<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_31_1428244</id>
	<title>Lawmakers Ask For FTC Investigation of Google Buzz</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1270046820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/" rel="nofollow">angry tapir</a> writes <i>"Eleven US lawmakers have asked the <a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/341341/us\_lawmakers\_ask\_ftc\_investigation\_google\_buzz/">FTC to investigate Google's launch of its Buzz</a> social-networking product for breaches of consumer privacy. The representatives &mdash; six Democrats and five Republicans from the House Energy and Commerce Committee &mdash; noted in their letter that Google's roll-out of Buzz exposed private information of users to Google's Gmail service to outsiders. In one case, a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact list in Gmail with a person who has a 'sexually charged' username, the lawmakers said in the letter."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>angry tapir writes " Eleven US lawmakers have asked the FTC to investigate Google 's launch of its Buzz social-networking product for breaches of consumer privacy .
The representatives    six Democrats and five Republicans from the House Energy and Commerce Committee    noted in their letter that Google 's roll-out of Buzz exposed private information of users to Google 's Gmail service to outsiders .
In one case , a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact list in Gmail with a person who has a 'sexually charged ' username , the lawmakers said in the letter .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angry tapir writes "Eleven US lawmakers have asked the FTC to investigate Google's launch of its Buzz social-networking product for breaches of consumer privacy.
The representatives — six Democrats and five Republicans from the House Energy and Commerce Committee — noted in their letter that Google's roll-out of Buzz exposed private information of users to Google's Gmail service to outsiders.
In one case, a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact list in Gmail with a person who has a 'sexually charged' username, the lawmakers said in the letter.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689116</id>
	<title>Re:Why Does a 9 Year Old Need an E-Mail Address?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1270056180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The cellphone thing I get. "I'm lost, bad man following me," understood. But an e-mail address? Doesn't fly.</p> </div><p>It's so she can notify the fire department <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EBfxjSFAxQ" title="youtube.com">when her office catches fire.</a> [youtube.com] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cellphone thing I get .
" I 'm lost , bad man following me , " understood .
But an e-mail address ?
Does n't fly .
It 's so she can notify the fire department when her office catches fire .
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cellphone thing I get.
"I'm lost, bad man following me," understood.
But an e-mail address?
Doesn't fly.
It's so she can notify the fire department when her office catches fire.
[youtube.com] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688762</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1270054680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However, when the US government awarded a patent to Microsoft to sell your photos, information and calendar information to the highest bidder, they didn't think that was a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , when the US government awarded a patent to Microsoft to sell your photos , information and calendar information to the highest bidder , they did n't think that was a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, when the US government awarded a patent to Microsoft to sell your photos, information and calendar information to the highest bidder, they didn't think that was a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687728</id>
	<title>penishead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270050540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think of the children! We can't let them talk to people with sexually charged usernames! ESPECIALLY NOT OTHER CHILDREN!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of the children !
We ca n't let them talk to people with sexually charged usernames !
ESPECIALLY NOT OTHER CHILDREN !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of the children!
We can't let them talk to people with sexually charged usernames!
ESPECIALLY NOT OTHER CHILDREN!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688354</id>
	<title>privacy and technology</title>
	<author>h00manist</author>
	<datestamp>1270052820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somehow I think technology ultimately goes against privacy.  Which deserves some thinking.  People are entitled to privacy, the right to be left alone, but perhaps "right to privacy" is often confused, or abused, with a right to isolation, of self or others, to maintain ignorance of facts or events, to secrecy, or of doing illegal-immoral things out of sight.  For example, many large properties have private slaves, but out of sight, where nobody can see. They have a right to their privacy. Technology's role is more complicated. It basically follows human will.  But so far, it generally makes information go around faster, easier, wider.  Any information, desirable or not.  It can be used to block information too, but it tends to not work as well, perhaps because that's basically not how people work, as well.  People are connected to each other, even when they are physically alone, society is ultimately a link, few people are really isolated.  Breaking the privacy of people in power, on the things they do in secret with their authority, that influences their society negatively, might be in the interest of society, but not in that of their privacy.  The privacy of individual citizens is, on the other hand, more and more eroded, and although it remains a right, it appears to be a right that is merely on paper, as increasingly privacy accompanies power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow I think technology ultimately goes against privacy .
Which deserves some thinking .
People are entitled to privacy , the right to be left alone , but perhaps " right to privacy " is often confused , or abused , with a right to isolation , of self or others , to maintain ignorance of facts or events , to secrecy , or of doing illegal-immoral things out of sight .
For example , many large properties have private slaves , but out of sight , where nobody can see .
They have a right to their privacy .
Technology 's role is more complicated .
It basically follows human will .
But so far , it generally makes information go around faster , easier , wider .
Any information , desirable or not .
It can be used to block information too , but it tends to not work as well , perhaps because that 's basically not how people work , as well .
People are connected to each other , even when they are physically alone , society is ultimately a link , few people are really isolated .
Breaking the privacy of people in power , on the things they do in secret with their authority , that influences their society negatively , might be in the interest of society , but not in that of their privacy .
The privacy of individual citizens is , on the other hand , more and more eroded , and although it remains a right , it appears to be a right that is merely on paper , as increasingly privacy accompanies power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow I think technology ultimately goes against privacy.
Which deserves some thinking.
People are entitled to privacy, the right to be left alone, but perhaps "right to privacy" is often confused, or abused, with a right to isolation, of self or others, to maintain ignorance of facts or events, to secrecy, or of doing illegal-immoral things out of sight.
For example, many large properties have private slaves, but out of sight, where nobody can see.
They have a right to their privacy.
Technology's role is more complicated.
It basically follows human will.
But so far, it generally makes information go around faster, easier, wider.
Any information, desirable or not.
It can be used to block information too, but it tends to not work as well, perhaps because that's basically not how people work, as well.
People are connected to each other, even when they are physically alone, society is ultimately a link, few people are really isolated.
Breaking the privacy of people in power, on the things they do in secret with their authority, that influences their society negatively, might be in the interest of society, but not in that of their privacy.
The privacy of individual citizens is, on the other hand, more and more eroded, and although it remains a right, it appears to be a right that is merely on paper, as increasingly privacy accompanies power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688290</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1270052580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That doesn't mean Google should get off for its rather facebook-esque manner of autofollowing everyone on the contact list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't mean Google should get off for its rather facebook-esque manner of autofollowing everyone on the contact list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't mean Google should get off for its rather facebook-esque manner of autofollowing everyone on the contact list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689058</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>Dunega</author>
	<datestamp>1270055940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe, just maybe, mommy and daddy did their work and considered Gmail safe.</p></div><p>Maybe, just maybe, but most likely not. A 9 year old should not be using the internet unsupervised, period.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe , just maybe , mommy and daddy did their work and considered Gmail safe.Maybe , just maybe , but most likely not .
A 9 year old should not be using the internet unsupervised , period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe, just maybe, mommy and daddy did their work and considered Gmail safe.Maybe, just maybe, but most likely not.
A 9 year old should not be using the internet unsupervised, period.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688080</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270051800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A 9y/o girl has a Buzz account.  That, my friend, is the problem.  To hell with mom and dad making sure you uses it responsibly...she should have it in the first place.  She probably has a cell phone, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A 9y/o girl has a Buzz account .
That , my friend , is the problem .
To hell with mom and dad making sure you uses it responsibly...she should have it in the first place .
She probably has a cell phone , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A 9y/o girl has a Buzz account.
That, my friend, is the problem.
To hell with mom and dad making sure you uses it responsibly...she should have it in the first place.
She probably has a cell phone, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688926</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1270055340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any parent with common sense taught their children how to operate the DVD player so they could better ignore their children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any parent with common sense taught their children how to operate the DVD player so they could better ignore their children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any parent with common sense taught their children how to operate the DVD player so they could better ignore their children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688144</id>
	<title>Oops</title>
	<author>Megahard</author>
	<datestamp>1270052040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time to scrub my hard drive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to scrub my hard drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to scrub my hard drive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31691742</id>
	<title>Re:Some perspective</title>
	<author>zcold</author>
	<datestamp>1270066860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you are also missing the point as well..

GMail ToS:

2.3 You may not use the Services and may not accept the Terms if (a) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google, or (b) you are a person barred from receiving the Services under the laws of the United States or other countries including the country in which you are resident or from which you use the Services.


(a) would be the one to focus on..</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are also missing the point as well. . GMail ToS : 2.3 You may not use the Services and may not accept the Terms if ( a ) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google , or ( b ) you are a person barred from receiving the Services under the laws of the United States or other countries including the country in which you are resident or from which you use the Services .
( a ) would be the one to focus on. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are also missing the point as well..

GMail ToS:

