : 1 .
) Computer security is not part of the NSA 's mandate .
Currently its stated purpose is just spying ; it 's being pressed into a cybersecurity role because it 's the only agency with the talent needed .
That means security is secondary to spying .
We could change this , but the current system is not optimal from a security point of view .
2. ) Perception. The NSA is widely known as a spy agency and that is intimidating .
Companies need to trust an entity to seek network defense help from it and an agency that only handled security would probably be viewed as more trustworthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see two good reasons to split the NSA, neither of which is really discussed by the article:

1.
)Computer security is not part of the NSA's mandate.
Currently its stated purpose is just spying; it's being pressed into a cybersecurity role because it's the only agency with the talent needed.
That means security is secondary to spying.
We could change this, but the current system is not optimal from a security point of view.
2.)Perception. The NSA is widely known as a spy agency and that is intimidating.
Companies need to trust an entity to seek network defense help from it and an agency that only handled security would probably be viewed as more trustworthy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641602</id>
	<title>Tension is good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269719580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't that tension - between those who want to exploit holes and those who want to fix them - a good thing? Tension normally results in balance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that tension - between those who want to exploit holes and those who want to fix them - a good thing ?
Tension normally results in balance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that tension - between those who want to exploit holes and those who want to fix them - a good thing?
Tension normally results in balance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641518</id>
	<title>how will that solve anything?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269719040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how it will solve anything. The same equities will still be in place, it's a matter of self-interest, not necessarily a matter of who does what. Separating them into two agencies might just make the problem worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how it will solve anything .
The same equities will still be in place , it 's a matter of self-interest , not necessarily a matter of who does what .
Separating them into two agencies might just make the problem worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how it will solve anything.
The same equities will still be in place, it's a matter of self-interest, not necessarily a matter of who does what.
Separating them into two agencies might just make the problem worse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642866</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Google need to 'partner' with the NSA?</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1269686400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Amerika! Amerika ist wunderbar!</p></div><p>Amerikahu akbar!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amerika !
Amerika ist wunderbar ! Amerikahu akbar !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amerika!
Amerika ist wunderbar!Amerikahu akbar!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641920</id>
	<title>Who Should be in Charge of U.S. Cybersecurity?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269722220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Schneier on Security - Who Should be in Charge of U.S. Cybersecurity?</p><p>http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/04/who\_should\_be\_i.html<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the NSA's dual mission of providing security and conducting surveillance<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; means it has an inherent conflict of interest in cybersecurity.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Schneier on Security - Who Should be in Charge of U.S. Cybersecurity ? http : //www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/04/who \ _should \ _be \ _i.html .. .       the NSA 's dual mission of providing security and conducting surveillance       means it has an inherent conflict of interest in cybersecurity .
.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Schneier on Security - Who Should be in Charge of U.S. Cybersecurity?http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/04/who\_should\_be\_i.html ...
      the NSA's dual mission of providing security and conducting surveillance
      means it has an inherent conflict of interest in cybersecurity.
...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31646468</id>
	<title>Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>edittard</author>
	<datestamp>1269780240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> 'The problem is, their goals are often in opposition,' writes Shachtman. 'One team wants to exploit software holes; the other wants to repair them.</p></div></blockquote><p>How are they in opposition?  Isn't the aim to exploit the ones in <i>their</i> systems, and plug the holes in <i>ours</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'The problem is , their goals are often in opposition, ' writes Shachtman .
'One team wants to exploit software holes ; the other wants to repair them.How are they in opposition ?
Is n't the aim to exploit the ones in their systems , and plug the holes in ours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'The problem is, their goals are often in opposition,' writes Shachtman.
'One team wants to exploit software holes; the other wants to repair them.How are they in opposition?
Isn't the aim to exploit the ones in their systems, and plug the holes in ours.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643188</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsensical ...</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1269689040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>who can say this new agency won't have spooks in there from the NSA?</p></div></blockquote><p>The same reason that you don't have spooks in the FBI and DMV?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>who can say this new agency wo n't have spooks in there from the NSA ? The same reason that you do n't have spooks in the FBI and DMV ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who can say this new agency won't have spooks in there from the NSA?The same reason that you don't have spooks in the FBI and DMV?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642096</id>
	<title>Re:This is all wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269723360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong agency. You're thinking of the FBI who's purpose is domestic intelligence and law enforcement. The NSA just does all the crypto stuff that's picked up by the CIA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong agency .
You 're thinking of the FBI who 's purpose is domestic intelligence and law enforcement .
The NSA just does all the crypto stuff that 's picked up by the CIA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong agency.
You're thinking of the FBI who's purpose is domestic intelligence and law enforcement.
The NSA just does all the crypto stuff that's picked up by the CIA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642352</id>
	<title>Re:how will that solve anything?</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1269682020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You wouldn't actually do it, you'd just tell people you'd done it and hope some of them are gullible enough to fall for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would n't actually do it , you 'd just tell people you 'd done it and hope some of them are gullible enough to fall for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wouldn't actually do it, you'd just tell people you'd done it and hope some of them are gullible enough to fall for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642152</id>
	<title>Re:This is all wrong.</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1269680760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Information Assurance  mission confronts the formidable challenge of preventing foreign adversaries from gaining access to sensitive or classified national security information. The Signals Intelligence mission collects, processes, and disseminates intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations. This Agency also enables Network Warfare operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties.  <a href="http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml" title="nsa.gov">Mission</a> [nsa.gov]</p></div> </blockquote><p>I don't see where "the American people need to be spied on" is part of their mission, in fact they've done some pretty major work like SElinux to keep Americans from being spied on, by anybody. If you don't like what the NSA is doing, write your congressman and have him change the laws.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Information Assurance mission confronts the formidable challenge of preventing foreign adversaries from gaining access to sensitive or classified national security information .
