<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_11_0319215</id>
	<title>Supreme Court Declines Case Over Techs' Right To Search Your PC</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1244721420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"A few years back, a guy was arrested for possessing child pornography after techs at Circuit City found child porn on his computer, while they were installing a DVD player. The guy insisted that the evidence shouldn't be admissible since the techs shouldn't have been snooping through his computer &mdash; and a lower court agreed. The appeals court, however, reversed, noting that the guy had given Circuit City the right to do things on his computer &mdash; including testing out the newly installed software (which is how the tech claims he found the video). The guy appealed to the Supreme Court, who has <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090608/1357565168.shtml">declined to hear the case</a>, meaning that the ruling stands for the time being. So, basically, if you hand your computer over to someone else for repairs, at least in some jurisdictions, they may have pretty free rein in terms of what they're allowed to access on your computer."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " A few years back , a guy was arrested for possessing child pornography after techs at Circuit City found child porn on his computer , while they were installing a DVD player .
The guy insisted that the evidence should n't be admissible since the techs should n't have been snooping through his computer    and a lower court agreed .
The appeals court , however , reversed , noting that the guy had given Circuit City the right to do things on his computer    including testing out the newly installed software ( which is how the tech claims he found the video ) .
The guy appealed to the Supreme Court , who has declined to hear the case , meaning that the ruling stands for the time being .
So , basically , if you hand your computer over to someone else for repairs , at least in some jurisdictions , they may have pretty free rein in terms of what they 're allowed to access on your computer .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "A few years back, a guy was arrested for possessing child pornography after techs at Circuit City found child porn on his computer, while they were installing a DVD player.
The guy insisted that the evidence shouldn't be admissible since the techs shouldn't have been snooping through his computer — and a lower court agreed.
The appeals court, however, reversed, noting that the guy had given Circuit City the right to do things on his computer — including testing out the newly installed software (which is how the tech claims he found the video).
The guy appealed to the Supreme Court, who has declined to hear the case, meaning that the ruling stands for the time being.
So, basically, if you hand your computer over to someone else for repairs, at least in some jurisdictions, they may have pretty free rein in terms of what they're allowed to access on your computer.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291747</id>
	<title>Re:This is SO going to get abused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244727540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not so fast. If a state did pass such a law then you have pretty much "deputized" techies and they would then be held to the same standards of evidence collection as law enforcement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so fast .
If a state did pass such a law then you have pretty much " deputized " techies and they would then be held to the same standards of evidence collection as law enforcement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so fast.
If a state did pass such a law then you have pretty much "deputized" techies and they would then be held to the same standards of evidence collection as law enforcement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28297653</id>
	<title>Re:From a different perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244748720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you see evidence of a crime you have to call the police. Thats the law where I live.</p></div><p>Most free societies do not have such laws.</p><p>For example, in the US ("free" is debatable) you are not legally required to report suspected wrongdoing. However, if you are specifically asked if you have such knowledge, then it IS illegal to lie about it. But you can optionally simply not say anything.</p><p>Now there are sometimes laws that require businesses to report certain things. For example, most places in the US have laws which require hospitals to report any gunshot wounds which they treat- but they have to report ALL of them, even if the person being treated is a cop or it was an accident. It is not because being shot is illegal (it's not).<br>Similarly, repair shops are required to report certain types of damage to vehicles. Like if they come in covered in blood or have human remains hanging off the grill. But if, for example, the mechanics find some pot in the trunk, they don't <i>legally</i> have to report it- they would get in trouble for not doing so for various reasons, but failure to report a <i>suspected</i> crime is not what would get them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you see evidence of a crime you have to call the police .
Thats the law where I live.Most free societies do not have such laws.For example , in the US ( " free " is debatable ) you are not legally required to report suspected wrongdoing .
However , if you are specifically asked if you have such knowledge , then it IS illegal to lie about it .
But you can optionally simply not say anything.Now there are sometimes laws that require businesses to report certain things .
For example , most places in the US have laws which require hospitals to report any gunshot wounds which they treat- but they have to report ALL of them , even if the person being treated is a cop or it was an accident .
It is not because being shot is illegal ( it 's not ) .Similarly , repair shops are required to report certain types of damage to vehicles .
Like if they come in covered in blood or have human remains hanging off the grill .
But if , for example , the mechanics find some pot in the trunk , they do n't legally have to report it- they would get in trouble for not doing so for various reasons , but failure to report a suspected crime is not what would get them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you see evidence of a crime you have to call the police.
Thats the law where I live.Most free societies do not have such laws.For example, in the US ("free" is debatable) you are not legally required to report suspected wrongdoing.
However, if you are specifically asked if you have such knowledge, then it IS illegal to lie about it.
But you can optionally simply not say anything.Now there are sometimes laws that require businesses to report certain things.
For example, most places in the US have laws which require hospitals to report any gunshot wounds which they treat- but they have to report ALL of them, even if the person being treated is a cop or it was an accident.
It is not because being shot is illegal (it's not).Similarly, repair shops are required to report certain types of damage to vehicles.
Like if they come in covered in blood or have human remains hanging off the grill.
But if, for example, the mechanics find some pot in the trunk, they don't legally have to report it- they would get in trouble for not doing so for various reasons, but failure to report a suspected crime is not what would get them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293101</id>
	<title>Awesome.</title>
	<author>cyn1c77</author>
	<datestamp>1244732640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a life lesson for everyone.  This guy should have taken 30 minutes out of his busy day of jerking off to little kids to learn about encryption.  Or better yet, to learn how to install a DVD drive by himself.   </p><p>But wait, it gets better!  If you dig deeper, the offender's name was Kenneth <b>Sodom</b>sky.  </p><p>Awesome.  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a life lesson for everyone .
This guy should have taken 30 minutes out of his busy day of jerking off to little kids to learn about encryption .
Or better yet , to learn how to install a DVD drive by himself .
But wait , it gets better !
If you dig deeper , the offender 's name was Kenneth Sodomsky .
Awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a life lesson for everyone.
This guy should have taken 30 minutes out of his busy day of jerking off to little kids to learn about encryption.
Or better yet, to learn how to install a DVD drive by himself.
But wait, it gets better!
If you dig deeper, the offender's name was Kenneth Sodomsky.
Awesome.  </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28345761</id>
	<title>Encryption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245150120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever heard of Truecrypt or FreeOTFE? Yeah, too late for this fool</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard of Truecrypt or FreeOTFE ?
Yeah , too late for this fool</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard of Truecrypt or FreeOTFE?