2.3 You may not use the Services and may not accept the Terms if (a) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google, or (b) you are a person barred from receiving the Services under the laws of the United States or other countries including the country in which you are resident or from which you use the Services.
(a) would be the one to focus on..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687858</id>
	<title>Re: a "sexually charged" username</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1270050900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tragically, you're wrong.  See, the 9yr old is a member of the Dick van Dyke fan club, and has regular conversations online with him via email.</p><p>His username?  penisvanlesbian@gmail.com</p><p>Sucks, he wasn't doing anything wrong.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tragically , you 're wrong .
See , the 9yr old is a member of the Dick van Dyke fan club , and has regular conversations online with him via email.His username ?
penisvanlesbian @ gmail.comSucks , he was n't doing anything wrong .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tragically, you're wrong.
See, the 9yr old is a member of the Dick van Dyke fan club, and has regular conversations online with him via email.His username?
penisvanlesbian@gmail.comSucks, he wasn't doing anything wrong.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688808</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270054860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this day and age, the owner of said username was probably a 9 year old boy. What on earth was a 9 year old girl doing unsupervised on a GMail account. If the feds find against Google on this, then they should also find against the parents for child neglect.</p><p>This is like those cases where 10 year olds get perverted messages on Facebook because they lied about their age and their parents weren't watching them closely enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this day and age , the owner of said username was probably a 9 year old boy .
What on earth was a 9 year old girl doing unsupervised on a GMail account .
If the feds find against Google on this , then they should also find against the parents for child neglect.This is like those cases where 10 year olds get perverted messages on Facebook because they lied about their age and their parents were n't watching them closely enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this day and age, the owner of said username was probably a 9 year old boy.
What on earth was a 9 year old girl doing unsupervised on a GMail account.
If the feds find against Google on this, then they should also find against the parents for child neglect.This is like those cases where 10 year olds get perverted messages on Facebook because they lied about their age and their parents weren't watching them closely enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688626</id>
	<title>Google doesn't need apologists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270053960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Can you imagine if it was Microsoft that made this misake? Or AOL had of?</p></div></blockquote><p>I've never used those companies' services, but assuming they <em>also</em> (like gmail) disclose in advance that they're not on your side, then if they had done the same thing, I would say the same thing:</p><p>You've got to be pretty apathetic about privacy, to use webmail. You've got to be even more apathetic, or maybe even an exhibitionist, if you decide to use a mail service, that like Gmail, up front in advance <em>tells you</em> that a robot who serves interests that conflict with your own, will be reading your emails.  The very fact that a 9 year old was using gmail -- forget about this Buzz nonsense -- was already a surrender.  Defeat was inevitable, long before Buzz came along.  Buzz isn't the problem.</p><p>Folks, if you like the convenience of gmail, that's great.  It's your decision.  But don't ever think of it as being anything remotely like a "normal" email service or even slightly compatible with the previous status quo when it comes to privacy.  And if you're telling your <em>kids</em> to use gmail, seriously: <em>fuck you</em>.  Google and Biggus Dickus aren't your kid's most serious threats; <em>you</em> are.</p><p>Google apologist?  No.  Google gives you a gun that is locked into always aiming at your foot.  Some people accept the gun.  Some people even pull the trigger.  While I certainly don't approve of Google doing this, I can't hold them 100\% to blame, either.  When you decide to go out of your way to shoot yourself in the foot, I think <em>you're</em> the one who really needs an apologist.</p><p>Tell your kid to put the gun down, and don't hand them guns like <em>that one</em> again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you imagine if it was Microsoft that made this misake ?
Or AOL had of ? I 've never used those companies ' services , but assuming they also ( like gmail ) disclose in advance that they 're not on your side , then if they had done the same thing , I would say the same thing : You 've got to be pretty apathetic about privacy , to use webmail .
You 've got to be even more apathetic , or maybe even an exhibitionist , if you decide to use a mail service , that like Gmail , up front in advance tells you that a robot who serves interests that conflict with your own , will be reading your emails .
The very fact that a 9 year old was using gmail -- forget about this Buzz nonsense -- was already a surrender .
Defeat was inevitable , long before Buzz came along .
Buzz is n't the problem.Folks , if you like the convenience of gmail , that 's great .
It 's your decision .
But do n't ever think of it as being anything remotely like a " normal " email service or even slightly compatible with the previous status quo when it comes to privacy .
And if you 're telling your kids to use gmail , seriously : fuck you .
Google and Biggus Dickus are n't your kid 's most serious threats ; you are.Google apologist ?
No. Google gives you a gun that is locked into always aiming at your foot .
Some people accept the gun .
Some people even pull the trigger .
While I certainly do n't approve of Google doing this , I ca n't hold them 100 \ % to blame , either .
When you decide to go out of your way to shoot yourself in the foot , I think you 're the one who really needs an apologist.Tell your kid to put the gun down , and do n't hand them guns like that one again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you imagine if it was Microsoft that made this misake?
Or AOL had of?I've never used those companies' services, but assuming they also (like gmail) disclose in advance that they're not on your side, then if they had done the same thing, I would say the same thing:You've got to be pretty apathetic about privacy, to use webmail.
You've got to be even more apathetic, or maybe even an exhibitionist, if you decide to use a mail service, that like Gmail, up front in advance tells you that a robot who serves interests that conflict with your own, will be reading your emails.
The very fact that a 9 year old was using gmail -- forget about this Buzz nonsense -- was already a surrender.
Defeat was inevitable, long before Buzz came along.
Buzz isn't the problem.Folks, if you like the convenience of gmail, that's great.
It's your decision.
But don't ever think of it as being anything remotely like a "normal" email service or even slightly compatible with the previous status quo when it comes to privacy.
And if you're telling your kids to use gmail, seriously: fuck you.
Google and Biggus Dickus aren't your kid's most serious threats; you are.Google apologist?
No.  Google gives you a gun that is locked into always aiming at your foot.
Some people accept the gun.
Some people even pull the trigger.
While I certainly don't approve of Google doing this, I can't hold them 100\% to blame, either.
When you decide to go out of your way to shoot yourself in the foot, I think you're the one who really needs an apologist.Tell your kid to put the gun down, and don't hand them guns like that one again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689048</id>
	<title>Stranger</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1270055880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having read the letter, what concerns me is that this mother insists their daughter automatically shared private data with a complete stranger.</p><p>I think the politcians are overreacting. I get that. I think this is also a case of bad parenting to let a 9 year old have their own email address and not watch them when they're on the computer.</p><p>However, not only did Buzz not auto-follow anyone, but it never suggested a stranger to me. How would someone be in your Gmail contact list if you never had any contact with them before? It seems like this is all a major flawed premise that this girl was forced to have contact with this evil user without the girl's consent, when it reality that user was probably in the contact list for a reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having read the letter , what concerns me is that this mother insists their daughter automatically shared private data with a complete stranger.I think the politcians are overreacting .
I get that .
I think this is also a case of bad parenting to let a 9 year old have their own email address and not watch them when they 're on the computer.However , not only did Buzz not auto-follow anyone , but it never suggested a stranger to me .
How would someone be in your Gmail contact list if you never had any contact with them before ?
It seems like this is all a major flawed premise that this girl was forced to have contact with this evil user without the girl 's consent , when it reality that user was probably in the contact list for a reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having read the letter, what concerns me is that this mother insists their daughter automatically shared private data with a complete stranger.I think the politcians are overreacting.
I get that.
I think this is also a case of bad parenting to let a 9 year old have their own email address and not watch them when they're on the computer.However, not only did Buzz not auto-follow anyone, but it never suggested a stranger to me.
How would someone be in your Gmail contact list if you never had any contact with them before?
It seems like this is all a major flawed premise that this girl was forced to have contact with this evil user without the girl's consent, when it reality that user was probably in the contact list for a reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31691100</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>mthorman100</author>
	<datestamp>1270064340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really old parenting skills:  Teach the child to read, write, and use logic and give them access to a public library.  Learn how to yell at kid for reading in the dark or under the covers after bedtime using a flashlight.  If parents are illiterate and don't believe that reading and writing are useful skills, remind them that getting a civil service job requires a written test as does a driver's license.  Really really old parenting skills: Turn child over to tutor and nanny (if you're rich) and send child into apprenticeship when he is five or six (if you don't have money, but have some contacts) or teaching him how to look pitiful and beg.  Or just keep having more children so the older ones have to care for the younger ones and/or work in the fields.  Really, really, really old parenting skills: send the kids to Grandma and the great aunts.  Run off with handsome stranger.

I've also finally figured out what the acronyms stand for:  DNS = Depressed Nodal Syndrome   IP = Ischemic Priority  Urether-Renal Prolapse

But now it all makes even less sense than it did before.  My CC needs caffeine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really old parenting skills : Teach the child to read , write , and use logic and give them access to a public library .
Learn how to yell at kid for reading in the dark or under the covers after bedtime using a flashlight .
If parents are illiterate and do n't believe that reading and writing are useful skills , remind them that getting a civil service job requires a written test as does a driver 's license .
Really really old parenting skills : Turn child over to tutor and nanny ( if you 're rich ) and send child into apprenticeship when he is five or six ( if you do n't have money , but have some contacts ) or teaching him how to look pitiful and beg .
Or just keep having more children so the older ones have to care for the younger ones and/or work in the fields .
Really , really , really old parenting skills : send the kids to Grandma and the great aunts .
Run off with handsome stranger .
I 've also finally figured out what the acronyms stand for : DNS = Depressed Nodal Syndrome IP = Ischemic Priority Urether-Renal Prolapse But now it all makes even less sense than it did before .
My CC needs caffeine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really old parenting skills:  Teach the child to read, write, and use logic and give them access to a public library.
Learn how to yell at kid for reading in the dark or under the covers after bedtime using a flashlight.
If parents are illiterate and don't believe that reading and writing are useful skills, remind them that getting a civil service job requires a written test as does a driver's license.
Really really old parenting skills: Turn child over to tutor and nanny (if you're rich) and send child into apprenticeship when he is five or six (if you don't have money, but have some contacts) or teaching him how to look pitiful and beg.
Or just keep having more children so the older ones have to care for the younger ones and/or work in the fields.
Really, really, really old parenting skills: send the kids to Grandma and the great aunts.
Run off with handsome stranger.
I've also finally figured out what the acronyms stand for:  DNS = Depressed Nodal Syndrome   IP = Ischemic Priority  Urether-Renal Prolapse