The Signals Intelligence mission collects , processes , and disseminates intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations .
This Agency also enables Network Warfare operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad , consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties .
Mission [ nsa.gov ] I do n't see where " the American people need to be spied on " is part of their mission , in fact they 've done some pretty major work like SElinux to keep Americans from being spied on , by anybody .
If you do n't like what the NSA is doing , write your congressman and have him change the laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Information Assurance  mission confronts the formidable challenge of preventing foreign adversaries from gaining access to sensitive or classified national security information.
The Signals Intelligence mission collects, processes, and disseminates intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations.
This Agency also enables Network Warfare operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties.
Mission [nsa.gov] I don't see where "the American people need to be spied on" is part of their mission, in fact they've done some pretty major work like SElinux to keep Americans from being spied on, by anybody.
If you don't like what the NSA is doing, write your congressman and have him change the laws.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643438</id>
	<title>The US needs both under one roof</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1269692220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How can you have one side without the other.<br>
The signals-intelligence directorate to hack every trackable device and the information-assurance directorate to make sure the voice print is correct before the drone is released?<br>
You can get it killing Dzokhar Dudayev,<br> You can get it tracking Abdullah Ocalan,<br> you can get it hacking wikileaks - -<br>- matter of fact; I've got it now. <br>A big predatory ideology  in denial needs a big cold agency and the best cold agency is the NSA! No such agency.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you have one side without the other .
The signals-intelligence directorate to hack every trackable device and the information-assurance directorate to make sure the voice print is correct before the drone is released ?
You can get it killing Dzokhar Dudayev , You can get it tracking Abdullah Ocalan , you can get it hacking wikileaks - -- matter of fact ; I 've got it now .
A big predatory ideology in denial needs a big cold agency and the best cold agency is the NSA !
No such agency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you have one side without the other.
The signals-intelligence directorate to hack every trackable device and the information-assurance directorate to make sure the voice print is correct before the drone is released?
You can get it killing Dzokhar Dudayev, You can get it tracking Abdullah Ocalan, you can get it hacking wikileaks - -- matter of fact; I've got it now.
A big predatory ideology  in denial needs a big cold agency and the best cold agency is the NSA!
No such agency.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642850</id>
	<title>It all depends</title>
	<author>mikefocke</author>
	<datestamp>1269686160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It all depends on what level of Common Criteria evaluation you are talking about. At the higher levels, there is a lab authorized to conduct a product inspection and, once you pass that test, you get a medium level NIAP certificate. If you wish a higher level of CC approval in the US, after this original process NSA itself takes control and does its tests. So the process is still a two step process with NSA involvement...or was about 4 years ago when I was involved in taking an "Orange Book" product through CC evaluation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It all depends on what level of Common Criteria evaluation you are talking about .
At the higher levels , there is a lab authorized to conduct a product inspection and , once you pass that test , you get a medium level NIAP certificate .
If you wish a higher level of CC approval in the US , after this original process NSA itself takes control and does its tests .
So the process is still a two step process with NSA involvement...or was about 4 years ago when I was involved in taking an " Orange Book " product through CC evaluation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It all depends on what level of Common Criteria evaluation you are talking about.
At the higher levels, there is a lab authorized to conduct a product inspection and, once you pass that test, you get a medium level NIAP certificate.
If you wish a higher level of CC approval in the US, after this original process NSA itself takes control and does its tests.
So the process is still a two step process with NSA involvement...or was about 4 years ago when I was involved in taking an "Orange Book" product through CC evaluation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643196</id>
	<title>Re:Hell No</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1269689160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the worst things Bush did post 9/11 was creating the spate of new federal agencies. Can anyone say that their flying experience is actually better after TSA was created? Anyone?</p></div><p>To be fair, the only people who have had their planes fly into buildings aren't around to answer.  The rest of us have experienced annoyances at the gates, so the boarding experience is worse, but the actual flying experience is just about the same (except the knowledge that just sitting still during a potential hijacking is dumb, so now people are ever slightly more on edge, but that has nothing to do with the TSA).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the worst things Bush did post 9/11 was creating the spate of new federal agencies .
Can anyone say that their flying experience is actually better after TSA was created ?
Anyone ? To be fair , the only people who have had their planes fly into buildings are n't around to answer .
The rest of us have experienced annoyances at the gates , so the boarding experience is worse , but the actual flying experience is just about the same ( except the knowledge that just sitting still during a potential hijacking is dumb , so now people are ever slightly more on edge , but that has nothing to do with the TSA ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the worst things Bush did post 9/11 was creating the spate of new federal agencies.
Can anyone say that their flying experience is actually better after TSA was created?
Anyone?To be fair, the only people who have had their planes fly into buildings aren't around to answer.