Yeah, too late for this fool</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292937</id>
	<title>They had to report it</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244732040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The magical word here is complicity. If you know of a crime and don't report it, you're making yourself a complice.</p><p>Now, I store a fair lot of "secret" data on my servers. Not illegal, mind you, but not public either. I'm in IT security, you'll find a fair lot of malware and exploit descriptions on my main server. Some of that information is anything but public knowledge, and giving that to the wrong people could be a disaster. Not only because it could be used, but also for my reputation because someone might find out it was me who leaked this information.</p><p>The server is well protected against snooping. Encrypted filesystem, strong security, and you shouldn't plug it to a network that isn't secured against the server. My repair crew has that information and they are instructed NOT to boot the machine past the BIOS and NOT to attach it to any network. So far, they heeded this request, for more than one obvious reason.</p><p>First, they like doing business with me. I pay well, and I pay immediately. They're not forensic experts, I would notice if they tried to peek into my system. Second, they get paid to do their work, they don't get paid to look at my system. Simple business interest, there's no money in snooping. Next, "don't ask, don't tell" goes a long way. They don't WANT to look at my system, simply for the complice problem. Even though they couldn't find anything illegal in the system, I'm fairly sure they're convinced they would and they'd have to report it and that means more expense that nobody pays for.</p><p>Bottom line: The very LAST thing your repair guys want to deal with is ratting on you. Expense without revenue is what's in it for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The magical word here is complicity .
If you know of a crime and do n't report it , you 're making yourself a complice.Now , I store a fair lot of " secret " data on my servers .
Not illegal , mind you , but not public either .
I 'm in IT security , you 'll find a fair lot of malware and exploit descriptions on my main server .
Some of that information is anything but public knowledge , and giving that to the wrong people could be a disaster .
Not only because it could be used , but also for my reputation because someone might find out it was me who leaked this information.The server is well protected against snooping .
Encrypted filesystem , strong security , and you should n't plug it to a network that is n't secured against the server .
My repair crew has that information and they are instructed NOT to boot the machine past the BIOS and NOT to attach it to any network .
So far , they heeded this request , for more than one obvious reason.First , they like doing business with me .
I pay well , and I pay immediately .
They 're not forensic experts , I would notice if they tried to peek into my system .
Second , they get paid to do their work , they do n't get paid to look at my system .
Simple business interest , there 's no money in snooping .
Next , " do n't ask , do n't tell " goes a long way .
They do n't WANT to look at my system , simply for the complice problem .
Even though they could n't find anything illegal in the system , I 'm fairly sure they 're convinced they would and they 'd have to report it and that means more expense that nobody pays for.Bottom line : The very LAST thing your repair guys want to deal with is ratting on you .
Expense without revenue is what 's in it for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The magical word here is complicity.
If you know of a crime and don't report it, you're making yourself a complice.Now, I store a fair lot of "secret" data on my servers.
Not illegal, mind you, but not public either.
I'm in IT security, you'll find a fair lot of malware and exploit descriptions on my main server.
Some of that information is anything but public knowledge, and giving that to the wrong people could be a disaster.
Not only because it could be used, but also for my reputation because someone might find out it was me who leaked this information.The server is well protected against snooping.
Encrypted filesystem, strong security, and you shouldn't plug it to a network that isn't secured against the server.
My repair crew has that information and they are instructed NOT to boot the machine past the BIOS and NOT to attach it to any network.
So far, they heeded this request, for more than one obvious reason.First, they like doing business with me.
I pay well, and I pay immediately.
They're not forensic experts, I would notice if they tried to peek into my system.
Second, they get paid to do their work, they don't get paid to look at my system.
Simple business interest, there's no money in snooping.
Next, "don't ask, don't tell" goes a long way.
They don't WANT to look at my system, simply for the complice problem.
Even though they couldn't find anything illegal in the system, I'm fairly sure they're convinced they would and they'd have to report it and that means more expense that nobody pays for.Bottom line: The very LAST thing your repair guys want to deal with is ratting on you.
Expense without revenue is what's in it for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294899</id>
	<title>PI Licences for computer Techs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244739240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This kind of thing is why in Texas they may require a <a href="http://www.gearlog.com/2008/06/new\_texas\_law\_requires\_pi\_lice.php" title="gearlog.com" rel="nofollow">PI License for computer techs</a> [gearlog.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>This kind of thing is why in Texas they may require a PI License for computer techs [ gearlog.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This kind of thing is why in Texas they may require a PI License for computer techs [gearlog.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28296539</id>
	<title>Re:How to beat a Child Pornography Charge...</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244745000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      Not only has the law gone insane in regard to a parent taking a photo of their kid in the tub the law has also gone insane on real sex offenders.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; For example Florida has a confined camp where offenders who have completed their sentences can be held for the rest of their lives. We also have two communities that have so greatly restricted permitted housing for former offenders that they are allowed to only live under a bridge as it is the only spot greater than 2500 feet from places that children gather.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The crazy part is that molesters almost never offend near where they live as distance shields them from getting caught. The only exception being molesters who are attracted to their own kids or family members.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only has the law gone insane in regard to a parent taking a photo of their kid in the tub the law has also gone insane on real sex offenders .
            For example Florida has a confined camp where offenders who have completed their sentences can be held for the rest of their lives .
We also have two communities that have so greatly restricted permitted housing for former offenders that they are allowed to only live under a bridge as it is the only spot greater than 2500 feet from places that children gather .
            The crazy part is that molesters almost never offend near where they live as distance shields them from getting caught .
The only exception being molesters who are attracted to their own kids or family members .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      Not only has the law gone insane in regard to a parent taking a photo of their kid in the tub the law has also gone insane on real sex offenders.
            For example Florida has a confined camp where offenders who have completed their sentences can be held for the rest of their lives.
We also have two communities that have so greatly restricted permitted housing for former offenders that they are allowed to only live under a bridge as it is the only spot greater than 2500 feet from places that children gather.
            The crazy part is that molesters almost never offend near where they live as distance shields them from getting caught.
The only exception being molesters who are attracted to their own kids or family members.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294613</id>
	<title>Free rein</title>
	<author>erc</author>
	<datestamp>1244738220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>they may have pretty free rein in terms of what they're allowed to access on your computer</i> <br> <br>
Actually, this is correct only in terms of criminal liability - since Circuit City wasn't apparently an agent of the government, the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply here.  But they may still be liable for a civil suit.<br> <br>Moral: if you've got stuff on your computer that you'd rather not have others taking a peek at, encryption software is your friend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>they may have pretty free rein in terms of what they 're allowed to access on your computer Actually , this is correct only in terms of criminal liability - since Circuit City was n't apparently an agent of the government , the Fourth Amendment does n't apply here .
But they may still be liable for a civil suit .
Moral : if you 've got stuff on your computer that you 'd rather not have others taking a peek at , encryption software is your friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they may have pretty free rein in terms of what they're allowed to access on your computer  
Actually, this is correct only in terms of criminal liability - since Circuit City wasn't apparently an agent of the government, the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply here.
But they may still be liable for a civil suit.
Moral: if you've got stuff on your computer that you'd rather not have others taking a peek at, encryption software is your friend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291535</id>
	<title>Easy solution</title>
	<author>EvilGrin666</author>
	<datestamp>1244726040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Keep your 'private' data on an external hard drive and just leave the system drive for the OS + applications. Extra paranoid people can encrypt it to for good measure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep your 'private ' data on an external hard drive and just leave the system drive for the OS + applications .
Extra paranoid people can encrypt it to for good measure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep your 'private' data on an external hard drive and just leave the system drive for the OS + applications.