But now it all makes even less sense than it did before.
My CC needs caffeine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31692016</id>
	<title>Missing</title>
	<author>CranberryKing</author>
	<datestamp>1270068000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This post needs a 'share on Buzz' icon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This post needs a 'share on Buzz ' icon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post needs a 'share on Buzz' icon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688264</id>
	<title>Why Does a 9 Year Old Need an E-Mail Address?</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1270052460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cellphone thing I get.  "I'm lost, bad man following me," understood.  But an e-mail address?  Doesn't fly.  It's not like e-mail is some great technological novelty, the quicker a child is exposed to it, works with it, develops skills with it, the better s/he will do later on in school.  Use of e-mail is monkey-hammer dead simple, is "mastered" in twenty minutes.  And the only "social networks" the kid needs to be on is the one that ensures she gets a good seat on the school bus or cafeteria table.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cellphone thing I get .
" I 'm lost , bad man following me , " understood .
But an e-mail address ?
Does n't fly .
It 's not like e-mail is some great technological novelty , the quicker a child is exposed to it , works with it , develops skills with it , the better s/he will do later on in school .
Use of e-mail is monkey-hammer dead simple , is " mastered " in twenty minutes .
And the only " social networks " the kid needs to be on is the one that ensures she gets a good seat on the school bus or cafeteria table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cellphone thing I get.
"I'm lost, bad man following me," understood.
But an e-mail address?
Doesn't fly.
It's not like e-mail is some great technological novelty, the quicker a child is exposed to it, works with it, develops skills with it, the better s/he will do later on in school.
Use of e-mail is monkey-hammer dead simple, is "mastered" in twenty minutes.
And the only "social networks" the kid needs to be on is the one that ensures she gets a good seat on the school bus or cafeteria table.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689730</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>Akita24</author>
	<datestamp>1270058760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Considering that it's a violation of the TOS to have an account and not be of legal age, the parents either cut their 9 y/o loose on the WorldWideEvil, or were negligent in their assessment that it was "safe." Google "told" them it was unacceptable for a minor to use the service.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that it 's a violation of the TOS to have an account and not be of legal age , the parents either cut their 9 y/o loose on the WorldWideEvil , or were negligent in their assessment that it was " safe .
" Google " told " them it was unacceptable for a minor to use the service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering that it's a violation of the TOS to have an account and not be of legal age, the parents either cut their 9 y/o loose on the WorldWideEvil, or were negligent in their assessment that it was "safe.
" Google "told" them it was unacceptable for a minor to use the service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31693628</id>
	<title>Amazingly fast response by 11 congressmen ...</title>
	<author>Jerry</author>
	<datestamp>1270030920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Normally it takes years for them to see any problems, much less truly understand them.</p><p>I wonder which corporation made "campaign contributions" to them in order to speed of their "noticing" an event that took place less than a month ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Normally it takes years for them to see any problems , much less truly understand them.I wonder which corporation made " campaign contributions " to them in order to speed of their " noticing " an event that took place less than a month ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Normally it takes years for them to see any problems, much less truly understand them.I wonder which corporation made "campaign contributions" to them in order to speed of their "noticing" an event that took place less than a month ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687800</id>
	<title>Google</title>
	<author>homer\_s</author>
	<datestamp>1270050720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope Google gets reamed for this. Not because I think they did anything wrong, but because they're always too happy to get the government to meddle in other companies' business; they need to get a dose of the same medicine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope Google gets reamed for this .
Not because I think they did anything wrong , but because they 're always too happy to get the government to meddle in other companies ' business ; they need to get a dose of the same medicine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope Google gets reamed for this.
Not because I think they did anything wrong, but because they're always too happy to get the government to meddle in other companies' business; they need to get a dose of the same medicine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688254</id>
	<title>Just a thought...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270052400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why did a 9 year old girl have contact with someone with a "sexually charged username?" I don't recall Google Buzz automatically setting me up with every Tom, Dick and Harry that was in my address book (which itself seems to be generated by the contact info of the people you knowingly contact)...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did a 9 year old girl have contact with someone with a " sexually charged username ?
" I do n't recall Google Buzz automatically setting me up with every Tom , Dick and Harry that was in my address book ( which itself seems to be generated by the contact info of the people you knowingly contact ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did a 9 year old girl have contact with someone with a "sexually charged username?
" I don't recall Google Buzz automatically setting me up with every Tom, Dick and Harry that was in my address book (which itself seems to be generated by the contact info of the people you knowingly contact)...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688366</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270052880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Old "parenting skills": 1) Place child in front of TV. 2) Insert Disney DVD 3) Press "Play". 4) Return in 90 minutes.  5) Repeat.
</p><p>New "parenting skills": 1) Place child in front of computer.  2) Turn on computer.  3) Before going to bed, put the child in bed.
</p><p>It is said that our children are the future . . . so let's worry about them then, and not now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Old " parenting skills " : 1 ) Place child in front of TV .
2 ) Insert Disney DVD 3 ) Press " Play " .
4 ) Return in 90 minutes .
5 ) Repeat .
New " parenting skills " : 1 ) Place child in front of computer .
2 ) Turn on computer .
3 ) Before going to bed , put the child in bed .
It is said that our children are the future .
. .
so let 's worry about them then , and not now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old "parenting skills": 1) Place child in front of TV.
2) Insert Disney DVD 3) Press "Play".
4) Return in 90 minutes.
5) Repeat.
New "parenting skills": 1) Place child in front of computer.
2) Turn on computer.
3) Before going to bed, put the child in bed.
It is said that our children are the future .
. .
so let's worry about them then, and not now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687912</id>
	<title>Just wait until Bigus Dickus hears of this!</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1270051140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's a joke name, sir, like 'Sillius Soddus' or 'Bigus Dickus'.<br> <br>
But I have a vewy gweat fwiend in Wome named 'Bigus Dickus'!<br> <br> <br> <br>
Low hanging fruit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's a joke name , sir , like 'Sillius Soddus ' or 'Bigus Dickus' .
But I have a vewy gweat fwiend in Wome named 'Bigus Dickus ' !
Low hanging fruit ... I know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's a joke name, sir, like 'Sillius Soddus' or 'Bigus Dickus'.
But I have a vewy gweat fwiend in Wome named 'Bigus Dickus'!
Low hanging fruit ... I know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689486</id>
	<title>Re:Is everyone here a Google apologist?</title>
	<author>Asclepius99</author>
	<datestamp>1270057800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't really understand what Google did besides auto-connect this girl with someone we was already in contact with.  I have a gmail account and I had Buzz activated and every single person I've e-mailed from my gmail account was not automatically following me, nor did anyone I had never contacted suddenly appear on my contacts list.
<br> <br>
Honestly this is how the article puts it: "In the original public version of Buzz, launched in February, the program compiled a list of the Gmail contacts the users most frequently e-mailed or chatted with and automatically started following those people. Those lists were made public, giving strangers access to the contacts of Buzz users."  That doesn't even make any sense, why would your "most frequently e-mailed or chatted with" contacts be strangers?  If the people you e-mail/chat with the most are people you have no idea who they are and how dangerous they are, then you have way bigger problems than them having your contacts list.
<br> <br>
And it was a sexual user name.  It wasn't a sexual predator or registered sex offender.  I didn't even see anywhere in the article if they'd looked into who this person was.  For all we know it was another 9 year old using sexual language because he's immature and thinks its funny.
<br> <br>
The problem here isn't Google, it's parents/lawmakers not understanding what's happening and then reacting to it without real information.  Now, I'm not going to pretend that the Google Buzz launch being opt out instead of opt in is okay with me.  But this is a problem that capitalism solves itself, without the government.  If it upset you that much that your contact list was shared with some people without your permission, stop using gmail/Buzz.  If you want to send Google a letter saying you'll still use their services but are disappointed, that's fine too.  But don't bring the government into this and don't have them pretend that this 9 year old was somehow put in anymore jeopardy than she (and her parents) had already her by regularly contacting this person.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really understand what Google did besides auto-connect this girl with someone we was already in contact with .
I have a gmail account and I had Buzz activated and every single person I 've e-mailed from my gmail account was not automatically following me , nor did anyone I had never contacted suddenly appear on my contacts list .
Honestly this is how the article puts it : " In the original public version of Buzz , launched in February , the program compiled a list of the Gmail contacts the users most frequently e-mailed or chatted with and automatically started following those people .
Those lists were made public , giving strangers access to the contacts of Buzz users .
" That does n't even make any sense , why would your " most frequently e-mailed or chatted with " contacts be strangers ?
If the people you e-mail/chat with the most are people you have no idea who they are and how dangerous they are , then you have way bigger problems than them having your contacts list .
And it was a sexual user name .
It was n't a sexual predator or registered sex offender .
I did n't even see anywhere in the article if they 'd looked into who this person was .
For all we know it was another 9 year old using sexual language because he 's immature and thinks its funny .
The problem here is n't Google , it 's parents/lawmakers not understanding what 's happening and then reacting to it without real information .
Now , I 'm not going to pretend that the Google Buzz launch being opt out instead of opt in is okay with me .
But this is a problem that capitalism solves itself , without the government .
If it upset you that much that your contact list was shared with some people without your permission , stop using gmail/Buzz .
If you want to send Google a letter saying you 'll still use their services but are disappointed , that 's fine too .
But do n't bring the government into this and do n't have them pretend that this 9 year old was somehow put in anymore jeopardy than she ( and her parents ) had already her by regularly contacting this person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really understand what Google did besides auto-connect this girl with someone we was already in contact with.
I have a gmail account and I had Buzz activated and every single person I've e-mailed from my gmail account was not automatically following me, nor did anyone I had never contacted suddenly appear on my contacts list.
Honestly this is how the article puts it: "In the original public version of Buzz, launched in February, the program compiled a list of the Gmail contacts the users most frequently e-mailed or chatted with and automatically started following those people.
Those lists were made public, giving strangers access to the contacts of Buzz users.
"  That doesn't even make any sense, why would your "most frequently e-mailed or chatted with" contacts be strangers?
If the people you e-mail/chat with the most are people you have no idea who they are and how dangerous they are, then you have way bigger problems than them having your contacts list.
And it was a sexual user name.
It wasn't a sexual predator or registered sex offender.
I didn't even see anywhere in the article if they'd looked into who this person was.
For all we know it was another 9 year old using sexual language because he's immature and thinks its funny.
The problem here isn't Google, it's parents/lawmakers not understanding what's happening and then reacting to it without real information.
Now, I'm not going to pretend that the Google Buzz launch being opt out instead of opt in is okay with me.
But this is a problem that capitalism solves itself, without the government.
If it upset you that much that your contact list was shared with some people without your permission, stop using gmail/Buzz.
If you want to send Google a letter saying you'll still use their services but are disappointed, that's fine too.
But don't bring the government into this and don't have them pretend that this 9 year old was somehow put in anymore jeopardy than she (and her parents) had already her by regularly contacting this person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689136</id>
	<title>Re: a "sexually charged" username</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270056240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. Like <strong>DICK</strong>Cheney</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Like DICKCheney</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Like DICKCheney</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690672</id>
	<title>Re:Is everyone here a Google apologist?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1270062720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... no, moron, everyone here is logical.  Everyone (barring yourself) here is pretty much aware of the fact that a 9 year old doesn't belong unsupervised on the Internet, ANYWHERE any more than they should be taken into a stripclub and given lap dances.</p><p>Its that most say 'wtf is a 9 year old girl doing with free run of a gmail account?'</p><p>I'd feel no different about MS, though most of slashdot's crowd would attack them for it, could be any web site, doesn't fucking matter who did it, the parents are fucking morons who need to have their children taken away.</p><p>The parents are idiots, and I'd wager you are too for ignoring the actual problem and trying to blame it on someone else.</p><p>I wasn't brainwashed into thinking Google was 'cool'.  My parents brainwashed me into thinking, without having someone else tell me how to think.  Sadly, yours failed apparently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... no , moron , everyone here is logical .
Everyone ( barring yourself ) here is pretty much aware of the fact that a 9 year old does n't belong unsupervised on the Internet , ANYWHERE any more than they should be taken into a stripclub and given lap dances.Its that most say 'wtf is a 9 year old girl doing with free run of a gmail account ?
'I 'd feel no different about MS , though most of slashdot 's crowd would attack them for it , could be any web site , does n't fucking matter who did it , the parents are fucking morons who need to have their children taken away.The parents are idiots , and I 'd wager you are too for ignoring the actual problem and trying to blame it on someone else.I was n't brainwashed into thinking Google was 'cool' .
My parents brainwashed me into thinking , without having someone else tell me how to think .
Sadly , yours failed apparently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... no, moron, everyone here is logical.
Everyone (barring yourself) here is pretty much aware of the fact that a 9 year old doesn't belong unsupervised on the Internet, ANYWHERE any more than they should be taken into a stripclub and given lap dances.Its that most say 'wtf is a 9 year old girl doing with free run of a gmail account?
'I'd feel no different about MS, though most of slashdot's crowd would attack them for it, could be any web site, doesn't fucking matter who did it, the parents are fucking morons who need to have their children taken away.The parents are idiots, and I'd wager you are too for ignoring the actual problem and trying to blame it on someone else.I wasn't brainwashed into thinking Google was 'cool'.
My parents brainwashed me into thinking, without having someone else tell me how to think.
Sadly, yours failed apparently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690618</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270062480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Normally I am the first one up with the "parents need to be responsible for what their kids are doing" flag. I was raised at a time when there wasn't much concern/awareness of sexual predators, skinned knees, occasional fights and so on and we were allowed, by parents considered to be quite conscientious for the time, to run free to an extent that today would get most kids seized by child welfare. And I certainly don't want to live in a society that is run at the level of the lowest common denominator of human intelligence and emotional sensibilities.</p><p>

But there has to be an element of realism to all this. Even the best of parents cannot monitor their children 24/7. Do the kids have access to a computer anywhere else, like say at school? Well then how can a parent control that? Do the kids ever visit their friend's house where there is a computer? Then, other than never letting their kids visit the homes of their friends, how can the parents exercise absolute control over that?</p><p>

And let's not forget the most important thing... kids are smart and learning 24/7 how to do what they want to do and unless parents are spending 24/7 trying to keep ahead of the the kid's learning curve then the kids will get access to things without the knowledge of their parents.... or at least without the real-time knowledge of their parents. Want to bet who knows more about smart phones - an average 12 year old or an average 35 year old? I'd bet on the 12 year old.</p><p>

So let's start from the realistic premise that even good parents cannot monitor their kids at all times. And let's also realize that even good parents cannot instil adult level sensibility in a child, i.e. kids do dumb/dangerous/risky/strange things because they are kids.</p><p>