The rest of us have experienced annoyances at the gates, so the boarding experience is worse, but the actual flying experience is just about the same (except the knowledge that just sitting still during a potential hijacking is dumb, so now people are ever slightly more on edge, but that has nothing to do with the TSA).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642580</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Google need to 'partner' with the NSA?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269684240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because besides having the best "hackers" on the planet, the NSA also has the best sysadmins on the planet.  Because the aforementioned 'hackers' practice against them.</p><p>This, btw, is why the author's idea is terrible.  You want both offense and defense in the same agency so that they can share techniques.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because besides having the best " hackers " on the planet , the NSA also has the best sysadmins on the planet .
Because the aforementioned 'hackers ' practice against them.This , btw , is why the author 's idea is terrible .
You want both offense and defense in the same agency so that they can share techniques .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because besides having the best "hackers" on the planet, the NSA also has the best sysadmins on the planet.
Because the aforementioned 'hackers' practice against them.This, btw, is why the author's idea is terrible.
You want both offense and defense in the same agency so that they can share techniques.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642136</id>
	<title>Re:Hell No</title>
	<author>glwtta</author>
	<datestamp>1269680580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Can anyone say that their flying experience is actually better after TSA was created?</i>
<br> <br>
The TSA is supposed to make your flying experience better?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone say that their flying experience is actually better after TSA was created ?
The TSA is supposed to make your flying experience better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone say that their flying experience is actually better after TSA was created?
The TSA is supposed to make your flying experience better?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641596</id>
	<title>Nonsensical ...</title>
	<author>krou</author>
	<datestamp>1269719520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, so TFA is arguing that creating a new agency 'that didn&rsquo;t include the spooks would' avoid conflict and bring about 'acceptance across the government and the private sector'.</p><p>But right in the beginning, it says '[Google] wants geeks, but it runs the risk of getting spies' when it contacts the NSA.</p><p>If there is no guarantee that Google doesn't end up getting spooks from the NSA, who can say this new agency won't have spooks in there from the NSA?</p><p>Am I missing something here, or is there some magical reason why this new agency won't have spooks embedded there, and it should be trusted any more than the NSA?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so TFA is arguing that creating a new agency 'that didn    t include the spooks would ' avoid conflict and bring about 'acceptance across the government and the private sector'.But right in the beginning , it says ' [ Google ] wants geeks , but it runs the risk of getting spies ' when it contacts the NSA.If there is no guarantee that Google does n't end up getting spooks from the NSA , who can say this new agency wo n't have spooks in there from the NSA ? Am I missing something here , or is there some magical reason why this new agency wo n't have spooks embedded there , and it should be trusted any more than the NSA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so TFA is arguing that creating a new agency 'that didn’t include the spooks would' avoid conflict and bring about 'acceptance across the government and the private sector'.But right in the beginning, it says '[Google] wants geeks, but it runs the risk of getting spies' when it contacts the NSA.If there is no guarantee that Google doesn't end up getting spooks from the NSA, who can say this new agency won't have spooks in there from the NSA?Am I missing something here, or is there some magical reason why this new agency won't have spooks embedded there, and it should be trusted any more than the NSA?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642072</id>
	<title>Re:This is all wrong.</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1269723180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The entire idea behind the NSA, that the American people need to be spied on</p></div></blockquote><p>Who ever said that was the entire idea behind the NSA?  You do realize that the NSA spies on <i>other countries</i> as well?  Just ban them from listening in on Americans, as an official policy, and don't worry about it.</p><p>Besides, it's not like disbanding the NSA would actually do anything.  There is a reason people say NSA stands for No Such Agency...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire idea behind the NSA , that the American people need to be spied onWho ever said that was the entire idea behind the NSA ?
You do realize that the NSA spies on other countries as well ?
Just ban them from listening in on Americans , as an official policy , and do n't worry about it.Besides , it 's not like disbanding the NSA would actually do anything .
There is a reason people say NSA stands for No Such Agency.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire idea behind the NSA, that the American people need to be spied onWho ever said that was the entire idea behind the NSA?
You do realize that the NSA spies on other countries as well?
Just ban them from listening in on Americans, as an official policy, and don't worry about it.Besides, it's not like disbanding the NSA would actually do anything.
There is a reason people say NSA stands for No Such Agency...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641768</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Google need to 'partner' with the NSA?</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1269720660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NSA has hired most of the smartest math phd's</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NSA has hired most of the smartest math phd 's</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NSA has hired most of the smartest math phd's</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31645074</id>
	<title>ad hominem</title>
	<author>Strange Attractor</author>
	<datestamp>1269710760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't like Noah Shachtman or his work.  I last thought about him when he wrote something about Los Alamos, NM, which I know well.  His article was misleading and had a misplaced sense of excitement and drama.  At the time, I checked out some of his other work and found that it was similar.</p><p>I put him in with Dvorak.  I ignore what he says.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like Noah Shachtman or his work .
I last thought about him when he wrote something about Los Alamos , NM , which I know well .
His article was misleading and had a misplaced sense of excitement and drama .
At the time , I checked out some of his other work and found that it was similar.I put him in with Dvorak .
I ignore what he says .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like Noah Shachtman or his work.
I last thought about him when he wrote something about Los Alamos, NM, which I know well.
His article was misleading and had a misplaced sense of excitement and drama.
At the time, I checked out some of his other work and found that it was similar.I put him in with Dvorak.