Extra paranoid people can encrypt it to for good measure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292669</id>
	<title>Re:Another cause for concern...</title>
	<author>Rolgar</author>
	<datestamp>1244731200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what would be the motivation?  Could you imagine the reviews Geek Squad (or similar) would get with the BBB (or similar business rating sites).  Don't take your service there, they frame their customers for illegal data!!!  What company would ever plant evidence against a customer when doing so would get them bad ratings and cost them significant amounts of business?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what would be the motivation ?
Could you imagine the reviews Geek Squad ( or similar ) would get with the BBB ( or similar business rating sites ) .
Do n't take your service there , they frame their customers for illegal data ! ! !
What company would ever plant evidence against a customer when doing so would get them bad ratings and cost them significant amounts of business ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what would be the motivation?
Could you imagine the reviews Geek Squad (or similar) would get with the BBB (or similar business rating sites).
Don't take your service there, they frame their customers for illegal data!!!
What company would ever plant evidence against a customer when doing so would get them bad ratings and cost them significant amounts of business?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28299055</id>
	<title>we're all missing the business opportunity here</title>
	<author>OutOnARock</author>
	<datestamp>1244753580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
What if you started a PC repair company that pledged "We will NEVER use any file from your hard drive during our repair work".
<br>
<br>
Made that part of the contract the user signs when they drop off the PC.  No knowledge, no need to report.
<br>
<br>
For the car analogy, if the mechanic changes the oil, returns the car to you, never looks at the dead body in the trunk, both you and the mechanic are legally free and clear.  Morally, maybe not so, but legally, yes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if you started a PC repair company that pledged " We will NEVER use any file from your hard drive during our repair work " .
Made that part of the contract the user signs when they drop off the PC .
No knowledge , no need to report .
For the car analogy , if the mechanic changes the oil , returns the car to you , never looks at the dead body in the trunk , both you and the mechanic are legally free and clear .
Morally , maybe not so , but legally , yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
What if you started a PC repair company that pledged "We will NEVER use any file from your hard drive during our repair work".
Made that part of the contract the user signs when they drop off the PC.
No knowledge, no need to report.
For the car analogy, if the mechanic changes the oil, returns the car to you, never looks at the dead body in the trunk, both you and the mechanic are legally free and clear.
Morally, maybe not so, but legally, yes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291511</id>
	<title>Another cause for concern...</title>
	<author>Mistshadow2k4</author>
	<datestamp>1244725860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be almost brain-dead easy to put anything you want on a computer and then change the file properties to look like it was there before you gained access to the machine. I could do it on any given morning before I've even had a sip of coffee.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be almost brain-dead easy to put anything you want on a computer and then change the file properties to look like it was there before you gained access to the machine .
I could do it on any given morning before I 've even had a sip of coffee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be almost brain-dead easy to put anything you want on a computer and then change the file properties to look like it was there before you gained access to the machine.
I could do it on any given morning before I've even had a sip of coffee.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292247</id>
	<title>From the technician's view</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244729820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run a computer shop and the majority of work is "remove my viruses" or "backup my data".  In the case of virus removal most of the viruses are in temp or download folders.  I've seen more then my fair share of customer porn, either downloaded or created, in the last 3 years of doing this.  When a customer hands me their computer and asks me to clean it up or backup their files it has to be assumed that I am going to be viewing their files.  If I blindly backup everything to one of my externals without at least skimming to see what it is I backup then I am liable for what is on my hard drive.  Thus far I've been lucky enough not to find child porn or anything illegal (short of music/movies/games) on these computers.  The day I do though, is the day the cops get called on it and i'm damn glad that it can be used as evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run a computer shop and the majority of work is " remove my viruses " or " backup my data " .
In the case of virus removal most of the viruses are in temp or download folders .
I 've seen more then my fair share of customer porn , either downloaded or created , in the last 3 years of doing this .
When a customer hands me their computer and asks me to clean it up or backup their files it has to be assumed that I am going to be viewing their files .
If I blindly backup everything to one of my externals without at least skimming to see what it is I backup then I am liable for what is on my hard drive .
Thus far I 've been lucky enough not to find child porn or anything illegal ( short of music/movies/games ) on these computers .
The day I do though , is the day the cops get called on it and i 'm damn glad that it can be used as evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run a computer shop and the majority of work is "remove my viruses" or "backup my data".
In the case of virus removal most of the viruses are in temp or download folders.
I've seen more then my fair share of customer porn, either downloaded or created, in the last 3 years of doing this.
When a customer hands me their computer and asks me to clean it up or backup their files it has to be assumed that I am going to be viewing their files.
If I blindly backup everything to one of my externals without at least skimming to see what it is I backup then I am liable for what is on my hard drive.
Thus far I've been lucky enough not to find child porn or anything illegal (short of music/movies/games) on these computers.
The day I do though, is the day the cops get called on it and i'm damn glad that it can be used as evidence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294407</id>
	<title>stands for the time being</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1244737500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or forever, look at how long they took to hear a case about the 2nd amendment... Since they get to pick and choose cases, they have ultimate control of law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or forever , look at how long they took to hear a case about the 2nd amendment... Since they get to pick and choose cases , they have ultimate control of law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or forever, look at how long they took to hear a case about the 2nd amendment... Since they get to pick and choose cases, they have ultimate control of law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292037</id>
	<title>Easy to prevent</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1244728980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I managed to be desperate enough to hand my computer over to anyone else, it would be without the hard drive in it, or at least the one with the information I care about.</p><p>I'd actually suggest to anyone who buys a new laptop and with the resources, immediately replace the hard drive with a blank one and install your OS of choice. You might even impress them when they're left with registering to Microsoft for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I managed to be desperate enough to hand my computer over to anyone else , it would be without the hard drive in it , or at least the one with the information I care about.I 'd actually suggest to anyone who buys a new laptop and with the resources , immediately replace the hard drive with a blank one and install your OS of choice .
You might even impress them when they 're left with registering to Microsoft for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I managed to be desperate enough to hand my computer over to anyone else, it would be without the hard drive in it, or at least the one with the information I care about.I'd actually suggest to anyone who buys a new laptop and with the resources, immediately replace the hard drive with a blank one and install your OS of choice.
You might even impress them when they're left with registering to Microsoft for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292697</id>
	<title>Re:well well well</title>
	<author>redhog</author>
	<datestamp>1244731320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Lime/Frostwire - the bane of my job - and telling a "customer/uneducated person" that those types of programs make it more likely to get a virus, they immediately ask you "well, how else can I download free stuff" - my response " you can't"</p><p>Well, you're response should have been "install ubuntu, or any other of the free Linuxes." You could also add "jamendo.com has heaps of free good music" or somesuch. No need to play into MS/big medias hands just because people don't know any better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Lime/Frostwire - the bane of my job - and telling a " customer/uneducated person " that those types of programs make it more likely to get a virus , they immediately ask you " well , how else can I download free stuff " - my response " you ca n't " Well , you 're response should have been " install ubuntu , or any other of the free Linuxes .
" You could also add " jamendo.com has heaps of free good music " or somesuch .
No need to play into MS/big medias hands just because people do n't know any better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Lime/Frostwire - the bane of my job - and telling a "customer/uneducated person" that those types of programs make it more likely to get a virus, they immediately ask you "well, how else can I download free stuff" - my response " you can't"Well, you're response should have been "install ubuntu, or any other of the free Linuxes.