If you accept that premise then one question that arises will be what can the rest of us (sometimes known as society) do to protect kids from their more dangerous activities? And the next question might be "will enacting that protection harm the rights of adults (sometimes known as society) to a degree that makes it difficult to justify the benefit received by the children?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Normally I am the first one up with the " parents need to be responsible for what their kids are doing " flag .
I was raised at a time when there was n't much concern/awareness of sexual predators , skinned knees , occasional fights and so on and we were allowed , by parents considered to be quite conscientious for the time , to run free to an extent that today would get most kids seized by child welfare .
And I certainly do n't want to live in a society that is run at the level of the lowest common denominator of human intelligence and emotional sensibilities .
But there has to be an element of realism to all this .
Even the best of parents can not monitor their children 24/7 .
Do the kids have access to a computer anywhere else , like say at school ?
Well then how can a parent control that ?
Do the kids ever visit their friend 's house where there is a computer ?
Then , other than never letting their kids visit the homes of their friends , how can the parents exercise absolute control over that ?
And let 's not forget the most important thing... kids are smart and learning 24/7 how to do what they want to do and unless parents are spending 24/7 trying to keep ahead of the the kid 's learning curve then the kids will get access to things without the knowledge of their parents.... or at least without the real-time knowledge of their parents .
Want to bet who knows more about smart phones - an average 12 year old or an average 35 year old ?
I 'd bet on the 12 year old .
So let 's start from the realistic premise that even good parents can not monitor their kids at all times .
And let 's also realize that even good parents can not instil adult level sensibility in a child , i.e .
kids do dumb/dangerous/risky/strange things because they are kids .
If you accept that premise then one question that arises will be what can the rest of us ( sometimes known as society ) do to protect kids from their more dangerous activities ?
And the next question might be " will enacting that protection harm the rights of adults ( sometimes known as society ) to a degree that makes it difficult to justify the benefit received by the children ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Normally I am the first one up with the "parents need to be responsible for what their kids are doing" flag.
I was raised at a time when there wasn't much concern/awareness of sexual predators, skinned knees, occasional fights and so on and we were allowed, by parents considered to be quite conscientious for the time, to run free to an extent that today would get most kids seized by child welfare.
And I certainly don't want to live in a society that is run at the level of the lowest common denominator of human intelligence and emotional sensibilities.
But there has to be an element of realism to all this.
Even the best of parents cannot monitor their children 24/7.
Do the kids have access to a computer anywhere else, like say at school?
Well then how can a parent control that?
Do the kids ever visit their friend's house where there is a computer?
Then, other than never letting their kids visit the homes of their friends, how can the parents exercise absolute control over that?
And let's not forget the most important thing... kids are smart and learning 24/7 how to do what they want to do and unless parents are spending 24/7 trying to keep ahead of the the kid's learning curve then the kids will get access to things without the knowledge of their parents.... or at least without the real-time knowledge of their parents.
Want to bet who knows more about smart phones - an average 12 year old or an average 35 year old?
I'd bet on the 12 year old.
So let's start from the realistic premise that even good parents cannot monitor their kids at all times.
And let's also realize that even good parents cannot instil adult level sensibility in a child, i.e.
kids do dumb/dangerous/risky/strange things because they are kids.
If you accept that premise then one question that arises will be what can the rest of us (sometimes known as society) do to protect kids from their more dangerous activities?
And the next question might be "will enacting that protection harm the rights of adults (sometimes known as society) to a degree that makes it difficult to justify the benefit received by the children?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31691520</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270066080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They didn't opt everyone in. There was a very clear interstitial saying "hey, Buzz is here, do you want it on or off?".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't opt everyone in .
There was a very clear interstitial saying " hey , Buzz is here , do you want it on or off ?
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't opt everyone in.
There was a very clear interstitial saying "hey, Buzz is here, do you want it on or off?
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688572</id>
	<title>The letter itself...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270053660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>is <a href="http://barrow.house.gov/images/stories/Google\_Buzz\_Letter.pdf" title="house.gov">here</a> [house.gov].<br> <br>
Weird that nobody who reported on this linked to the original letter.<br> <br>
I went looking for it primarily to get the complete list of signers:<br> <br>
Joe Barton (TX), Frank Pallone (NJ), Mike Rogers (MI), Jan Schakowsky (IL), Tim Murphy (PA), Bruce Braley (IA), Mike Burgess (TX), G.K. Butterfield (NC), Steve Scalise (LA), and Donna Christensen (V.I.)<br> <br>
I was expecting to see someone from Redmond, WA in there...</htmltext>
<tokenext>is here [ house.gov ] .
Weird that nobody who reported on this linked to the original letter .
I went looking for it primarily to get the complete list of signers : Joe Barton ( TX ) , Frank Pallone ( NJ ) , Mike Rogers ( MI ) , Jan Schakowsky ( IL ) , Tim Murphy ( PA ) , Bruce Braley ( IA ) , Mike Burgess ( TX ) , G.K. Butterfield ( NC ) , Steve Scalise ( LA ) , and Donna Christensen ( V.I .
) I was expecting to see someone from Redmond , WA in there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is here [house.gov].
Weird that nobody who reported on this linked to the original letter.
I went looking for it primarily to get the complete list of signers: 
Joe Barton (TX), Frank Pallone (NJ), Mike Rogers (MI), Jan Schakowsky (IL), Tim Murphy (PA), Bruce Braley (IA), Mike Burgess (TX), G.K. Butterfield (NC), Steve Scalise (LA), and Donna Christensen (V.I.
) 
I was expecting to see someone from Redmond, WA in there...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687968</id>
	<title>Re:Evil</title>
	<author>Chrisq</author>
	<datestamp>1270051440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why are politicians so evil?  It's one thing to say that it could be a privacy issue: look into that.  But when they start getting in "sexually charged" terminology its like saying the email name was "RepublicanDick."  It's fear mongering and grandstanding, nothing more.</p></div><p>Or Dick chainlike</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are politicians so evil ?
It 's one thing to say that it could be a privacy issue : look into that .
But when they start getting in " sexually charged " terminology its like saying the email name was " RepublicanDick .
" It 's fear mongering and grandstanding , nothing more.Or Dick chainlike</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are politicians so evil?
It's one thing to say that it could be a privacy issue: look into that.
But when they start getting in "sexually charged" terminology its like saying the email name was "RepublicanDick.
"  It's fear mongering and grandstanding, nothing more.Or Dick chainlike
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688778</id>
	<title>Re:Is everyone here a Google apologist?</title>
	<author>bkr1\_2k</author>
	<datestamp>1270054740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll bite.  Good troll, I guess.  First nobody is saying Google doesn't deserve some inquiries, or at least none of the comments I've read.  What people are saying is that the association of the 9 year girl has no bearing on this and politicians are slimy douchebags who are using this as a witch hunt to help them win votes at Google's expense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll bite .
Good troll , I guess .
First nobody is saying Google does n't deserve some inquiries , or at least none of the comments I 've read .
What people are saying is that the association of the 9 year girl has no bearing on this and politicians are slimy douchebags who are using this as a witch hunt to help them win votes at Google 's expense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll bite.
Good troll, I guess.
First nobody is saying Google doesn't deserve some inquiries, or at least none of the comments I've read.
What people are saying is that the association of the 9 year girl has no bearing on this and politicians are slimy douchebags who are using this as a witch hunt to help them win votes at Google's expense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688422</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>discord5</author>
	<datestamp>1270053060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>"In one case, a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact list in Gmail with a person who has a 'sexually charged' username, the lawmakers said in the letter."</p></div><p>In one case, the parents of a 9 year old girl weren't paying attention, like they should have been, while their daughter surfed the web</p></div><p>In other news a Mr. Dick Johnson also known to some as Richard Johnson was arrested last night for the use of his obscene name on the internet. Mr Johnson, a youth councelor at a local elementary school, was exposed to have an obscene name on the internet by the social networking service Google Buzz.</p><p>"We never questioned the mans name," spoke a school representative, "until he was found using the internet. I guess he contacted one of the parents and with the whole social-thingy-network of the Googles his name spread to children online. Stern action must be taken against people with silly names and Google to protect our children."</p><p>In the meantime an organisation has formed to protest this incident. The organisation known as "Protecting Eccentric Names from Internet Surfers" (P.E.N.I.S.) is making a stance against social networking incidents where the use of proper names has sparked incidents with parents of young children. Willy Dickins, head of the P.E.N.I.S. committee, commented that his name has often lead to misunderstandings. "Last year I got arrested for befriending someone on facebook and trying to send them a message", Willy spoke, "since that day I've been using the pseudonym FreeWilly, which is symbolic for me wanting to be free to use my own name again."</p><p>"It's all about the perception of my name and the context people see it in." said private Parts, a soldier in marine corps, "When I go online with my rank and surname, people automatically label me as a pervert.". The ever growing member list of P.E.N.I.S. shows that this problem is growing fast, and with the advent of technology expanding into areas where children may be confronted with these dubious names.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In one case , a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact list in Gmail with a person who has a 'sexually charged ' username , the lawmakers said in the letter .
" In one case , the parents of a 9 year old girl were n't paying attention , like they should have been , while their daughter surfed the webIn other news a Mr. Dick Johnson also known to some as Richard Johnson was arrested last night for the use of his obscene name on the internet .
Mr Johnson , a youth councelor at a local elementary school , was exposed to have an obscene name on the internet by the social networking service Google Buzz .
" We never questioned the mans name , " spoke a school representative , " until he was found using the internet .
I guess he contacted one of the parents and with the whole social-thingy-network of the Googles his name spread to children online .
Stern action must be taken against people with silly names and Google to protect our children .
" In the meantime an organisation has formed to protest this incident .
The organisation known as " Protecting Eccentric Names from Internet Surfers " ( P.E.N.I.S .
) is making a stance against social networking incidents where the use of proper names has sparked incidents with parents of young children .
Willy Dickins , head of the P.E.N.I.S .
committee , commented that his name has often lead to misunderstandings .
" Last year I got arrested for befriending someone on facebook and trying to send them a message " , Willy spoke , " since that day I 've been using the pseudonym FreeWilly , which is symbolic for me wanting to be free to use my own name again .
" " It 's all about the perception of my name and the context people see it in .
" said private Parts , a soldier in marine corps , " When I go online with my rank and surname , people automatically label me as a pervert. " .
The ever growing member list of P.E.N.I.S .
shows that this problem is growing fast , and with the advent of technology expanding into areas where children may be confronted with these dubious names .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In one case, a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact list in Gmail with a person who has a 'sexually charged' username, the lawmakers said in the letter.
"In one case, the parents of a 9 year old girl weren't paying attention, like they should have been, while their daughter surfed the webIn other news a Mr. Dick Johnson also known to some as Richard Johnson was arrested last night for the use of his obscene name on the internet.
Mr Johnson, a youth councelor at a local elementary school, was exposed to have an obscene name on the internet by the social networking service Google Buzz.
"We never questioned the mans name," spoke a school representative, "until he was found using the internet.
I guess he contacted one of the parents and with the whole social-thingy-network of the Googles his name spread to children online.
Stern action must be taken against people with silly names and Google to protect our children.
"In the meantime an organisation has formed to protest this incident.
The organisation known as "Protecting Eccentric Names from Internet Surfers" (P.E.N.I.S.
) is making a stance against social networking incidents where the use of proper names has sparked incidents with parents of young children.
Willy Dickins, head of the P.E.N.I.S.
committee, commented that his name has often lead to misunderstandings.
"Last year I got arrested for befriending someone on facebook and trying to send them a message", Willy spoke, "since that day I've been using the pseudonym FreeWilly, which is symbolic for me wanting to be free to use my own name again.
""It's all about the perception of my name and the context people see it in.
" said private Parts, a soldier in marine corps, "When I go online with my rank and surname, people automatically label me as a pervert.".
The ever growing member list of P.E.N.I.S.
shows that this problem is growing fast, and with the advent of technology expanding into areas where children may be confronted with these dubious names.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690080</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1270060260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And THAT right there, the expecting tech to be the babysitter and running to nanny government when it isn't all Sesame Street, is what pisses me off. As a man raising two boys I am proud to say while my boys have always had access to tech I have never allowed it to do my job. When my boys wanted to play video games I didn't just hand them a "magic box" but instead I showed them how it works, how pixels were drawn, how characters were made and how editing DOOM WADs (remember those?) allowed them to change what they saw.</p><p>And now that they are teens and each have their own Internet PCs they know that I WILL be checking their PCs for inappropriate content, and that any attempt at clearing cache will get their machines taken away. By actually sitting down and explaining the dangers and how easy it is to fake one's identity on the Internet, you know, actually doing my job as a parent, my boys are cautious and responsible net citizens. I am really proud to say the oldest spends his time on forums talking to med students so he knows what classes to knuckle down on for when he starts med school this fall, while the youngest spends all his time reading tutorials on the use of shading and other graphic arts techniques so he'll be ready for taking computer art in college.</p><p>