I ignore what he says.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31645174</id>
	<title>The South Shall Rise Again</title>
	<author>dynamator</author>
	<datestamp>1269712260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>"An independent CSA would be trusted more widely than Fort Meade..."</em>
<br>
The CSA - I like it - there's already a cool flag which can be seen on many pickup trucks
in certain parts of the country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" An independent CSA would be trusted more widely than Fort Meade... " The CSA - I like it - there 's already a cool flag which can be seen on many pickup trucks in certain parts of the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"An independent CSA would be trusted more widely than Fort Meade..."

The CSA - I like it - there's already a cool flag which can be seen on many pickup trucks
in certain parts of the country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641540</id>
	<title>Hrmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269719160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can one side do their job if the other doesn't point out the exploit?</p><p>I feel the same about AV software. If the big AV companies don't have at least a few virus/worm writers on the payroll, how else do they know if their defense software is any good?*</p><p>*Less assume for a moment that AV software is somewhat decent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can one side do their job if the other does n't point out the exploit ? I feel the same about AV software .
If the big AV companies do n't have at least a few virus/worm writers on the payroll , how else do they know if their defense software is any good ?
* * Less assume for a moment that AV software is somewhat decent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can one side do their job if the other doesn't point out the exploit?I feel the same about AV software.
If the big AV companies don't have at least a few virus/worm writers on the payroll, how else do they know if their defense software is any good?
**Less assume for a moment that AV software is somewhat decent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641938</id>
	<title>This is all wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269722340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need to DISBAND the NSA.  A democracy should be run by it's citizenry, not the other way around.  The entire idea behind the NSA, that the American people need to be spied on, is repugnant, and helps stagnate our liberty in obvious and tyrannical fashion.  This kind of agency is the whole reason we don't have real elections with real candidates that talk about real issues.  This kind of agency is only required in a media run fascism where the populace does not know who killed JFK, or why, or who then succeeded him and to what purpose.</p><p>We should disband the NSA immediately.  It is the most loathsome, disgusting, and horrible institution yet created by man, and it serves no purpose other than to subvert the very principle of democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to DISBAND the NSA .
A democracy should be run by it 's citizenry , not the other way around .
The entire idea behind the NSA , that the American people need to be spied on , is repugnant , and helps stagnate our liberty in obvious and tyrannical fashion .
This kind of agency is the whole reason we do n't have real elections with real candidates that talk about real issues .
This kind of agency is only required in a media run fascism where the populace does not know who killed JFK , or why , or who then succeeded him and to what purpose.We should disband the NSA immediately .
It is the most loathsome , disgusting , and horrible institution yet created by man , and it serves no purpose other than to subvert the very principle of democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to DISBAND the NSA.
A democracy should be run by it's citizenry, not the other way around.
The entire idea behind the NSA, that the American people need to be spied on, is repugnant, and helps stagnate our liberty in obvious and tyrannical fashion.
This kind of agency is the whole reason we don't have real elections with real candidates that talk about real issues.
This kind of agency is only required in a media run fascism where the populace does not know who killed JFK, or why, or who then succeeded him and to what purpose.We should disband the NSA immediately.
It is the most loathsome, disgusting, and horrible institution yet created by man, and it serves no purpose other than to subvert the very principle of democracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643148</id>
	<title>runs the risk of getting spies</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1269688800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um, sorry to point this out to you, but you run the risk of getting spies by contracting with just a "geek-only" NSA or contracting overseas with other countries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , sorry to point this out to you , but you run the risk of getting spies by contracting with just a " geek-only " NSA or contracting overseas with other countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, sorry to point this out to you, but you run the risk of getting spies by contracting with just a "geek-only" NSA or contracting overseas with other countries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643718</id>
	<title>Better solution</title>
	<author>Brandybuck</author>
	<datestamp>1269694920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't it just be easier to abolish the NSA?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't it just be easier to abolish the NSA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't it just be easier to abolish the NSA?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643912</id>
	<title>Split and In Opposition is the only way to oversee</title>
	<author>aschoeff</author>
	<datestamp>1269697140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Observing this interplay between the two separate groups is the only way to reliably oversee and glean reliable data that either or both are not compromised, or "rooted."

It's a brilliant solution.  Be glad they implemented it.

The next obvious question is, how do they have the oversight mechanisms kept secret and in redundancy?

They'd have to be pretty much 100\% passive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Observing this interplay between the two separate groups is the only way to reliably oversee and glean reliable data that either or both are not compromised , or " rooted .
" It 's a brilliant solution .
Be glad they implemented it .
The next obvious question is , how do they have the oversight mechanisms kept secret and in redundancy ?
They 'd have to be pretty much 100 \ % passive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Observing this interplay between the two separate groups is the only way to reliably oversee and glean reliable data that either or both are not compromised, or "rooted.
"

It's a brilliant solution.
Be glad they implemented it.
The next obvious question is, how do they have the oversight mechanisms kept secret and in redundancy?