" You could also add "jamendo.com has heaps of free good music" or somesuch.
No need to play into MS/big medias hands just because people don't know any better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292327</id>
	<title>No Story Here</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1244730060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Constitution protects citizens from improper governmental action.</p><p>If a burglar breaks into your house, illegally, and discovers a huge marijuana grow operation, the government has done nothing wrong.  The government can use the crook's evidence against you.  On the other hand, if the burglar was working for the government then the evidence will be thrown out of court.</p><p>Nothing new here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Constitution protects citizens from improper governmental action.If a burglar breaks into your house , illegally , and discovers a huge marijuana grow operation , the government has done nothing wrong .
The government can use the crook 's evidence against you .
On the other hand , if the burglar was working for the government then the evidence will be thrown out of court.Nothing new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Constitution protects citizens from improper governmental action.If a burglar breaks into your house, illegally, and discovers a huge marijuana grow operation, the government has done nothing wrong.
The government can use the crook's evidence against you.
On the other hand, if the burglar was working for the government then the evidence will be thrown out of court.Nothing new here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291441</id>
	<title>Reading comprehension</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244725260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, basically, if you hand your computer over to someone else for repairs, at least in some jurisdictions, they may have pretty free rein in terms of what they're allowed to access on your computer.</p></div><p>No, but whatever they find is admissible as evidence in court.</p><p>That something is admitted as evidence in court does not mean it was legal to obtain that evidence.  Similarly, if something is inadmissible as evidence in court, it could still be legal to obtain that evidence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , basically , if you hand your computer over to someone else for repairs , at least in some jurisdictions , they may have pretty free rein in terms of what they 're allowed to access on your computer.No , but whatever they find is admissible as evidence in court.That something is admitted as evidence in court does not mean it was legal to obtain that evidence .
Similarly , if something is inadmissible as evidence in court , it could still be legal to obtain that evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, basically, if you hand your computer over to someone else for repairs, at least in some jurisdictions, they may have pretty free rein in terms of what they're allowed to access on your computer.No, but whatever they find is admissible as evidence in court.That something is admitted as evidence in court does not mean it was legal to obtain that evidence.
Similarly, if something is inadmissible as evidence in court, it could still be legal to obtain that evidence.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28295045</id>
	<title>Re:This is SO going to get abused</title>
	<author>jvkjvk</author>
	<datestamp>1244739840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes.  If the government passed laws so stating then the laws would probably be thrown out.</p><p>However, currently it's a perfect environment for governments to now pressure repair shops to <i>voluntarily</i> "check up" on their customers, since evidence gathered in this manner appears to be legal at this point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes .
If the government passed laws so stating then the laws would probably be thrown out.However , currently it 's a perfect environment for governments to now pressure repair shops to voluntarily " check up " on their customers , since evidence gathered in this manner appears to be legal at this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes.
If the government passed laws so stating then the laws would probably be thrown out.However, currently it's a perfect environment for governments to now pressure repair shops to voluntarily "check up" on their customers, since evidence gathered in this manner appears to be legal at this point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291679</id>
	<title>Re:This is SO going to get abused</title>
	<author>Corbets</author>
	<datestamp>1244727060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I posted a comment above about this, but if the state coerces private citizens to act on its behalf, then they are in essence state actors, and illegally obtained information becomes inadmissible.</p><p>If on the other hand the citizen stumbles across some information, regardless of how, and chooses (without being ordered, requested, payed, etc. to do so) to share it with the police, the court will allow the evidence.</p><p>Frankly, I think that's fair. If I am, say, breaking into the school at night to have a little fun with my buddies, and I see the principle murdering a teacher, I'm going to come forward and say something. Even though I shouldn't have been there, and may well be prosecuted for B&amp;E, my eye-witness testimony to the other crime should still be valid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I posted a comment above about this , but if the state coerces private citizens to act on its behalf , then they are in essence state actors , and illegally obtained information becomes inadmissible.If on the other hand the citizen stumbles across some information , regardless of how , and chooses ( without being ordered , requested , payed , etc .
to do so ) to share it with the police , the court will allow the evidence.Frankly , I think that 's fair .
If I am , say , breaking into the school at night to have a little fun with my buddies , and I see the principle murdering a teacher , I 'm going to come forward and say something .
Even though I should n't have been there , and may well be prosecuted for B&amp;E , my eye-witness testimony to the other crime should still be valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I posted a comment above about this, but if the state coerces private citizens to act on its behalf, then they are in essence state actors, and illegally obtained information becomes inadmissible.If on the other hand the citizen stumbles across some information, regardless of how, and chooses (without being ordered, requested, payed, etc.
to do so) to share it with the police, the court will allow the evidence.Frankly, I think that's fair.
If I am, say, breaking into the school at night to have a little fun with my buddies, and I see the principle murdering a teacher, I'm going to come forward and say something.
Even though I shouldn't have been there, and may well be prosecuted for B&amp;E, my eye-witness testimony to the other crime should still be valid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291641</id>
	<title>They came first for the pedos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244726880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I didn't speak up, because they are horrible nonces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I did n't speak up , because they are horrible nonces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I didn't speak up, because they are horrible nonces.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28295939</id>
	<title>This is better than Al-Qaeda!</title>
	<author>Klistvud</author>
	<datestamp>1244742840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm starting a new project on SourceForge.net, with the aim of writing a bot/worm/rootkit or similar piece of code to accomplish the following:
1) the code installs itself automatically on all public/government computers (meaning court computers, police computers, school computers, military computers and the like)
2) it creates a subfolder named PedophilePr0n somewhere deep down the directory tree
3) it populates the abovesaid subfolder with thousands of child porn photos from the Internet
4) it induces a software error in any mounted CD/DVD drives in order to warrant a visit to the repair shop
5) it does so inadvertently and undetectably, in the sense that there must be no way of determining that all the above steps have not been accomplished by the human user. Preferably, upon completing the above steps, the bot/worm/rootkit should delete all traces of its presence from the computer.
The aim of the project is to subvert any government at will, without the need to use obsolete methods and means such as bombs, planes, biochemical weaponry, bomb cars etc. All submissions/ideas welcome! Submit to sourceforge.net, project name "Forget Al-Qaeda!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm starting a new project on SourceForge.net , with the aim of writing a bot/worm/rootkit or similar piece of code to accomplish the following : 1 ) the code installs itself automatically on all public/government computers ( meaning court computers , police computers , school computers , military computers and the like ) 2 ) it creates a subfolder named PedophilePr0n somewhere deep down the directory tree 3 ) it populates the abovesaid subfolder with thousands of child porn photos from the Internet 4 ) it induces a software error in any mounted CD/DVD drives in order to warrant a visit to the repair shop 5 ) it does so inadvertently and undetectably , in the sense that there must be no way of determining that all the above steps have not been accomplished by the human user .
Preferably , upon completing the above steps , the bot/worm/rootkit should delete all traces of its presence from the computer .
The aim of the project is to subvert any government at will , without the need to use obsolete methods and means such as bombs , planes , biochemical weaponry , bomb cars etc .
All submissions/ideas welcome !