What is sad is picking up the boys from one of their friends houses, where many don't even have so much as a single book in the home! Whereas my mom read Asimov and Heinlein to my boys when they were little just like she read them to me (aaaw!) these people simply plop down in front of the idiot box and do the same to their kids. Expecting nanny government to child proof the world just because you as a parent refuse to do your job is just going too damned far IMHO. Now if you'll excuse me I get to go enjoy several small heart attacks as I give the oldest yet another driving lesson. If you want to get the hell scared out of you just give a teenage boy driving lessons, beats a roller coaster any day of the week, trust me on this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And THAT right there , the expecting tech to be the babysitter and running to nanny government when it is n't all Sesame Street , is what pisses me off .
As a man raising two boys I am proud to say while my boys have always had access to tech I have never allowed it to do my job .
When my boys wanted to play video games I did n't just hand them a " magic box " but instead I showed them how it works , how pixels were drawn , how characters were made and how editing DOOM WADs ( remember those ?
) allowed them to change what they saw.And now that they are teens and each have their own Internet PCs they know that I WILL be checking their PCs for inappropriate content , and that any attempt at clearing cache will get their machines taken away .
By actually sitting down and explaining the dangers and how easy it is to fake one 's identity on the Internet , you know , actually doing my job as a parent , my boys are cautious and responsible net citizens .
I am really proud to say the oldest spends his time on forums talking to med students so he knows what classes to knuckle down on for when he starts med school this fall , while the youngest spends all his time reading tutorials on the use of shading and other graphic arts techniques so he 'll be ready for taking computer art in college .
What is sad is picking up the boys from one of their friends houses , where many do n't even have so much as a single book in the home !
Whereas my mom read Asimov and Heinlein to my boys when they were little just like she read them to me ( aaaw !
) these people simply plop down in front of the idiot box and do the same to their kids .
Expecting nanny government to child proof the world just because you as a parent refuse to do your job is just going too damned far IMHO .
Now if you 'll excuse me I get to go enjoy several small heart attacks as I give the oldest yet another driving lesson .
If you want to get the hell scared out of you just give a teenage boy driving lessons , beats a roller coaster any day of the week , trust me on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And THAT right there, the expecting tech to be the babysitter and running to nanny government when it isn't all Sesame Street, is what pisses me off.
As a man raising two boys I am proud to say while my boys have always had access to tech I have never allowed it to do my job.
When my boys wanted to play video games I didn't just hand them a "magic box" but instead I showed them how it works, how pixels were drawn, how characters were made and how editing DOOM WADs (remember those?
) allowed them to change what they saw.And now that they are teens and each have their own Internet PCs they know that I WILL be checking their PCs for inappropriate content, and that any attempt at clearing cache will get their machines taken away.
By actually sitting down and explaining the dangers and how easy it is to fake one's identity on the Internet, you know, actually doing my job as a parent, my boys are cautious and responsible net citizens.
I am really proud to say the oldest spends his time on forums talking to med students so he knows what classes to knuckle down on for when he starts med school this fall, while the youngest spends all his time reading tutorials on the use of shading and other graphic arts techniques so he'll be ready for taking computer art in college.
What is sad is picking up the boys from one of their friends houses, where many don't even have so much as a single book in the home!
Whereas my mom read Asimov and Heinlein to my boys when they were little just like she read them to me (aaaw!
) these people simply plop down in front of the idiot box and do the same to their kids.
Expecting nanny government to child proof the world just because you as a parent refuse to do your job is just going too damned far IMHO.
Now if you'll excuse me I get to go enjoy several small heart attacks as I give the oldest yet another driving lesson.
If you want to get the hell scared out of you just give a teenage boy driving lessons, beats a roller coaster any day of the week, trust me on this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690572</id>
	<title>Re:that's why I have a hotmail account...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1270062360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Facebook's handling of privacy settings</p></div></blockquote><p>Anyone who makes this statement is a fucking moron.  I stress the fucking part.</p><p>Facebook is for voyeurs.  You don't post shit to facebook unless you want people to see it.  Every single facebook user wants the attention and likes to be looked at.</p><p>If you think at any point anything you do on Facebook, or the Internet as a whole is private, you don't need to be using the Internet.  You are too stupid to qualify to use it.  Turn off your computer until you realize that sharing information on a public website on a public network means ITS NOT FUCKING PRIVATE AND NEVER WILL BE.</p><p>Idiot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook 's handling of privacy settingsAnyone who makes this statement is a fucking moron .
I stress the fucking part.Facebook is for voyeurs .
You do n't post shit to facebook unless you want people to see it .
Every single facebook user wants the attention and likes to be looked at.If you think at any point anything you do on Facebook , or the Internet as a whole is private , you do n't need to be using the Internet .
You are too stupid to qualify to use it .
Turn off your computer until you realize that sharing information on a public website on a public network means ITS NOT FUCKING PRIVATE AND NEVER WILL BE.Idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook's handling of privacy settingsAnyone who makes this statement is a fucking moron.
I stress the fucking part.Facebook is for voyeurs.
You don't post shit to facebook unless you want people to see it.
Every single facebook user wants the attention and likes to be looked at.If you think at any point anything you do on Facebook, or the Internet as a whole is private, you don't need to be using the Internet.
You are too stupid to qualify to use it.
Turn off your computer until you realize that sharing information on a public website on a public network means ITS NOT FUCKING PRIVATE AND NEVER WILL BE.Idiot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687876</id>
	<title>that's why I have a hotmail account...</title>
	<author>nycguy</author>
	<datestamp>1270051020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>...because Microsoft isn't capable of even attempting something like Buzz.
<br>
<br>
In all seriousness, though, between Google's handling of the Buzz launch, Facebook's handling of privacy settings, etc., it's pretty clear that the users of these services are the product, not the services themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...because Microsoft is n't capable of even attempting something like Buzz .
In all seriousness , though , between Google 's handling of the Buzz launch , Facebook 's handling of privacy settings , etc. , it 's pretty clear that the users of these services are the product , not the services themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because Microsoft isn't capable of even attempting something like Buzz.
In all seriousness, though, between Google's handling of the Buzz launch, Facebook's handling of privacy settings, etc., it's pretty clear that the users of these services are the product, not the services themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688170</id>
	<title>Re:Evil</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1270052100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, it's an election year and I need all the mileage I can get out of whatever "...protected the children..." headlines I can generate, you insensitive clod.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , it 's an election year and I need all the mileage I can get out of whatever " ...protected the children... " headlines I can generate , you insensitive clod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, it's an election year and I need all the mileage I can get out of whatever "...protected the children..." headlines I can generate, you insensitive clod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688120</id>
	<title>Oh wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270051920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, one time I accidentally almost made a left turn when I should have made a right turn, maybe we can investigate traffic lights next.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -- "UberCharged"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , one time I accidentally almost made a left turn when I should have made a right turn , maybe we can investigate traffic lights next .
        -- " UberCharged "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, one time I accidentally almost made a left turn when I should have made a right turn, maybe we can investigate traffic lights next.
        -- "UberCharged"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689238</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>elf</author>
	<datestamp>1270056720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm clearly doing it wrong. In my case it's more like "3) hope your child goes to bed at some point" =)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm clearly doing it wrong .
In my case it 's more like " 3 ) hope your child goes to bed at some point " = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm clearly doing it wrong.
In my case it's more like "3) hope your child goes to bed at some point" =)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689296</id>
	<title>Some perspective</title>
	<author>Daetrin</author>
	<datestamp>1270056960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>People seem to be jumping on either the "pro-Google" bandwagon or the "anti-'think of the children'" bandwagon left and right. So let's stop and consider this rationally.<br>
<br>
Google has changed Buzz to address privacy concerns multiple times. In fact they made so many changes so quickly that it's hard to document exactly what settings it had when without a lot of research. However early on it was easily possible to have the following scenario:<br>
<br>
"InnocentUser," a legal adult, has a Gmail account. (Let's even say they got one sometime after July 2009, so Gmail wasn't even in "beta" at the time, just to end-run one particular argument.) They've emailed a number of people using this account. They've also gotten several scary emails from "ImaPredator," which they never responded to.<br>
<br>
When Buzz was launched InnocentUser's Google Profile was indexed. The easiest way for this to happen was to "try out" Buzz like Google urged everyone with a Gmail account. However numerous people have reported finding they had their Google Profile indexed without ever actually trying Buzz.<br>
<br>
Once your Google Profile was automatically integrated with Buzz it would auto-follow anyone who you emailed with a lot. So InnocentUser has a lot of their usual contacts auto-followed and made visible in their Google Profile. Meanwhile ImaPredator joins Buzz, which notices they emailed InnocentUser a lot (regardless of the fact that InnocentUser never emailed back,) and auto-follows them. Now ImaPredator can go to InnocentUser's Google Profile and see the list of their most common contacts.<br>
<br>
That's pretty bad. Of course it's even worse that perhaps InnocentUser did email back ImaPredator once, with a message saying something like "If you ever email me again I'm going to report you to the police." That's good enough for Buzz to decide InnocentUser ought to auto-follow ImaPredator as well! (Once of the people Buzz set me up to auto-follow was someone who i had a single email exchange with. Perhaps because it occurred very shortly before Buzz went live.)<br>
<br>
There \_was\_ an option to disable Buzz. However initially at least all that did was remove the Buzz UI from your end. Your profile was still visible to others and still listed your regular contacts. CNET and other sites published detailed tutorials about how to \_actually\_ go through all the options and disable Buzz "for realz" because of all the privacy concerns.<br>
<br>
When the inevitable, and in my mind quite justified, complaints started, Google went through several rounds of apologizing (but usually with weasel wording such as "we're sorry our users feel like their privacy has been violated" rather than "we're sorry we screwed up") and revising Buzz's behaviour and options. After the third or so revision they reached the point where it was halfway reasonable, and it was fairly easy for everyone who still didn't like it to actually turn it off.<br>
<br>
Google definitely did something stupid. If they made the decision to auto-include everyone with a Gmail account in Buzz because they thought it was the only way to catch up with Facebook and Twitter in a reasonable amount of time then what they did could arguably be considered Evil as well. It's unfortunate that the lawmakers are pulling the "think of the children" card when Google clearly did something wrong regardless of the age of the people involved, but that doesn't somehow magically invalidate the wrongness. Google did try to correct things after the fact, but that doesn't change the fact that they did something wrong to begin with, and it's quite possible that some people were hurt by Google's mistakes before changes were implemented.<br>
<br>
Certainly a slap on the wrist by the FCC would not be out of line. And an investigation into whether the issues were due to professional negligence or... whatever you call screwing over your users for a "quick buck," also seems quite reasonable to me. If something actually criminal was done (i leave it up to the actual lawyers to determine what would and would not be criminal in this case) then apologizing for it before the "police" actually catch you isn't enough to get you out of trouble. It doesn't work that way for the average citizen and it shouldn't work that way for corporations either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People seem to be jumping on either the " pro-Google " bandwagon or the " anti-'think of the children ' " bandwagon left and right .
So let 's stop and consider this rationally .
Google has changed Buzz to address privacy concerns multiple times .
In fact they made so many changes so quickly that it 's hard to document exactly what settings it had when without a lot of research .
However early on it was easily possible to have the following scenario : " InnocentUser , " a legal adult , has a Gmail account .
( Let 's even say they got one sometime after July 2009 , so Gmail was n't even in " beta " at the time , just to end-run one particular argument .
) They 've emailed a number of people using this account .
They 've also gotten several scary emails from " ImaPredator , " which they never responded to .
When Buzz was launched InnocentUser 's Google Profile was indexed .
The easiest way for this to happen was to " try out " Buzz like Google urged everyone with a Gmail account .
However numerous people have reported finding they had their Google Profile indexed without ever actually trying Buzz .
Once your Google Profile was automatically integrated with Buzz it would auto-follow anyone who you emailed with a lot .
So InnocentUser has a lot of their usual contacts auto-followed and made visible in their Google Profile .
Meanwhile ImaPredator joins Buzz , which notices they emailed InnocentUser a lot ( regardless of the fact that InnocentUser never emailed back , ) and auto-follows them .
Now ImaPredator can go to InnocentUser 's Google Profile and see the list of their most common contacts .
That 's pretty bad .
Of course it 's even worse that perhaps InnocentUser did email back ImaPredator once , with a message saying something like " If you ever email me again I 'm going to report you to the police .
" That 's good enough for Buzz to decide InnocentUser ought to auto-follow ImaPredator as well !
( Once of the people Buzz set me up to auto-follow was someone who i had a single email exchange with .
Perhaps because it occurred very shortly before Buzz went live .
) There \ _was \ _ an option to disable Buzz .
However initially at least all that did was remove the Buzz UI from your end .
Your profile was still visible to others and still listed your regular contacts .
CNET and other sites published detailed tutorials about how to \ _actually \ _ go through all the options and disable Buzz " for realz " because of all the privacy concerns .
When the inevitable , and in my mind quite justified , complaints started , Google went through several rounds of apologizing ( but usually with weasel wording such as " we 're sorry our users feel like their privacy has been violated " rather than " we 're sorry we screwed up " ) and revising Buzz 's behaviour and options .
After the third or so revision they reached the point where it was halfway reasonable , and it was fairly easy for everyone who still did n't like it to actually turn it off .
Google definitely did something stupid .
If they made the decision to auto-include everyone with a Gmail account in Buzz because they thought it was the only way to catch up with Facebook and Twitter in a reasonable amount of time then what they did could arguably be considered Evil as well .
It 's unfortunate that the lawmakers are pulling the " think of the children " card when Google clearly did something wrong regardless of the age of the people involved , but that does n't somehow magically invalidate the wrongness .
Google did try to correct things after the fact , but that does n't change the fact that they did something wrong to begin with , and it 's quite possible that some people were hurt by Google 's mistakes before changes were implemented .
Certainly a slap on the wrist by the FCC would not be out of line .
And an investigation into whether the issues were due to professional negligence or... whatever you call screwing over your users for a " quick buck , " also seems quite reasonable to me .
If something actually criminal was done ( i leave it up to the actual lawyers to determine what would and would not be criminal in this case ) then apologizing for it before the " police " actually catch you is n't enough to get you out of trouble .
It does n't work that way for the average citizen and it should n't work that way for corporations either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People seem to be jumping on either the "pro-Google" bandwagon or the "anti-'think of the children'" bandwagon left and right.
So let's stop and consider this rationally.
Google has changed Buzz to address privacy concerns multiple times.
In fact they made so many changes so quickly that it's hard to document exactly what settings it had when without a lot of research.
However early on it was easily possible to have the following scenario:

"InnocentUser," a legal adult, has a Gmail account.
(Let's even say they got one sometime after July 2009, so Gmail wasn't even in "beta" at the time, just to end-run one particular argument.
) They've emailed a number of people using this account.
They've also gotten several scary emails from "ImaPredator," which they never responded to.
When Buzz was launched InnocentUser's Google Profile was indexed.
The easiest way for this to happen was to "try out" Buzz like Google urged everyone with a Gmail account.
However numerous people have reported finding they had their Google Profile indexed without ever actually trying Buzz.
Once your Google Profile was automatically integrated with Buzz it would auto-follow anyone who you emailed with a lot.
So InnocentUser has a lot of their usual contacts auto-followed and made visible in their Google Profile.
Meanwhile ImaPredator joins Buzz, which notices they emailed InnocentUser a lot (regardless of the fact that InnocentUser never emailed back,) and auto-follows them.
Now ImaPredator can go to InnocentUser's Google Profile and see the list of their most common contacts.
That's pretty bad.
Of course it's even worse that perhaps InnocentUser did email back ImaPredator once, with a message saying something like "If you ever email me again I'm going to report you to the police.
" That's good enough for Buzz to decide InnocentUser ought to auto-follow ImaPredator as well!
(Once of the people Buzz set me up to auto-follow was someone who i had a single email exchange with.
Perhaps because it occurred very shortly before Buzz went live.
)