They'd have to be pretty much 100\% passive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642434</id>
	<title>Re:This is all wrong.</title>
	<author>zill</author>
	<datestamp>1269683040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just ban them from listening in on Americans, as an official policy, and don't worry about it.</p></div><p>I'm sorry but that's purely wishful thinking on your part.<br> <br>

In 1976, the Church Committee reports found <a href="http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIcb.htm" title="icdc.com">NSA obtained copies of millions of private telegrams sent from, to or through the United States in its SHAMROCK program.</a> [icdc.com] <br> <br>

On August 17, 2006, District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU\_v.\_NSA" title="wikipedia.org">ACLU v. NSA</a> [wikipedia.org] that NSA violated the First and Fourth amendment by warrantless tapping American citizens in the aftermath of 9/11.<br> <br>

In April 2009, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html?\_r=1" title="nytimes.com">intelligence officials admits that NSA had been engaged in &ldquo;overcollection&rdquo; of domestic communications of Americans.</a> [nytimes.com] In one extreme case they even wiretapped a congressmen while he was overseas.<br> <br>

Please note that I am not wearing tinfoil hats and all my sources came from either from Congressional hearings or court rulings.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just ban them from listening in on Americans , as an official policy , and do n't worry about it.I 'm sorry but that 's purely wishful thinking on your part .
In 1976 , the Church Committee reports found NSA obtained copies of millions of private telegrams sent from , to or through the United States in its SHAMROCK program .
[ icdc.com ] On August 17 , 2006 , District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled in ACLU v. NSA [ wikipedia.org ] that NSA violated the First and Fourth amendment by warrantless tapping American citizens in the aftermath of 9/11 .
In April 2009 , intelligence officials admits that NSA had been engaged in    overcollection    of domestic communications of Americans .
[ nytimes.com ] In one extreme case they even wiretapped a congressmen while he was overseas .
Please note that I am not wearing tinfoil hats and all my sources came from either from Congressional hearings or court rulings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just ban them from listening in on Americans, as an official policy, and don't worry about it.I'm sorry but that's purely wishful thinking on your part.
In 1976, the Church Committee reports found NSA obtained copies of millions of private telegrams sent from, to or through the United States in its SHAMROCK program.
[icdc.com]  

On August 17, 2006, District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled in ACLU v. NSA [wikipedia.org] that NSA violated the First and Fourth amendment by warrantless tapping American citizens in the aftermath of 9/11.
In April 2009, intelligence officials admits that NSA had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans.
[nytimes.com] In one extreme case they even wiretapped a congressmen while he was overseas.
Please note that I am not wearing tinfoil hats and all my sources came from either from Congressional hearings or court rulings.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643180</id>
	<title>Lets start a cyberwar with China.</title>
	<author>wireshark</author>
	<datestamp>1269688980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As the wars in Iraq &amp; Afghanistan are winding down the government "especially the republican party" sees the need for a new war. What better way to grease up lucrative contracts between the U.S gov &amp; it's most successful companies than a "cyber" war. The Google breach is clearly an intel/political issue. The technical aspects are minimal &amp; we all knew that great firewall compromised any chance of IT security there yet the story is portrayed as a technical one. Oh my! google was hacked by the chinese. They must need technical government support. Rarely is the story portrayed simply as an international policy issue. It's war I tell you &amp; the economy loves a good fight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As the wars in Iraq &amp; Afghanistan are winding down the government " especially the republican party " sees the need for a new war .
What better way to grease up lucrative contracts between the U.S gov &amp; it 's most successful companies than a " cyber " war .
The Google breach is clearly an intel/political issue .
The technical aspects are minimal &amp; we all knew that great firewall compromised any chance of IT security there yet the story is portrayed as a technical one .
Oh my !
google was hacked by the chinese .
They must need technical government support .
Rarely is the story portrayed simply as an international policy issue .
It 's war I tell you &amp; the economy loves a good fight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the wars in Iraq &amp; Afghanistan are winding down the government "especially the republican party" sees the need for a new war.
What better way to grease up lucrative contracts between the U.S gov &amp; it's most successful companies than a "cyber" war.
The Google breach is clearly an intel/political issue.
The technical aspects are minimal &amp; we all knew that great firewall compromised any chance of IT security there yet the story is portrayed as a technical one.
Oh my!
google was hacked by the chinese.
They must need technical government support.
Rarely is the story portrayed simply as an international policy issue.
It's war I tell you &amp; the economy loves a good fight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643516</id>
	<title>Just because you create two,</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1269693000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>doesn't mean they won't cooperate (e.g. State Department/CIA).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does n't mean they wo n't cooperate ( e.g .
State Department/CIA ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>doesn't mean they won't cooperate (e.g.
State Department/CIA).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642410</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Google need to 'partner' with the NSA?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269682740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is quoting Rammstein insightful?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is quoting Rammstein insightful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is quoting Rammstein insightful?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31645216</id>
	<title>Re:Two sides of the same coin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269712980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.</p></div></blockquote><p>You could also say that correlation is heavily correlated to causation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using " correlation is not causation " as an argument is close to 1.You could also say that correlation is heavily correlated to causation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.You could also say that correlation is heavily correlated to causation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31648882</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Google need to 'partner' with the NSA?</title>
	<author>ohmiccurmudgeon</author>
	<datestamp>1269803280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where else is Google going to find someone that understands how to configure SELinux so it can be used in real life.</p><p>Oh, doh!  I referenced real life in the same sentence as SELinux and Google in a Slashdot posting on the NSA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where else is Google going to find someone that understands how to configure SELinux so it can be used in real life.Oh , doh !