Submit to sourceforge.net , project name " Forget Al-Qaeda !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm starting a new project on SourceForge.net, with the aim of writing a bot/worm/rootkit or similar piece of code to accomplish the following:
1) the code installs itself automatically on all public/government computers (meaning court computers, police computers, school computers, military computers and the like)
2) it creates a subfolder named PedophilePr0n somewhere deep down the directory tree
3) it populates the abovesaid subfolder with thousands of child porn photos from the Internet
4) it induces a software error in any mounted CD/DVD drives in order to warrant a visit to the repair shop
5) it does so inadvertently and undetectably, in the sense that there must be no way of determining that all the above steps have not been accomplished by the human user.
Preferably, upon completing the above steps, the bot/worm/rootkit should delete all traces of its presence from the computer.
The aim of the project is to subvert any government at will, without the need to use obsolete methods and means such as bombs, planes, biochemical weaponry, bomb cars etc.
All submissions/ideas welcome!
Submit to sourceforge.net, project name "Forget Al-Qaeda!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294293</id>
	<title>Re:Justice...</title>
	<author>Noexit</author>
	<datestamp>1244737080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For great justice, take off every ZIG.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For great justice , take off every ZIG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For great justice, take off every ZIG.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28298077</id>
	<title>Oh god, Circuit City</title>
	<author>siliconincdotnet</author>
	<datestamp>1244750220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So a few years ago the PSU in my Mac G5 died, and it's under warranty. Unfortunately, the only Apple warranty shop around at the time (right after Katrina) was Circuit City. So I go to drop the box off...</p><p>Not an hour later I get a call from them telling me they need the passwords to both the admin account and my normal user account, and any other passwords (email, etc) present on the machine. The reason given? The power supply is actually a special piece of software and not a piece of hardware at all!</p><p>Obviously I didn't give them this; I wound up driving two hours away to take it to another shop.</p><p>I'm so glad that company is dead and gone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So a few years ago the PSU in my Mac G5 died , and it 's under warranty .
Unfortunately , the only Apple warranty shop around at the time ( right after Katrina ) was Circuit City .
So I go to drop the box off...Not an hour later I get a call from them telling me they need the passwords to both the admin account and my normal user account , and any other passwords ( email , etc ) present on the machine .
The reason given ?
The power supply is actually a special piece of software and not a piece of hardware at all ! Obviously I did n't give them this ; I wound up driving two hours away to take it to another shop.I 'm so glad that company is dead and gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So a few years ago the PSU in my Mac G5 died, and it's under warranty.
Unfortunately, the only Apple warranty shop around at the time (right after Katrina) was Circuit City.
So I go to drop the box off...Not an hour later I get a call from them telling me they need the passwords to both the admin account and my normal user account, and any other passwords (email, etc) present on the machine.
The reason given?
The power supply is actually a special piece of software and not a piece of hardware at all!Obviously I didn't give them this; I wound up driving two hours away to take it to another shop.I'm so glad that company is dead and gone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28298995</id>
	<title>Re:From a different perspective</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1244753400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A: They need the driver for the dvd drive and open up his browser, go to google, type "S" to search for 'Sony DVD rom Driver' and the auto complete history pops up 100 variations on 'sex with kids'.</p></div></blockquote><p>
So what if he has searched for that? Irrelevant. It could mean anything. It doesn't necessarily mean that he has sex with kids or has any child porn.</p><blockquote><div><p>B: They want to test the DVD drive so they fire up Roxio Bloatware Creator and figure the easiest thing to do is to burn a picture dvd, since there may not be music or video but there are images on every computer. At this point they discover that My Pictures is full of 10 gigs of nasty.</p></div></blockquote><p>
There's no reason for them what so ever to look at the pictures.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A : They need the driver for the dvd drive and open up his browser , go to google , type " S " to search for 'Sony DVD rom Driver ' and the auto complete history pops up 100 variations on 'sex with kids' .
So what if he has searched for that ?
Irrelevant. It could mean anything .
It does n't necessarily mean that he has sex with kids or has any child porn.B : They want to test the DVD drive so they fire up Roxio Bloatware Creator and figure the easiest thing to do is to burn a picture dvd , since there may not be music or video but there are images on every computer .
At this point they discover that My Pictures is full of 10 gigs of nasty .
There 's no reason for them what so ever to look at the pictures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A: They need the driver for the dvd drive and open up his browser, go to google, type "S" to search for 'Sony DVD rom Driver' and the auto complete history pops up 100 variations on 'sex with kids'.
So what if he has searched for that?
Irrelevant. It could mean anything.
It doesn't necessarily mean that he has sex with kids or has any child porn.B: They want to test the DVD drive so they fire up Roxio Bloatware Creator and figure the easiest thing to do is to burn a picture dvd, since there may not be music or video but there are images on every computer.
At this point they discover that My Pictures is full of 10 gigs of nasty.
There's no reason for them what so ever to look at the pictures.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291489</id>
	<title>How to beat a Child Pornography Charge...</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1244725680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, you could always choose NOT to have child pornography on your computer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , you could always choose NOT to have child pornography on your computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, you could always choose NOT to have child pornography on your computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291921</id>
	<title>Some hints from a few years ago</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1244728500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Feb/05/ln/ln01a.html" title="honoluluadvertiser.com">http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Feb/05/ln/ln01a.html</a> [honoluluadvertiser.com] <br> <br>

"Each member of the computer crime squad (FBI) is given a list of local businesses, Laanui said, with the idea of establishing a <br>working relationship with all of them."<br>
<br>
and <br>
<br>
""We're trying to build a rapport with companies, a lot of computer guys don't necessarily know we exist," Laanui said.<br> "Virtually anyone in the high-tech arena is up for a visit with the FBI.""</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Feb/05/ln/ln01a.html [ honoluluadvertiser.com ] " Each member of the computer crime squad ( FBI ) is given a list of local businesses , Laanui said , with the idea of establishing a working relationship with all of them .
" and " " We 're trying to build a rapport with companies , a lot of computer guys do n't necessarily know we exist , " Laanui said .
" Virtually anyone in the high-tech arena is up for a visit with the FBI .
" "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Feb/05/ln/ln01a.html [honoluluadvertiser.com]  

"Each member of the computer crime squad (FBI) is given a list of local businesses, Laanui said, with the idea of establishing a working relationship with all of them.
"

and 

""We're trying to build a rapport with companies, a lot of computer guys don't necessarily know we exist," Laanui said.
"Virtually anyone in the high-tech arena is up for a visit with the FBI.
""</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28296899</id>
	<title>Re:well well well</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1244746260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has the word 'Linux' ever passed through your lips when trying to 'educate' these people?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has the word 'Linux ' ever passed through your lips when trying to 'educate ' these people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has the word 'Linux' ever passed through your lips when trying to 'educate' these people?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28295905</id>
	<title>sounds like a market opportunity to me...</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1244742720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will open a computer repair shop and when you bring your box in, I will sign a confidentiality agreement as well as an agreement promising not to do such snooping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will open a computer repair shop and when you bring your box in , I will sign a confidentiality agreement as well as an agreement promising not to do such snooping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will open a computer repair shop and when you bring your box in, I will sign a confidentiality agreement as well as an agreement promising not to do such snooping.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293315</id>
	<title>Uhhh...</title>
	<author>Evil Shabazz</author>
	<datestamp>1244733300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's say the guy had a brief case instead of a computer.  Let's say he wanted a new pocket installed inside that would hold photographs.  If he had taken the briefcase to the store filled with physical photographs, asking for the pocket to be installed, the leather-worker would certainly have seen them when they opened the briefcase to install the pocket.  Would those photographs be admissible in court?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say the guy had a brief case instead of a computer .