There \_was\_ an option to disable Buzz.
However initially at least all that did was remove the Buzz UI from your end.
Your profile was still visible to others and still listed your regular contacts.
CNET and other sites published detailed tutorials about how to \_actually\_ go through all the options and disable Buzz "for realz" because of all the privacy concerns.
When the inevitable, and in my mind quite justified, complaints started, Google went through several rounds of apologizing (but usually with weasel wording such as "we're sorry our users feel like their privacy has been violated" rather than "we're sorry we screwed up") and revising Buzz's behaviour and options.
After the third or so revision they reached the point where it was halfway reasonable, and it was fairly easy for everyone who still didn't like it to actually turn it off.
Google definitely did something stupid.
If they made the decision to auto-include everyone with a Gmail account in Buzz because they thought it was the only way to catch up with Facebook and Twitter in a reasonable amount of time then what they did could arguably be considered Evil as well.
It's unfortunate that the lawmakers are pulling the "think of the children" card when Google clearly did something wrong regardless of the age of the people involved, but that doesn't somehow magically invalidate the wrongness.
Google did try to correct things after the fact, but that doesn't change the fact that they did something wrong to begin with, and it's quite possible that some people were hurt by Google's mistakes before changes were implemented.
Certainly a slap on the wrist by the FCC would not be out of line.
And an investigation into whether the issues were due to professional negligence or... whatever you call screwing over your users for a "quick buck," also seems quite reasonable to me.
If something actually criminal was done (i leave it up to the actual lawyers to determine what would and would not be criminal in this case) then apologizing for it before the "police" actually catch you isn't enough to get you out of trouble.
It doesn't work that way for the average citizen and it shouldn't work that way for corporations either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688372</id>
	<title>Foes list</title>
	<author>OglinTatas</author>
	<datestamp>1270052880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hereby request all you 9 year old girls to add me to your foes list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hereby request all you 9 year old girls to add me to your foes list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hereby request all you 9 year old girls to add me to your foes list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687768</id>
	<title>Won't somebody think of the children</title>
	<author>Useful Wheat</author>
	<datestamp>1270050660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please! Won't somebody think of the children surfing the internet without adult supervision! Gmail only added people that you had repeated email correspondence with, which means that the 9 year old girl was perfectly capable of picking up sexual predators on her own. Also? Putting any kind of responsibility on the parents is clearly across the line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please !
Wo n't somebody think of the children surfing the internet without adult supervision !
Gmail only added people that you had repeated email correspondence with , which means that the 9 year old girl was perfectly capable of picking up sexual predators on her own .
Also ? Putting any kind of responsibility on the parents is clearly across the line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please!
Won't somebody think of the children surfing the internet without adult supervision!
Gmail only added people that you had repeated email correspondence with, which means that the 9 year old girl was perfectly capable of picking up sexual predators on her own.
Also? Putting any kind of responsibility on the parents is clearly across the line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689076</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270056060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Be glad you don't live in China where Wang is a common name. Maybe 1 in 20 men is called Mr. Wang</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Be glad you do n't live in China where Wang is a common name .
Maybe 1 in 20 men is called Mr. Wang</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be glad you don't live in China where Wang is a common name.
Maybe 1 in 20 men is called Mr. Wang</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31691308</id>
	<title>Re:Won't somebody think of the children</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1270065180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is NO reason for a child under the age of 18 to have an internet connected computer or device behind closed doors out of adult supervisions sight. When i was nine i have to tell my parents were i was<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,where i was going<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,what phone number to contact,how long are you going to be there,who was i going to be with and who were they? And god help me if any of it wasn't true. If a child cant hide behind closed doors then they cant pickup sexual predators. And just how does a nine year old know if a person is a sexual predator,until its too late? And another thing were did she first contact the man? Was it in a chat room? Was it facebook? Or was it because of the was Google forced millions of people into an instant social network without there knowledge or consent? And 1 more thing,when you were nine,how actively were you looking for a sexual predator to rape you? I wasn't even thinking about sex at 9 for crying out loud</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is NO reason for a child under the age of 18 to have an internet connected computer or device behind closed doors out of adult supervisions sight .
When i was nine i have to tell my parents were i was ,where i was going ,what phone number to contact,how long are you going to be there,who was i going to be with and who were they ?
And god help me if any of it was n't true .
If a child cant hide behind closed doors then they cant pickup sexual predators .
And just how does a nine year old know if a person is a sexual predator,until its too late ?
And another thing were did she first contact the man ?
Was it in a chat room ?
Was it facebook ?
Or was it because of the was Google forced millions of people into an instant social network without there knowledge or consent ?
And 1 more thing,when you were nine,how actively were you looking for a sexual predator to rape you ?
I was n't even thinking about sex at 9 for crying out loud</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is NO reason for a child under the age of 18 to have an internet connected computer or device behind closed doors out of adult supervisions sight.
When i was nine i have to tell my parents were i was ,where i was going ,what phone number to contact,how long are you going to be there,who was i going to be with and who were they?
And god help me if any of it wasn't true.
If a child cant hide behind closed doors then they cant pickup sexual predators.
And just how does a nine year old know if a person is a sexual predator,until its too late?
And another thing were did she first contact the man?
Was it in a chat room?
Was it facebook?
Or was it because of the was Google forced millions of people into an instant social network without there knowledge or consent?
And 1 more thing,when you were nine,how actively were you looking for a sexual predator to rape you?
I wasn't even thinking about sex at 9 for crying out loud</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690768</id>
	<title>Re:friends</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1270063020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What an awesome friend, I'd be so excited to have a friend who was ashamed of me.  I'm sure I'd listen to his advice since it clearly has less to do with my well being and more to do with his stigma against drugs.</p><p>Its likely that your friends realize how selfish and transparent you are and don't really give a shit what you think of their habits.  Many people are comfortable with their place in lives, even if you aren't.</p><p>If you're afraid of people knowing who you associate with then you have a serious problem that has nothing to do with the rest of the world and entirely todo with your own self loathing.  Get help, sooner rather than later, you'll have far more friends who like you more when you let them live and stop pushing your agenda on them.  If you didn't sound like a D.A.R.E. commercial, meaning ignorant and flat out laying, they might listen better.  I'd wager to guess when you start telling them, in Mr Makey's voice that drugs are bad their eyes glass over just laugh inside at your ignorance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What an awesome friend , I 'd be so excited to have a friend who was ashamed of me .
I 'm sure I 'd listen to his advice since it clearly has less to do with my well being and more to do with his stigma against drugs.Its likely that your friends realize how selfish and transparent you are and do n't really give a shit what you think of their habits .
Many people are comfortable with their place in lives , even if you are n't.If you 're afraid of people knowing who you associate with then you have a serious problem that has nothing to do with the rest of the world and entirely todo with your own self loathing .
Get help , sooner rather than later , you 'll have far more friends who like you more when you let them live and stop pushing your agenda on them .
If you did n't sound like a D.A.R.E .
commercial , meaning ignorant and flat out laying , they might listen better .
I 'd wager to guess when you start telling them , in Mr Makey 's voice that drugs are bad their eyes glass over just laugh inside at your ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What an awesome friend, I'd be so excited to have a friend who was ashamed of me.
I'm sure I'd listen to his advice since it clearly has less to do with my well being and more to do with his stigma against drugs.Its likely that your friends realize how selfish and transparent you are and don't really give a shit what you think of their habits.
Many people are comfortable with their place in lives, even if you aren't.If you're afraid of people knowing who you associate with then you have a serious problem that has nothing to do with the rest of the world and entirely todo with your own self loathing.
Get help, sooner rather than later, you'll have far more friends who like you more when you let them live and stop pushing your agenda on them.
If you didn't sound like a D.A.R.E.
commercial, meaning ignorant and flat out laying, they might listen better.
I'd wager to guess when you start telling them, in Mr Makey's voice that drugs are bad their eyes glass over just laugh inside at your ignorance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689130</id>
	<title>Re: a "sexually charged" username</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270056180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Sucks</b>, he wasn't doing anything wrong.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></div><p>iseewhatyoudidthere</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sucks , he was n't doing anything wrong .
: ( iseewhatyoudidthere</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Sucks, he wasn't doing anything wrong.
:(iseewhatyoudidthere
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688654</id>
	<title>Internet is not private?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270054140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No kidding!  Just dont tell these politicians about sites like Spokeo.com and the like.  They would freak!  I can hear them now:</p><p>"You mean people can research where I live and my information on the web?  How can this be?  What do you mean public records are available to the public?!?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding !
Just dont tell these politicians about sites like Spokeo.com and the like .
They would freak !
I can hear them now : " You mean people can research where I live and my information on the web ?
How can this be ?
What do you mean public records are available to the public ? ! ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding!
Just dont tell these politicians about sites like Spokeo.com and the like.
They would freak!
I can hear them now:"You mean people can research where I live and my information on the web?
How can this be?
What do you mean public records are available to the public?!?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688420</id>
	<title>friends</title>
	<author>jonpublic</author>
	<datestamp>1270053060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's say I have some friends who despite my best efforts still do drugs. They have destructive tendencies. I try and help them out, steer them away from bad choices and towards good choices.</p><p>Do I really want someone who've I've emailed about a job to suddenly know that I am associated with people who have active drug problems?</p><p>Better yet, why should anyone else have access to the list of people I communicating with? People seem to be ignoring the privacy issue here and focusing on the 9 year old and the Google can do no harm bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say I have some friends who despite my best efforts still do drugs .
They have destructive tendencies .
I try and help them out , steer them away from bad choices and towards good choices.Do I really want someone who 've I 've emailed about a job to suddenly know that I am associated with people who have active drug problems ? Better yet , why should anyone else have access to the list of people I communicating with ?
People seem to be ignoring the privacy issue here and focusing on the 9 year old and the Google can do no harm bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say I have some friends who despite my best efforts still do drugs.
They have destructive tendencies.
I try and help them out, steer them away from bad choices and towards good choices.Do I really want someone who've I've emailed about a job to suddenly know that I am associated with people who have active drug problems?Better yet, why should anyone else have access to the list of people I communicating with?
People seem to be ignoring the privacy issue here and focusing on the 9 year old and the Google can do no harm bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31694664</id>
	<title>Re:Some perspective</title>
	<author>Shadowlore</author>
	<datestamp>1270036320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google definitely did something stupid. If they made the decision to auto-include everyone with a Gmail account in Buzz because they thought it was the only way to catch up with Facebook and Twitter in a reasonable amount of time then what they did could arguably be considered Evil as well.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not exactly. Evil requires intent. No "accidental evil" exists. Doing something stupid != being evil. For your scenario to be evil they would have to have *known* what they were doing was evil, which is not even shown. Wrong != Evil either.</p><p>For them to include all of the gmail userbase in Buzz by default to be evil it would have to be evil w/o regard to catching up to Facebook or Twitter, and to support your hypothesis the motive would also have to be evil. While you may not have intended it, you asserted that catching Facebook or Twitter quickly is evil. I'm not sure I buy that argument, just as I'm not sure you intended it that way.</p><p>I suspect from the limited knowledge I have, that it was a story failure in a complex system. We all know that happens. If you "accidentally" publish something, YOU did that. If it is done for you, that is a different story. In the first case you were being stupid. We also know that you can't protect people from being stupid either.  The question in my mind would be what allowed those flaws to get through testing, and how can it be prevented. So by all means have an investigation - to determine if people's data was intentionally exposed. If it was unintentional, they can and should be sued in civil court for *actual damages*. People should pay for their mistakes and make restitution. But punitive measures should be reserved for intentional acts.</p><p>Regarding lawmakers, they will ALWAYS pull the "TotC" card because it pre-emptively demonizes anyone that disagrees with them. After all, who would be against the children? We have politicians, not statesmen</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google definitely did something stupid .
If they made the decision to auto-include everyone with a Gmail account in Buzz because they thought it was the only way to catch up with Facebook and Twitter in a reasonable amount of time then what they did could arguably be considered Evil as well.Not exactly .
Evil requires intent .
No " accidental evil " exists .
Doing something stupid ! = being evil .
For your scenario to be evil they would have to have * known * what they were doing was evil , which is not even shown .
Wrong ! = Evil either.For them to include all of the gmail userbase in Buzz by default to be evil it would have to be evil w/o regard to catching up to Facebook or Twitter , and to support your hypothesis the motive would also have to be evil .
While you may not have intended it , you asserted that catching Facebook or Twitter quickly is evil .
I 'm not sure I buy that argument , just as I 'm not sure you intended it that way.I suspect from the limited knowledge I have , that it was a story failure in a complex system .
We all know that happens .
If you " accidentally " publish something , YOU did that .
If it is done for you , that is a different story .
In the first case you were being stupid .
We also know that you ca n't protect people from being stupid either .
The question in my mind would be what allowed those flaws to get through testing , and how can it be prevented .
So by all means have an investigation - to determine if people 's data was intentionally exposed .
If it was unintentional , they can and should be sued in civil court for * actual damages * .
People should pay for their mistakes and make restitution .
But punitive measures should be reserved for intentional acts.Regarding lawmakers , they will ALWAYS pull the " TotC " card because it pre-emptively demonizes anyone that disagrees with them .
After all , who would be against the children ?
We have politicians , not statesmen</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google definitely did something stupid.
If they made the decision to auto-include everyone with a Gmail account in Buzz because they thought it was the only way to catch up with Facebook and Twitter in a reasonable amount of time then what they did could arguably be considered Evil as well.Not exactly.
Evil requires intent.
No "accidental evil" exists.
Doing something stupid != being evil.
For your scenario to be evil they would have to have *known* what they were doing was evil, which is not even shown.
Wrong != Evil either.For them to include all of the gmail userbase in Buzz by default to be evil it would have to be evil w/o regard to catching up to Facebook or Twitter, and to support your hypothesis the motive would also have to be evil.
While you may not have intended it, you asserted that catching Facebook or Twitter quickly is evil.
I'm not sure I buy that argument, just as I'm not sure you intended it that way.I suspect from the limited knowledge I have, that it was a story failure in a complex system.
We all know that happens.
If you "accidentally" publish something, YOU did that.
If it is done for you, that is a different story.
In the first case you were being stupid.
We also know that you can't protect people from being stupid either.
The question in my mind would be what allowed those flaws to get through testing, and how can it be prevented.
So by all means have an investigation - to determine if people's data was intentionally exposed.
If it was unintentional, they can and should be sued in civil court for *actual damages*.
People should pay for their mistakes and make restitution.
But punitive measures should be reserved for intentional acts.Regarding lawmakers, they will ALWAYS pull the "TotC" card because it pre-emptively demonizes anyone that disagrees with them.
After all, who would be against the children?
We have politicians, not statesmen
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689866</id>
	<title>Juxtaposition</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1270059420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oligarch 1:</p><p><i>Eleven U.S. lawmakers have asked the FTC to investigate Google's launch of its Buzz social-networking product for breaches of consumer privacy.</i></p><p>Oligarch 2:</p><p><i>Saying an old e-mail or your online photo album should have the same privacy protection from police as your home filing cabinet, Google, Microsoft and others said Tuesday they will ask Congress to overhaul a 24-year-old federal law that helps define online and mobile phone privacy.</i></p><p>Isn't it nice to have such honorable oligarchs? Nobly bickering over who gets to read my communications to serve their own ends, unhindered by petty respect for the intent and spirit of the 4th amendment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oligarch 1 : Eleven U.S. lawmakers have asked the FTC to investigate Google 's launch of its Buzz social-networking product for breaches of consumer privacy.Oligarch 2 : Saying an old e-mail or your online photo album should have the same privacy protection from police as your home filing cabinet , Google , Microsoft and others said Tuesday they will ask Congress to overhaul a 24-year-old federal law that helps define online and mobile phone privacy.Is n't it nice to have such honorable oligarchs ?
Nobly bickering over who gets to read my communications to serve their own ends , unhindered by petty respect for the intent and spirit of the 4th amendment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oligarch 1:Eleven U.S. lawmakers have asked the FTC to investigate Google's launch of its Buzz social-networking product for breaches of consumer privacy.Oligarch 2:Saying an old e-mail or your online photo album should have the same privacy protection from police as your home filing cabinet, Google, Microsoft and others said Tuesday they will ask Congress to overhaul a 24-year-old federal law that helps define online and mobile phone privacy.Isn't it nice to have such honorable oligarchs?
Nobly bickering over who gets to read my communications to serve their own ends, unhindered by petty respect for the intent and spirit of the 4th amendment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31695830</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1270042500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they bitch slap Google for this I'm for it. They did this in a highly obnoxious and offensive way. It took wading through their crap to turn it off when they gave up with the howling and just forced all my accounts to use it. I have no idea  who got what even though I've turned that crap off.</p><p>If they get raped with an annual privacy violation fee I expect a higher tax rebate and I'll cackle all the way to the bank.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they bitch slap Google for this I 'm for it .
They did this in a highly obnoxious and offensive way .
It took wading through their crap to turn it off when they gave up with the howling and just forced all my accounts to use it .
I have no idea who got what even though I 've turned that crap off.If they get raped with an annual privacy violation fee I expect a higher tax rebate and I 'll cackle all the way to the bank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they bitch slap Google for this I'm for it.
They did this in a highly obnoxious and offensive way.
It took wading through their crap to turn it off when they gave up with the howling and just forced all my accounts to use it.
I have no idea  who got what even though I've turned that crap off.If they get raped with an annual privacy violation fee I expect a higher tax rebate and I'll cackle all the way to the bank.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688260</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270052460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From Google's TOS:</p><p>2. Accepting the Terms</p><p>2.3 You may not use the Services and may not accept the Terms if (a) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google, or (b) you are a person barred from receiving the Services under the laws of the United States or other countries including the country in which you are resident or from which you use the Services.</p><p>What is a 9yr old girl doing with a gmail account in the first place if she is not of legal age?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From Google 's TOS : 2 .
Accepting the Terms2.3 You may not use the Services and may not accept the Terms if ( a ) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google , or ( b ) you are a person barred from receiving the Services under the laws of the United States or other countries including the country in which you are resident or from which you use the Services.What is a 9yr old girl doing with a gmail account in the first place if she is not of legal age ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Google's TOS:2.
Accepting the Terms2.3 You may not use the Services and may not accept the Terms if (a) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google, or (b) you are a person barred from receiving the Services under the laws of the United States or other countries including the country in which you are resident or from which you use the Services.What is a 9yr old girl doing with a gmail account in the first place if she is not of legal age?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688148</id>
	<title>Re:Evil</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1270052040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it's a case of politicians being evil in things like this. It's a case of being more emotional than logical. Logically, if you solve the privacy angle, you solve the rest of it, but emotionally, the "children must be protected" clouds their thinking. It's more important than privacy, to their thinking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it 's a case of politicians being evil in things like this .
It 's a case of being more emotional than logical .
Logically , if you solve the privacy angle , you solve the rest of it , but emotionally , the " children must be protected " clouds their thinking .
It 's more important than privacy , to their thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it's a case of politicians being evil in things like this.
It's a case of being more emotional than logical.
Logically, if you solve the privacy angle, you solve the rest of it, but emotionally, the "children must be protected" clouds their thinking.
It's more important than privacy, to their thinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687954</id>
	<title>Always a good idea to attack the strongest link</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1270051320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I were to fight the "dangers" an unsupervised 9 year old can find on the web I'd clearly start by how he uses a particular function in a particular website.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm</p><p>It's frightening to think that someone can publicly say such idiocies and journalists (or whoever hears him first) won't directly laugh in his face and call him names.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were to fight the " dangers " an unsupervised 9 year old can find on the web I 'd clearly start by how he uses a particular function in a particular website .
/sarcasmIt 's frightening to think that someone can publicly say such idiocies and journalists ( or whoever hears him first ) wo n't directly laugh in his face and call him names .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were to fight the "dangers" an unsupervised 9 year old can find on the web I'd clearly start by how he uses a particular function in a particular website.
/sarcasmIt's frightening to think that someone can publicly say such idiocies and journalists (or whoever hears him first) won't directly laugh in his face and call him names.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687766</id>
	<title>Evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270050660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are politicians so evil?  It's one thing to say that it could be a privacy issue: look into that.  But when they start getting in "sexually charged" terminology its like saying the email name was "RepublicanDick."  It's fear mongering and grandstanding, nothing more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are politicians so evil ?
It 's one thing to say that it could be a privacy issue : look into that .
But when they start getting in " sexually charged " terminology its like saying the email name was " RepublicanDick .
" It 's fear mongering and grandstanding , nothing more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are politicians so evil?
It's one thing to say that it could be a privacy issue: look into that.
But when they start getting in "sexually charged" terminology its like saying the email name was "RepublicanDick.
"  It's fear mongering and grandstanding, nothing more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688288</id>
	<title>Is everyone here a Google apologist?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270052580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or do they work for Google?</p><p>I can't believe how much slack slashdotters are cuting google here...</p><p>Can you imagine if it was Microsoft that made this misake?<br>Or AOL had of?</p><p>What Google did was bad, 9 yr old or not.</p><p>What's wrong with slashdot?<br>Did google buy it too?<br>Or just evreyone that comments here?</p><p>Just how many people has Google brain washed into thinking that it is "cool" and every when it makes a serious fuckup, it is ok?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or do they work for Google ? I ca n't believe how much slack slashdotters are cuting google here...Can you imagine if it was Microsoft that made this misake ? Or AOL had of ? What Google did was bad , 9 yr old or not.What 's wrong with slashdot ? Did google buy it too ? Or just evreyone that comments here ? Just how many people has Google brain washed into thinking that it is " cool " and every when it makes a serious fuckup , it is ok ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or do they work for Google?I can't believe how much slack slashdotters are cuting google here...Can you imagine if it was Microsoft that made this misake?Or AOL had of?What Google did was bad, 9 yr old or not.What's wrong with slashdot?Did google buy it too?Or just evreyone that comments here?Just how many people has Google brain washed into thinking that it is "cool" and every when it makes a serious fuckup, it is ok?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688442</id>
	<title>Sexually Charged?</title>
	<author>c</author>
	<datestamp>1270053120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; In one case, a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact<br>&gt; list in Gmail with a person who has a "sexually charged" username,<br>&gt; the lawmakers said in the letter.""</p><p>So... basically, people <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick\_Pound" title="wikipedia.org">who's parents didn't think things through</a> [wikipedia.org] are automatically considered pedophiles?</p><p>c.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; In one case , a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact &gt; list in Gmail with a person who has a " sexually charged " username , &gt; the lawmakers said in the letter. " " So.. .
basically , people who 's parents did n't think things through [ wikipedia.org ] are automatically considered pedophiles ? c .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; In one case, a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact&gt; list in Gmail with a person who has a "sexually charged" username,&gt; the lawmakers said in the letter.""So...
basically, people who's parents didn't think things through [wikipedia.org] are automatically considered pedophiles?c.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688960</id>
	<title>Re:Just a thought...</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1270055460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I keep hearing how others were set to auto-follow others. I did not have this experience. Buzz suggested people for me to follow from my Contacts, but I didn't auto-follow anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep hearing how others were set to auto-follow others .
I did not have this experience .
Buzz suggested people for me to follow from my Contacts , but I did n't auto-follow anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep hearing how others were set to auto-follow others.
I did not have this experience.
Buzz suggested people for me to follow from my Contacts, but I didn't auto-follow anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688848</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270055040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't you have ended it with:</p><p>"And when it comes to technology expanding into areas where children are, members are saying that P.E.N.I.S. is growing faster than ever."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't you have ended it with : " And when it comes to technology expanding into areas where children are , members are saying that P.E.N.I.S .
is growing faster than ever .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't you have ended it with:"And when it comes to technology expanding into areas where children are, members are saying that P.E.N.I.S.
is growing faster than ever.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687742</id>
	<title>a "sexually charged" username</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270050600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext> <p><div class="quote"><p>a "sexually charged" username</p></div><p>What, like Dick Dynamo?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a " sexually charged " usernameWhat , like Dick Dynamo ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> a "sexually charged" usernameWhat, like Dick Dynamo?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688050</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1270051680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Relevant: <a href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/increasing-number-of-parents-opting-to-have-childr,17159/" title="theonion.com">http://www.theonion.com/articles/increasing-number-of-parents-opting-to-have-childr,17159/</a> [theonion.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Relevant : http : //www.theonion.com/articles/increasing-number-of-parents-opting-to-have-childr,17159/ [ theonion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Relevant: http://www.theonion.com/articles/increasing-number-of-parents-opting-to-have-childr,17159/ [theonion.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690040</id>
	<title>Re:Evil?</title>
	<author>Kazoo the Clown</author>
	<datestamp>1270060140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Why are politicians so evil?</i> </p><p>Evil, hell-- I'm just wondering why they have so much TIME on their hands...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are politicians so evil ?
Evil , hell-- I 'm just wondering why they have so much TIME on their hands.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Why are politicians so evil?
Evil, hell-- I'm just wondering why they have so much TIME on their hands...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31702914</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1270115940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They made the babies which should be enough. You can't expect them to watch these little beings all day. How are parents supposed to have fun?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They made the babies which should be enough .
You ca n't expect them to watch these little beings all day .
How are parents supposed to have fun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They made the babies which should be enough.
You can't expect them to watch these little beings all day.
How are parents supposed to have fun?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732</id>
	<title>There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270050600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In one case, a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact list in Gmail with a person who has a 'sexually charged' username, the lawmakers said in the letter."</p><p>In one case, the parents of a 9 year old girl weren't paying attention, like they should have been, while their daughter surfed the web and they were upset at their lack of parenting skills and decided it imperative that they defer to the Federal Government to help them solve this problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In one case , a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact list in Gmail with a person who has a 'sexually charged ' username , the lawmakers said in the letter .
" In one case , the parents of a 9 year old girl were n't paying attention , like they should have been , while their daughter surfed the web and they were upset at their lack of parenting skills and decided it imperative that they defer to the Federal Government to help them solve this problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In one case, a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact list in Gmail with a person who has a 'sexually charged' username, the lawmakers said in the letter.
"In one case, the parents of a 9 year old girl weren't paying attention, like they should have been, while their daughter surfed the web and they were upset at their lack of parenting skills and decided it imperative that they defer to the Federal Government to help them solve this problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688530</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>Tharsman</author>
	<datestamp>1270053480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"In one case, a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact list in Gmail with a person who has a 'sexually charged' username, the lawmakers said in the letter."</p><p>In one case, the parents of a 9 year old girl weren't paying attention, like they should have been, while their daughter surfed the web and they were upset at their lack of parenting skills and decided it imperative that they defer to the Federal Government to help them solve this problem.</p></div><p>Maybe, just maybe, mommy and daddy did their work and considered Gmail safe. And maybe, just maybe, Google decided it was OK to opt everyone into Buzz without letting anyone know about it.