I referenced real life in the same sentence as SELinux and Google in a Slashdot posting on the NSA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where else is Google going to find someone that understands how to configure SELinux so it can be used in real life.Oh, doh!
I referenced real life in the same sentence as SELinux and Google in a Slashdot posting on the NSA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641806</id>
	<title>actually</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269721140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the NSA, well Forte Meade actually is home of a lot more agencies then just two. quite a few actually. DEFSMAC is the only one i can recall off the top of my head, as its been a while since i've read body of secrets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the NSA , well Forte Meade actually is home of a lot more agencies then just two .
quite a few actually .
DEFSMAC is the only one i can recall off the top of my head , as its been a while since i 've read body of secrets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the NSA, well Forte Meade actually is home of a lot more agencies then just two.
quite a few actually.
DEFSMAC is the only one i can recall off the top of my head, as its been a while since i've read body of secrets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641558</id>
	<title>Spooks and geeks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269719280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's racist, Slashdot.</p><p>They're African Americans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's racist , Slashdot.They 're African Americans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's racist, Slashdot.They're African Americans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31644678</id>
	<title>How Do We Know the NSA Is Any Smarter Than Google?</title>
	<author>littlewink</author>
	<datestamp>1269706320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't know all of what the NSA does, what it spends, how often it succeeds/fails (or even what that means). Nobody is measuring the NSA for cost/effectiveness. One of the few things we \_do\_ know about the NSA is that some of the shit they pull violates U.S. citizens' constitutional rights.</p><p>What we should do is shitcan the current NSA and start over again. But this time build something that is monitored to ensure that, whatever it does, it does that effectively.</p><p>Of course the same could be said about the CIA, FBI and hundreds of other government agencies. But we spend so much more on the NSA. It is a true budgetary black hole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't know all of what the NSA does , what it spends , how often it succeeds/fails ( or even what that means ) .
Nobody is measuring the NSA for cost/effectiveness .
One of the few things we \ _do \ _ know about the NSA is that some of the shit they pull violates U.S. citizens ' constitutional rights.What we should do is shitcan the current NSA and start over again .
But this time build something that is monitored to ensure that , whatever it does , it does that effectively.Of course the same could be said about the CIA , FBI and hundreds of other government agencies .
But we spend so much more on the NSA .
It is a true budgetary black hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't know all of what the NSA does, what it spends, how often it succeeds/fails (or even what that means).
Nobody is measuring the NSA for cost/effectiveness.
One of the few things we \_do\_ know about the NSA is that some of the shit they pull violates U.S. citizens' constitutional rights.What we should do is shitcan the current NSA and start over again.
But this time build something that is monitored to ensure that, whatever it does, it does that effectively.Of course the same could be said about the CIA, FBI and hundreds of other government agencies.
But we spend so much more on the NSA.
It is a true budgetary black hole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31652450</id>
	<title>Re:runs the risk of getting spies</title>
	<author>H0D\_G</author>
	<datestamp>1269788460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that makes 'spies' sound like an infestation. suggestions on a spy repellent?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that makes 'spies ' sound like an infestation .
suggestions on a spy repellent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that makes 'spies' sound like an infestation.
suggestions on a spy repellent?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641854</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Google need to 'partner' with the NSA?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269721620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amerika! Amerika ist wunderbar!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amerika !
Amerika ist wunderbar !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amerika!
Amerika ist wunderbar!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641532</id>
	<title>Why does Google need to 'partner' with the NSA?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269719100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't they smart enough and rich enough to hire their own geeks? SIGINT is the main job of NSA, period. If you want to hire the wolf to guard the hen house, you take the consequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't they smart enough and rich enough to hire their own geeks ?
SIGINT is the main job of NSA , period .
If you want to hire the wolf to guard the hen house , you take the consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't they smart enough and rich enough to hire their own geeks?
SIGINT is the main job of NSA, period.
If you want to hire the wolf to guard the hen house, you take the consequences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31645212</id>
	<title>Re:Better solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269712980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sure, if you think that the NSA is reading your email. However<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they aren't, unless it's going outside of the US. We've got plenty of adversaries that need to be watched, from the Chinese all the way down to narcoterrorists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sure , if you think that the NSA is reading your email .
However ... they are n't , unless it 's going outside of the US .
We 've got plenty of adversaries that need to be watched , from the Chinese all the way down to narcoterrorists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sure, if you think that the NSA is reading your email.
However ... they aren't, unless it's going outside of the US.
We've got plenty of adversaries that need to be watched, from the Chinese all the way down to narcoterrorists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643580</id>
	<title>not a problem</title>
	<author>r00t</author>
	<datestamp>1269693720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"from" the United States: foreign</p><p>"to" the United States: foreign</p><p>"through" the United States: foreign</p><p>(the missing possibility is "within")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" from " the United States : foreign " to " the United States : foreign " through " the United States : foreign ( the missing possibility is " within " )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"from" the United States: foreign"to" the United States: foreign"through" the United States: foreign(the missing possibility is "within")</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642420</id>
	<title>Re:They already did, and it made things worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269682860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
The "geeks and spies" division in the article is bogus. NSA is all geeks.  (Mostly the middle-aged federal employee version thereof.) It's buildings full of people working at desks.   There are no "NSA agents".  The spies and the guys with guns are at CIA, FBI, DIA, and in the intelligence units of the armed services.</p></div><p>This.  I always get a laugh out of people saying "NSA agents"... the classic example was from Sneakers and the "NSA Agents" that were pursuing the decryption box.  The only "Agents" that work for the NSA are internal types that manage polygraphs and security clearances.  The rest of the people are geeks/nerds... well, actually managers and geeks/nerds.  I remember an old joke floating around about the NSA:  If the NSA ran a rowing crew it would have 7 people calling out "stroke" (managers) and 1 guy actually rowing (geek/nerd).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " geeks and spies " division in the article is bogus .