Let 's say he wanted a new pocket installed inside that would hold photographs .
If he had taken the briefcase to the store filled with physical photographs , asking for the pocket to be installed , the leather-worker would certainly have seen them when they opened the briefcase to install the pocket .
Would those photographs be admissible in court ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say the guy had a brief case instead of a computer.
Let's say he wanted a new pocket installed inside that would hold photographs.
If he had taken the briefcase to the store filled with physical photographs, asking for the pocket to be installed, the leather-worker would certainly have seen them when they opened the briefcase to install the pocket.
Would those photographs be admissible in court?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28300797</id>
	<title>Self-Sufficent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244716560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why did the guy have to pay someone to install a DVD player? I MEAN COME ON!<p>

I have a strong stance that in that the things you use everyday you should be required to understand at least the basic workings of them. This pertains to cars, phones, computers, tools, etc.</p><p>

If you are going to use it, at least know how it works!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did the guy have to pay someone to install a DVD player ?
I MEAN COME ON !
I have a strong stance that in that the things you use everyday you should be required to understand at least the basic workings of them .
This pertains to cars , phones , computers , tools , etc .
If you are going to use it , at least know how it works !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did the guy have to pay someone to install a DVD player?
I MEAN COME ON!
I have a strong stance that in that the things you use everyday you should be required to understand at least the basic workings of them.
This pertains to cars, phones, computers, tools, etc.
If you are going to use it, at least know how it works!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292541</id>
	<title>Re:Justice...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244730780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A pervert has been punished. What more justice does anyone need?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A pervert has been punished .
What more justice does anyone need ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A pervert has been punished.
What more justice does anyone need?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292245</id>
	<title>Re:well well well</title>
	<author>balthan</author>
	<datestamp>1244729820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I dont work at CC</i></p><p>Not many do these days...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont work at CCNot many do these days.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont work at CCNot many do these days...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291663</id>
	<title>Re:Another cause for concern...</title>
	<author>zwei2stein</author>
	<datestamp>1244727000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that is seriously scary. Perfect way to plant evidence that destroys ones personal and professional life pretty much forever. No matter what you do, incriminating material can appear on your computer given someone has it for you.</p><p>I have heard on browsing history assassination nearly getting fired guy (he left machine on, did not lock it and left for lunch, someone took it for porn ride and called HR. Luckily for him, his boss was there with him when he was on lunch and took stand for him.)</p><p>I wonder, is there actual defense against this?</p><p>Hmm, lets say you keep images of drive of machine you send for repair<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... then its their word against your word. And considering material involved, your word will not have as much weight, as you would look like real deal trying to save his ass.</p><p>Or you have part of drive encrypted<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... bad images can still appear in unecrypted part.</p><p>Or you can keep whole drive encrypted (only option when you have hardware problem), but its oh-so-easy to just wipe it and install something transparent over it and give it nice touch of being 'used' along with some pictures.</p><p>Or you can send it there without disk. Someone who is going to plant pictures can as well just plant harddrive there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that is seriously scary .
Perfect way to plant evidence that destroys ones personal and professional life pretty much forever .
No matter what you do , incriminating material can appear on your computer given someone has it for you.I have heard on browsing history assassination nearly getting fired guy ( he left machine on , did not lock it and left for lunch , someone took it for porn ride and called HR .
Luckily for him , his boss was there with him when he was on lunch and took stand for him .
) I wonder , is there actual defense against this ? Hmm , lets say you keep images of drive of machine you send for repair ... then its their word against your word .
And considering material involved , your word will not have as much weight , as you would look like real deal trying to save his ass.Or you have part of drive encrypted ... bad images can still appear in unecrypted part.Or you can keep whole drive encrypted ( only option when you have hardware problem ) , but its oh-so-easy to just wipe it and install something transparent over it and give it nice touch of being 'used ' along with some pictures.Or you can send it there without disk .
Someone who is going to plant pictures can as well just plant harddrive there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that is seriously scary.
Perfect way to plant evidence that destroys ones personal and professional life pretty much forever.
No matter what you do, incriminating material can appear on your computer given someone has it for you.I have heard on browsing history assassination nearly getting fired guy (he left machine on, did not lock it and left for lunch, someone took it for porn ride and called HR.
Luckily for him, his boss was there with him when he was on lunch and took stand for him.
)I wonder, is there actual defense against this?Hmm, lets say you keep images of drive of machine you send for repair ... then its their word against your word.
And considering material involved, your word will not have as much weight, as you would look like real deal trying to save his ass.Or you have part of drive encrypted ... bad images can still appear in unecrypted part.Or you can keep whole drive encrypted (only option when you have hardware problem), but its oh-so-easy to just wipe it and install something transparent over it and give it nice touch of being 'used' along with some pictures.Or you can send it there without disk.
Someone who is going to plant pictures can as well just plant harddrive there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293495</id>
	<title>Re:well well well</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1244734020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You mean downloading all that porn got me a virus?</p></div><p>Practice safe downloading. Put a condom on your network connector.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean downloading all that porn got me a virus ? Practice safe downloading .
Put a condom on your network connector .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean downloading all that porn got me a virus?Practice safe downloading.
Put a condom on your network connector.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291917</id>
	<title>Re:From a different perspective</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1244728500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the way I've usually heard that:</p><p>Australian immigration official: "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?"<br>Traveller: "Is that still a requirement for getting in?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the way I 've usually heard that : Australian immigration official : " Have you ever been convicted of a felony ?
" Traveller : " Is that still a requirement for getting in ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the way I've usually heard that:Australian immigration official: "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?
"Traveller: "Is that still a requirement for getting in?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291775</id>
	<title>Re:Another cause for concern...</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1244727780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Circuit City put child porn on my computer! If this is the sort of "fix" I paid for, then I want my money back!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Circuit City put child porn on my computer !
If this is the sort of " fix " I paid for , then I want my money back !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Circuit City put child porn on my computer!
If this is the sort of "fix" I paid for, then I want my money back!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291707</id>
	<title>well well well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244727240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont work at CC<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. but a larger "repair centre" in canada<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>We have, as part of our SOP, child pornography related rules.  They call them "criminal images" in the verbage, however, it is the same.  I have yet to "find" something criminal, but to my knowledge, no one goes "fishing" though a computer to look at a persons data.  I think true repair techs don't really care WHAT is on someones computer, just get paid your paycheck to fix the thing.  IF we are testing a burner and need to use data from a system (ie pictures folder) again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. drag drop, dont care what it is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. test<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. label DVD "test burn" give to customer when they come to pick it up.</p><p>After doing this for 20 years now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. I can tell you what you ALWAYS will find on a computer that comes in for "repair".<br>1. Lime/Frostwire - the bane of my job - and telling a "customer/uneducated person" that those types of programs make it more likely to get a virus, they immediately ask you "well, how else can I download free stuff" - my response " you can't"<br>2. Some sort of torrent client - see #1<br>3. expired/outdated or no antivirus - which leads to #4<br>4. massive amounts of spyware/malware/virals</p><p>This is my daily grind.  Trying to inform the public that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it makes it A: legal or B: not harmful to your computer environment - "You mean downloading all that porn got me a virus? You mean my limewire folder has massive amounts of trojans in it? ---- but I paid for it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>Sucker # 12,488 line up please<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont work at CC .. but a larger " repair centre " in canada ...We have , as part of our SOP , child pornography related rules .