</p><p>People in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. love to blame this kind of stuff on parents, but fact is, Google pushed Buzz into any gmail user without informing properly. It just suddenly showed up there. You would have to do daily audits of every single action your child takes in the internet if you wanted to catch this, and even then it would had been easy to miss the change.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In one case , a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact list in Gmail with a person who has a 'sexually charged ' username , the lawmakers said in the letter .
" In one case , the parents of a 9 year old girl were n't paying attention , like they should have been , while their daughter surfed the web and they were upset at their lack of parenting skills and decided it imperative that they defer to the Federal Government to help them solve this problem.Maybe , just maybe , mommy and daddy did their work and considered Gmail safe .
And maybe , just maybe , Google decided it was OK to opt everyone into Buzz without letting anyone know about it .
People in / .
love to blame this kind of stuff on parents , but fact is , Google pushed Buzz into any gmail user without informing properly .
It just suddenly showed up there .
You would have to do daily audits of every single action your child takes in the internet if you wanted to catch this , and even then it would had been easy to miss the change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In one case, a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact list in Gmail with a person who has a 'sexually charged' username, the lawmakers said in the letter.
"In one case, the parents of a 9 year old girl weren't paying attention, like they should have been, while their daughter surfed the web and they were upset at their lack of parenting skills and decided it imperative that they defer to the Federal Government to help them solve this problem.Maybe, just maybe, mommy and daddy did their work and considered Gmail safe.
And maybe, just maybe, Google decided it was OK to opt everyone into Buzz without letting anyone know about it.
People in /.
love to blame this kind of stuff on parents, but fact is, Google pushed Buzz into any gmail user without informing properly.
It just suddenly showed up there.
You would have to do daily audits of every single action your child takes in the internet if you wanted to catch this, and even then it would had been easy to miss the change.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688544</id>
	<title>And they fixed it the next day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270053540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google fixed this the day after buzz was released.  I'm sure it was a boneheaded move on their part, but at least they did something about it, unlike say, Facebook, who seems to want to always find new ways to expose people's profile info without their consent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google fixed this the day after buzz was released .
I 'm sure it was a boneheaded move on their part , but at least they did something about it , unlike say , Facebook , who seems to want to always find new ways to expose people 's profile info without their consent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google fixed this the day after buzz was released.
I'm sure it was a boneheaded move on their part, but at least they did something about it, unlike say, Facebook, who seems to want to always find new ways to expose people's profile info without their consent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690626</id>
	<title>Re:Why Does a 9 Year Old Need an E-Mail Address?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1270062540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I was 9, I wrote letters to friends who didn't live near me (for example, children my age of people my parents met at university).  If I were 9 now, I'd probably want to exchange emails with them instead.  I don't see anything particularly wrong with this, at the very least it would improve the child's typing ability, which might still be important when they leave school if we haven't invented a better means of text entry by then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was 9 , I wrote letters to friends who did n't live near me ( for example , children my age of people my parents met at university ) .
If I were 9 now , I 'd probably want to exchange emails with them instead .
I do n't see anything particularly wrong with this , at the very least it would improve the child 's typing ability , which might still be important when they leave school if we have n't invented a better means of text entry by then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was 9, I wrote letters to friends who didn't live near me (for example, children my age of people my parents met at university).
If I were 9 now, I'd probably want to exchange emails with them instead.
I don't see anything particularly wrong with this, at the very least it would improve the child's typing ability, which might still be important when they leave school if we haven't invented a better means of text entry by then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688034</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270051680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"In one case, a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact list in Gmail with a person who has a 'sexually charged' username, the lawmakers said in the letter."</p><p>In one case, the parents of a 9 year old girl weren't paying attention, like they should have been, while their daughter surfed the web and they were upset at their lack of parenting skills and decided it imperative that they defer to the Federal Government to help them solve this problem.</p></div><p>GMail ToS:</p><p>2.3    You may not use the Services and may not accept the Terms if (a) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google, or (b) you are a person barred from receiving the Services under the laws of the United States or other countries including the country in which you are resident or from which you use the Services.</p><p>9 you say?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In one case , a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact list in Gmail with a person who has a 'sexually charged ' username , the lawmakers said in the letter .
" In one case , the parents of a 9 year old girl were n't paying attention , like they should have been , while their daughter surfed the web and they were upset at their lack of parenting skills and decided it imperative that they defer to the Federal Government to help them solve this problem.GMail ToS : 2.3 You may not use the Services and may not accept the Terms if ( a ) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google , or ( b ) you are a person barred from receiving the Services under the laws of the United States or other countries including the country in which you are resident or from which you use the Services.9 you say ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In one case, a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact list in Gmail with a person who has a 'sexually charged' username, the lawmakers said in the letter.
"In one case, the parents of a 9 year old girl weren't paying attention, like they should have been, while their daughter surfed the web and they were upset at their lack of parenting skills and decided it imperative that they defer to the Federal Government to help them solve this problem.GMail ToS:2.3    You may not use the Services and may not accept the Terms if (a) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google, or (b) you are a person barred from receiving the Services under the laws of the United States or other countries including the country in which you are resident or from which you use the Services.9 you say?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688684</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1270054260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Meh.  You left out a few, here's one:<br> <br>
Older "parenting skills": 1) Place child in yard. 2) Go back to whatever you were doing 3) Whup the kids if they get back after dinnertime.<br> <br>Here's the thing... a lot of parents just don't understand that letting their kids use the internet unsupervised puts them in potential contact with EVERY person who also has internet access.  Period.<br> <br>This requires fundamental differences in how child's play is supervised, if you wish to avoid the headaches unfettered internet access creates.  Because of the limited (and/or different) danger posed by other recreational activities, parents need to understand that they need to be much, much more participatory in internet activity with their kids than with other things their kids do.<br> <br>Unfortunately, many parents either don't realize this, don't make the time for it, or don't care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh .
You left out a few , here 's one : Older " parenting skills " : 1 ) Place child in yard .
2 ) Go back to whatever you were doing 3 ) Whup the kids if they get back after dinnertime .
Here 's the thing... a lot of parents just do n't understand that letting their kids use the internet unsupervised puts them in potential contact with EVERY person who also has internet access .
Period. This requires fundamental differences in how child 's play is supervised , if you wish to avoid the headaches unfettered internet access creates .
Because of the limited ( and/or different ) danger posed by other recreational activities , parents need to understand that they need to be much , much more participatory in internet activity with their kids than with other things their kids do .
Unfortunately , many parents either do n't realize this , do n't make the time for it , or do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh.
You left out a few, here's one: 
Older "parenting skills": 1) Place child in yard.
2) Go back to whatever you were doing 3) Whup the kids if they get back after dinnertime.
Here's the thing... a lot of parents just don't understand that letting their kids use the internet unsupervised puts them in potential contact with EVERY person who also has internet access.
Period. This requires fundamental differences in how child's play is supervised, if you wish to avoid the headaches unfettered internet access creates.
Because of the limited (and/or different) danger posed by other recreational activities, parents need to understand that they need to be much, much more participatory in internet activity with their kids than with other things their kids do.
Unfortunately, many parents either don't realize this, don't make the time for it, or don't care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31691188</id>
	<title>Launchpad</title>
	<author>launchpad72</author>
	<datestamp>1270064700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lovemonkey is my given name..... DAMN!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lovemonkey is my given name.... .
DAMN ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lovemonkey is my given name.....
DAMN!!!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688210</id>
	<title>Re: a "sexually charged" username</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1270052280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bumfnms6ovA" title="youtube.com">Biggus Dickus</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Biggus Dickus [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Biggus Dickus [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689182</id>
	<title>Re:There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1270056480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Old "parenting skills": 1) Place child in front of TV. 2) Insert Disney DVD 3) Press "Play". 4) Return in 90 minutes. 5) Repeat.</p></div><p>Old? That's practically futuristic. The old parenting technique goes like this:</p><ol> <li>Send child to work in a coal mine.</li><li>There is no step two.</li></ol></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Old " parenting skills " : 1 ) Place child in front of TV .
2 ) Insert Disney DVD 3 ) Press " Play " .
4 ) Return in 90 minutes .
5 ) Repeat.Old ?
That 's practically futuristic .
The old parenting technique goes like this : Send child to work in a coal mine.There is no step two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old "parenting skills": 1) Place child in front of TV.
2) Insert Disney DVD 3) Press "Play".
4) Return in 90 minutes.
5) Repeat.Old?
That's practically futuristic.
The old parenting technique goes like this: Send child to work in a coal mine.There is no step two.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688628</id>
	<title>oh, no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270053960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In one case, a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact list in Gmail with a person who has a "sexually charged" username, the lawmakers said in the letter."</p></div><p>Oh, no, she superpoked DickCheney!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In one case , a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact list in Gmail with a person who has a " sexually charged " username , the lawmakers said in the letter .
" Oh , no , she superpoked DickCheney !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In one case, a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact list in Gmail with a person who has a "sexually charged" username, the lawmakers said in the letter.
"Oh, no, she superpoked DickCheney!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688408</id>
	<title>Re:that's why I have a hotmail account...</title>
	<author>mweather</author>
	<datestamp>1270053000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"t's pretty clear that the users of these services are the product,"