NSA is all geeks .
( Mostly the middle-aged federal employee version thereof .
) It 's buildings full of people working at desks .
There are no " NSA agents " .
The spies and the guys with guns are at CIA , FBI , DIA , and in the intelligence units of the armed services.This .
I always get a laugh out of people saying " NSA agents " ... the classic example was from Sneakers and the " NSA Agents " that were pursuing the decryption box .
The only " Agents " that work for the NSA are internal types that manage polygraphs and security clearances .
The rest of the people are geeks/nerds... well , actually managers and geeks/nerds .
I remember an old joke floating around about the NSA : If the NSA ran a rowing crew it would have 7 people calling out " stroke " ( managers ) and 1 guy actually rowing ( geek/nerd ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The "geeks and spies" division in the article is bogus.
NSA is all geeks.
(Mostly the middle-aged federal employee version thereof.
) It's buildings full of people working at desks.
There are no "NSA agents".
The spies and the guys with guns are at CIA, FBI, DIA, and in the intelligence units of the armed services.This.
I always get a laugh out of people saying "NSA agents"... the classic example was from Sneakers and the "NSA Agents" that were pursuing the decryption box.
The only "Agents" that work for the NSA are internal types that manage polygraphs and security clearances.
The rest of the people are geeks/nerds... well, actually managers and geeks/nerds.
I remember an old joke floating around about the NSA:  If the NSA ran a rowing crew it would have 7 people calling out "stroke" (managers) and 1 guy actually rowing (geek/nerd).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641634</id>
	<title>Spooks &amp; Geeks are Intertwined</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269719760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who do you think comes up with the technology to crack encryption of intercept signals?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who do you think comes up with the technology to crack encryption of intercept signals ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who do you think comes up with the technology to crack encryption of intercept signals?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641562</id>
	<title>I propose the NSOANSA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269719280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>National Security Only Agency No Spies Agency which will be tasked with splitting the security aspect from the spying aspect. To insure this split the NSOANSA should be composed exclusively of spies because only spies will have the necessary intelligence needed to tell the spooks from the geeks. They will also require real-time access to all communications and have full retention of all electronic communication so they can insure that no spies are doing security work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>National Security Only Agency No Spies Agency which will be tasked with splitting the security aspect from the spying aspect .
To insure this split the NSOANSA should be composed exclusively of spies because only spies will have the necessary intelligence needed to tell the spooks from the geeks .
They will also require real-time access to all communications and have full retention of all electronic communication so they can insure that no spies are doing security work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>National Security Only Agency No Spies Agency which will be tasked with splitting the security aspect from the spying aspect.
To insure this split the NSOANSA should be composed exclusively of spies because only spies will have the necessary intelligence needed to tell the spooks from the geeks.
They will also require real-time access to all communications and have full retention of all electronic communication so they can insure that no spies are doing security work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643506</id>
	<title>Re:Two sides of the same coin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269693000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agree, it's incredibly useful to have the two opposing forces under the same roof.  If the INFOSEC guys need world class crackers to try and break their shiny new crypto, they can walk across the hall and tap a SIGINT guy on the shoulder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agree , it 's incredibly useful to have the two opposing forces under the same roof .
If the INFOSEC guys need world class crackers to try and break their shiny new crypto , they can walk across the hall and tap a SIGINT guy on the shoulder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agree, it's incredibly useful to have the two opposing forces under the same roof.
If the INFOSEC guys need world class crackers to try and break their shiny new crypto, they can walk across the hall and tap a SIGINT guy on the shoulder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641706</id>
	<title>Hell No</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1269720300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We do not need <b>yet another</b> federal agency. Splitting them in two will only result in two bigger agencies with an ever ravenous appetite for more tax funds.</p><p>One of the worst things Bush did post 9/11 was creating the spate of new federal agencies. Can anyone say that their flying experience is actually better after TSA was created? Anyone?</p><p>How much good did creating yet another layer of intelligence bureaucracy do us? Did intelligence get any better after we made the Director of Central Intelligence obsolete by creating a Director of National Intelligence? Not one damn whit. It just grew the federal payroll some more, and added more bloat and bureaucracy.</p><p>Vital intelligence work needs to be done, but we need to be trimming down these agencies, not creating new ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do not need yet another federal agency .
Splitting them in two will only result in two bigger agencies with an ever ravenous appetite for more tax funds.One of the worst things Bush did post 9/11 was creating the spate of new federal agencies .
Can anyone say that their flying experience is actually better after TSA was created ?
Anyone ? How much good did creating yet another layer of intelligence bureaucracy do us ?
Did intelligence get any better after we made the Director of Central Intelligence obsolete by creating a Director of National Intelligence ?
Not one damn whit .
It just grew the federal payroll some more , and added more bloat and bureaucracy.Vital intelligence work needs to be done , but we need to be trimming down these agencies , not creating new ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We do not need yet another federal agency.