They call them " criminal images " in the verbage , however , it is the same .
I have yet to " find " something criminal , but to my knowledge , no one goes " fishing " though a computer to look at a persons data .
I think true repair techs do n't really care WHAT is on someones computer , just get paid your paycheck to fix the thing .
IF we are testing a burner and need to use data from a system ( ie pictures folder ) again .. drag drop , dont care what it is .. test .. label DVD " test burn " give to customer when they come to pick it up.After doing this for 20 years now .. I can tell you what you ALWAYS will find on a computer that comes in for " repair " .1 .
Lime/Frostwire - the bane of my job - and telling a " customer/uneducated person " that those types of programs make it more likely to get a virus , they immediately ask you " well , how else can I download free stuff " - my response " you ca n't " 2 .
Some sort of torrent client - see # 13. expired/outdated or no antivirus - which leads to # 44. massive amounts of spyware/malware/viralsThis is my daily grind .
Trying to inform the public that just because you CAN do something does n't mean it makes it A : legal or B : not harmful to your computer environment - " You mean downloading all that porn got me a virus ?
You mean my limewire folder has massive amounts of trojans in it ?
---- but I paid for it ....Sucker # 12,488 line up please ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont work at CC .. but a larger "repair centre" in canada ...We have, as part of our SOP, child pornography related rules.
They call them "criminal images" in the verbage, however, it is the same.
I have yet to "find" something criminal, but to my knowledge, no one goes "fishing" though a computer to look at a persons data.
I think true repair techs don't really care WHAT is on someones computer, just get paid your paycheck to fix the thing.
IF we are testing a burner and need to use data from a system (ie pictures folder) again .. drag drop, dont care what it is .. test .. label DVD "test burn" give to customer when they come to pick it up.After doing this for 20 years now .. I can tell you what you ALWAYS will find on a computer that comes in for "repair".1.
Lime/Frostwire - the bane of my job - and telling a "customer/uneducated person" that those types of programs make it more likely to get a virus, they immediately ask you "well, how else can I download free stuff" - my response " you can't"2.
Some sort of torrent client - see #13. expired/outdated or no antivirus - which leads to #44. massive amounts of spyware/malware/viralsThis is my daily grind.
Trying to inform the public that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it makes it A: legal or B: not harmful to your computer environment - "You mean downloading all that porn got me a virus?
You mean my limewire folder has massive amounts of trojans in it?
---- but I paid for it ....Sucker # 12,488 line up please ....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293515</id>
	<title>a pc can contain non illegal but shameful info too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244734140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is another point to this story.<br>It's easy to say "I'm not doing anything illegal, so I've nothing to hide" but a pc these days is a very private thing, like a diary it can contain all kinds of shameful things, stuff that's not illegal at all but the idea that others can see it can be very unpleasant. Like burglars in your bedroom.<br>Information about an illness, a money problem, some private photo's of your girlfriend your wife doesn't know about, some documents that could cost your career, etc.</p><p>What if a tech support guy notices stuff like this on your pc and shows it to others who bring it in the open, on purpose or not.<br>Are they prevented to do so in any way? Like a general practitioner who has to swear to keep medical records private?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is another point to this story.It 's easy to say " I 'm not doing anything illegal , so I 've nothing to hide " but a pc these days is a very private thing , like a diary it can contain all kinds of shameful things , stuff that 's not illegal at all but the idea that others can see it can be very unpleasant .
Like burglars in your bedroom.Information about an illness , a money problem , some private photo 's of your girlfriend your wife does n't know about , some documents that could cost your career , etc.What if a tech support guy notices stuff like this on your pc and shows it to others who bring it in the open , on purpose or not.Are they prevented to do so in any way ?
Like a general practitioner who has to swear to keep medical records private ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is another point to this story.It's easy to say "I'm not doing anything illegal, so I've nothing to hide" but a pc these days is a very private thing, like a diary it can contain all kinds of shameful things, stuff that's not illegal at all but the idea that others can see it can be very unpleasant.
Like burglars in your bedroom.Information about an illness, a money problem, some private photo's of your girlfriend your wife doesn't know about, some documents that could cost your career, etc.What if a tech support guy notices stuff like this on your pc and shows it to others who bring it in the open, on purpose or not.Are they prevented to do so in any way?
Like a general practitioner who has to swear to keep medical records private?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292957</id>
	<title>What a moron</title>
	<author>AtomicDevice</author>
	<datestamp>1244732160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously?<br>
You had kiddie porn on your computer and you gave it to circuit city?<br>
you couldn't even put it in a passworded zip or something?<br>
<br>
Besides, who even downloads and saves porn anyways? Hasn't this guy heard of the internet?  He should be punished for being a total moron</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
You had kiddie porn on your computer and you gave it to circuit city ?
you could n't even put it in a passworded zip or something ?
Besides , who even downloads and saves porn anyways ?
Has n't this guy heard of the internet ?
He should be punished for being a total moron</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
You had kiddie porn on your computer and you gave it to circuit city?
you couldn't even put it in a passworded zip or something?
Besides, who even downloads and saves porn anyways?
Hasn't this guy heard of the internet?
He should be punished for being a total moron</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28295413</id>
	<title>Re:It's a huge barrel of worms</title>
	<author>TbB\_thund3rp33l</author>
	<datestamp>1244740920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would have a major issue with that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. time to clean out my cold bore and warm her up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... still do a long 500 yrd shot heheheh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have a major issue with that .. time to clean out my cold bore and warm her up ... still do a long 500 yrd shot heheheh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have a major issue with that .. time to clean out my cold bore and warm her up ... still do a long 500 yrd shot heheheh</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293137</id>
	<title>Re:Easy solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244732760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's way to complicated for someone who needs to take their computer to Circuit City to have a DVD drive installed.</p><p>Now that I think about it, how do the technologically illiterate get child porn in the first place?  I've never seen it on the web, centralized hosting provides an easy target for law enforcement.  So that leaves what, FTP dumps, USENET, and stuff like Freenet, none of which are trivial to use.  How does someone too ignorant to install a DVD drive get this shit?</p><p>Not that I'm looking of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's way to complicated for someone who needs to take their computer to Circuit City to have a DVD drive installed.Now that I think about it , how do the technologically illiterate get child porn in the first place ?
I 've never seen it on the web , centralized hosting provides an easy target for law enforcement .
So that leaves what , FTP dumps , USENET , and stuff like Freenet , none of which are trivial to use .