As is the case of every single ad supported medium. TV, news, magazines, search engines, blogs, you name it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" t 's pretty clear that the users of these services are the product , " As is the case of every single ad supported medium .
TV , news , magazines , search engines , blogs , you name it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"t's pretty clear that the users of these services are the product,"

As is the case of every single ad supported medium.
TV, news, magazines, search engines, blogs, you name it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689302</id>
	<title>Re:Won't somebody think of the children</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1270056960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Gmail only added people that you had repeated email correspondence with, which means that the 9 year old girl was perfectly capable of picking up sexual predators on her own.</p> </div><p>This also means that Buzz may have actually exposed sexual predators, who would have remained hidden otherwise. Assuming there was any sexual predation involved, of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gmail only added people that you had repeated email correspondence with , which means that the 9 year old girl was perfectly capable of picking up sexual predators on her own .
This also means that Buzz may have actually exposed sexual predators , who would have remained hidden otherwise .
Assuming there was any sexual predation involved , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Gmail only added people that you had repeated email correspondence with, which means that the 9 year old girl was perfectly capable of picking up sexual predators on her own.
This also means that Buzz may have actually exposed sexual predators, who would have remained hidden otherwise.
Assuming there was any sexual predation involved, of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687768</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31691308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31702914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31694664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31691520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31695830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31691100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_1428244_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31691742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1428244.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1428244.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31691308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1428244.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1428244.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31702914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31691100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31695830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31691520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1428244.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1428244.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1428244.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1428244.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31689296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31694664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31691742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1428244.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31690572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1428244.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1428244.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31687912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1428244.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1428244.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_1428244.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_1428244.31688960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