Splitting them in two will only result in two bigger agencies with an ever ravenous appetite for more tax funds.One of the worst things Bush did post 9/11 was creating the spate of new federal agencies.
Can anyone say that their flying experience is actually better after TSA was created?
Anyone?How much good did creating yet another layer of intelligence bureaucracy do us?
Did intelligence get any better after we made the Director of Central Intelligence obsolete by creating a Director of National Intelligence?
Not one damn whit.
It just grew the federal payroll some more, and added more bloat and bureaucracy.Vital intelligence work needs to be done, but we need to be trimming down these agencies, not creating new ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641804</id>
	<title>Two sides of the same coin</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1269721140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keeping our systems secure, and breaking into the other guys' systems, are damn near the same job.  It is a <b>good thing</b> to have the people responsible for both working together, and maybe trading jobs occasionally.  There is no American computer security and Russian computer security and Chinese computer security:  there is only computer security, and systems which are more or less secure.  The NSA has historically been about the only government agency that really seems to get this, and it would be a real mistake to break it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keeping our systems secure , and breaking into the other guys ' systems , are damn near the same job .
It is a good thing to have the people responsible for both working together , and maybe trading jobs occasionally .
There is no American computer security and Russian computer security and Chinese computer security : there is only computer security , and systems which are more or less secure .
The NSA has historically been about the only government agency that really seems to get this , and it would be a real mistake to break it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keeping our systems secure, and breaking into the other guys' systems, are damn near the same job.
It is a good thing to have the people responsible for both working together, and maybe trading jobs occasionally.
There is no American computer security and Russian computer security and Chinese computer security:  there is only computer security, and systems which are more or less secure.
The NSA has historically been about the only government agency that really seems to get this, and it would be a real mistake to break it up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31650676</id>
	<title>To make the relationship look lesser evil</title>
	<author>n3td3v</author>
	<datestamp>1269773520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It looks like the Americans want to split up The NSA to make the Google-NSA relationship look less evil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like the Americans want to split up The NSA to make the Google-NSA relationship look less evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like the Americans want to split up The NSA to make the Google-NSA relationship look less evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642744</id>
	<title>If the NSA handles SIGINT, who handles SIGTERM?</title>
	<author>FoolishOwl</author>
	<datestamp>1269685260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how about SIGHUP?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how about SIGHUP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how about SIGHUP?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31645804</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Google need to 'partner' with the NSA?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269808560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google gets SIGINT from NSA? Is that why Google servers are down at times?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google gets SIGINT from NSA ?
Is that why Google servers are down at times ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google gets SIGINT from NSA?
Is that why Google servers are down at times?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642884</id>
	<title>CERT &amp; China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269686520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't DARPA create CERT to deal with vulnerabilities? Also, looks like the Chinese may not have just been blowing smoke when they accused Google of working closely with the United States intelligence community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't DARPA create CERT to deal with vulnerabilities ?
Also , looks like the Chinese may not have just been blowing smoke when they accused Google of working closely with the United States intelligence community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't DARPA create CERT to deal with vulnerabilities?
Also, looks like the Chinese may not have just been blowing smoke when they accused Google of working closely with the United States intelligence community.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642288</id>
	<title>Re:Two sides of the same coin</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1269681660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've read the article twice and it doesn't  support it's own conclusion, if you except as a given that the NSA is bad, a loose cannon in regards to real American's rights it follows logically, if you don't think the NSA is inherently bad the article just panders to the tinfoil hat crowd. Google, an American Corp, and many other Corporations  were attacked by an entity that appears was either the Chinese Government, a proxy of the Chinese Government or an entity specifically trying to make it look like the Chinese Government for their own nefarious purposes. Getting the "big guns" involved to help sort out the mess is the only reasonable response, it's what they are supposed to do and what they do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read the article twice and it does n't support it 's own conclusion , if you except as a given that the NSA is bad , a loose cannon in regards to real American 's rights it follows logically , if you do n't think the NSA is inherently bad the article just panders to the tinfoil hat crowd .
Google , an American Corp , and many other Corporations were attacked by an entity that appears was either the Chinese Government , a proxy of the Chinese Government or an entity specifically trying to make it look like the Chinese Government for their own nefarious purposes .
Getting the " big guns " involved to help sort out the mess is the only reasonable response , it 's what they are supposed to do and what they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read the article twice and it doesn't  support it's own conclusion, if you except as a given that the NSA is bad, a loose cannon in regards to real American's rights it follows logically, if you don't think the NSA is inherently bad the article just panders to the tinfoil hat crowd.
Google, an American Corp, and many other Corporations  were attacked by an entity that appears was either the Chinese Government, a proxy of the Chinese Government or an entity specifically trying to make it look like the Chinese Government for their own nefarious purposes.
Getting the "big guns" involved to help sort out the mess is the only reasonable response, it's what they are supposed to do and what they do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641804</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31645804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31645216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31646478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31648882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31645212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31652450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1819217_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1819217.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31645216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31646478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1819217.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31644678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1819217.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1819217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1819217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1819217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1819217.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1819217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1819217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31644496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1819217.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642434
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1819217.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1819217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1819217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31652450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1819217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1819217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1819217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31645212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1819217.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1819217.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31645804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31643404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31648882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31641854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1819217.31642410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