How does someone too ignorant to install a DVD drive get this shit ? Not that I 'm looking of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's way to complicated for someone who needs to take their computer to Circuit City to have a DVD drive installed.Now that I think about it, how do the technologically illiterate get child porn in the first place?
I've never seen it on the web, centralized hosting provides an easy target for law enforcement.
So that leaves what, FTP dumps, USENET, and stuff like Freenet, none of which are trivial to use.
How does someone too ignorant to install a DVD drive get this shit?Not that I'm looking of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291569</id>
	<title>Re:From a different perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244726340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that may be. but you live in australia; which is entirely populated by criminals, as everyone knows</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that may be .
but you live in australia ; which is entirely populated by criminals , as everyone knows</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that may be.
but you live in australia; which is entirely populated by criminals, as everyone knows</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28296675</id>
	<title>Don't worry</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1244745480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the TSA is still allowed to take your computer into a back room for that air-tight child porn install and frameup.

<br> <br>God Bless America<br>/sarcasm</htmltext>
<tokenext>the TSA is still allowed to take your computer into a back room for that air-tight child porn install and frameup .
God Bless America/sarcasm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the TSA is still allowed to take your computer into a back room for that air-tight child porn install and frameup.
God Bless America/sarcasm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28296297</id>
	<title>They will never catch me now</title>
	<author>Ezrymyrh</author>
	<datestamp>1244744100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have converted all of my porn into stick figures! Who's laughing now buddy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have converted all of my porn into stick figures !
Who 's laughing now buddy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have converted all of my porn into stick figures!
Who's laughing now buddy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292749</id>
	<title>Re:How to beat a Child Pornography Charge...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244731440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All right, now suppose the child porno got there because your compy's been owned and is being used as a repository.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All right , now suppose the child porno got there because your compy 's been owned and is being used as a repository .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All right, now suppose the child porno got there because your compy's been owned and is being used as a repository.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291671</id>
	<title>Re:This is SO going to get abused</title>
	<author>thesaurus</author>
	<datestamp>1244727060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Use of CAPS to assert your arguments without evidence DOESN'T make them more credible.

Use facts, not caps.
(Can we make that a motto or something?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use of CAPS to assert your arguments without evidence DOES N'T make them more credible .
Use facts , not caps .
( Can we make that a motto or something ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use of CAPS to assert your arguments without evidence DOESN'T make them more credible.
Use facts, not caps.
(Can we make that a motto or something?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293635</id>
	<title>Limits of the exclusionary rule</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1244734620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The exclusionary rule is targeted at government action, not private action.  The repair shop wasn't (according to the summary) coerced or otherwise "encouraged" by the government to go through the computer, so the exclusionary rule simply doesn't apply.</p><p>Car analogy: You bring your car in the shop for repairs.  The shop guys go poking around in the car (perhaps for legitimate reasons, perhaps not) and find your heroin stash.  They call the cops.  The evidence is admissible.</p><p>Car analogy 2:  You bring your car in the shop for repairs.  The cops call the shop and "suggest" the shop guys search your car for heroin.  They find it.  The evidence is... well, with the current court it would probably still be admissable, but it probably shouldn't be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The exclusionary rule is targeted at government action , not private action .
The repair shop was n't ( according to the summary ) coerced or otherwise " encouraged " by the government to go through the computer , so the exclusionary rule simply does n't apply.Car analogy : You bring your car in the shop for repairs .
The shop guys go poking around in the car ( perhaps for legitimate reasons , perhaps not ) and find your heroin stash .
They call the cops .
The evidence is admissible.Car analogy 2 : You bring your car in the shop for repairs .
The cops call the shop and " suggest " the shop guys search your car for heroin .
They find it .
The evidence is... well , with the current court it would probably still be admissable , but it probably should n't be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The exclusionary rule is targeted at government action, not private action.
The repair shop wasn't (according to the summary) coerced or otherwise "encouraged" by the government to go through the computer, so the exclusionary rule simply doesn't apply.Car analogy: You bring your car in the shop for repairs.
The shop guys go poking around in the car (perhaps for legitimate reasons, perhaps not) and find your heroin stash.
They call the cops.
The evidence is admissible.Car analogy 2:  You bring your car in the shop for repairs.
The cops call the shop and "suggest" the shop guys search your car for heroin.
They find it.
The evidence is... well, with the current court it would probably still be admissable, but it probably shouldn't be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293457</id>
	<title>Re:How to beat a Child Pornography Charge...</title>
	<author>fluch</author>
	<datestamp>1244733840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, but just wondering, who placed the child pornography on the computer? The owner of the computer or the technician who claimed that he found it? And how would you prove the difference between the two cases?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but just wondering , who placed the child pornography on the computer ?
The owner of the computer or the technician who claimed that he found it ?
And how would you prove the difference between the two cases ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but just wondering, who placed the child pornography on the computer?
The owner of the computer or the technician who claimed that he found it?
And how would you prove the difference between the two cases?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291797</id>
	<title>Re:From a different perspective</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1244727900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US, you have no duty to report misdemeanors (at least in all the jurisdictions I'm familiar with). There is the crime of "misprision of a felony" at the federal level:</p><blockquote><div><p>Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.</p></div></blockquote><p>18 USC 4.</p><p>Of course, I think that language about concealing the felony is an important factor. I was told once by a US attorney that it's really only used against people who were around when a conspiracy occurred, may have helped, but weren't so much involved as to have taken part in the conspiracy. I could be misremembering, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , you have no duty to report misdemeanors ( at least in all the jurisdictions I 'm familiar with ) .
There is the crime of " misprision of a felony " at the federal level : Whoever , having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States , conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States , shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years , or both.18 USC 4.Of course , I think that language about concealing the felony is an important factor .
I was told once by a US attorney that it 's really only used against people who were around when a conspiracy occurred , may have helped , but were n't so much involved as to have taken part in the conspiracy .
I could be misremembering , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US, you have no duty to report misdemeanors (at least in all the jurisdictions I'm familiar with).
There is the crime of "misprision of a felony" at the federal level:Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.18 USC 4.Of course, I think that language about concealing the felony is an important factor.
I was told once by a US attorney that it's really only used against people who were around when a conspiracy occurred, may have helped, but weren't so much involved as to have taken part in the conspiracy.
I could be misremembering, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291429</id>
	<title>Justice...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244725140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...WTF!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...WTF !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...WTF!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292851</id>
	<title>LIke any other service industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244731800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>WE can assume that this guy was competent enough that someone would pay him to do what he's doing, which is pretty much all the government cares about. If your maid finds child p0rn in your bedroom while she's vacuuming, is her testimony ineligible because she's a non-English speaking Ukranian with a grade-school education? I mean..she could have totally planted those photos...

What about the gardener who finds a dead body under a tree? A mechanic that finds evidence of corporate fraud in the backseat?

I think we're all guilty of thinking this is a special case because it's computer related. Yeah, sure the RIAA can payoff techs to look for illegal downloads. They can also pay off your maid and your gardener to go snooping too, or GASP, a private investigator. This opens well...zero precedents that haven't already been explored since the age of paying other people to do stuff for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>WE can assume that this guy was competent enough that someone would pay him to do what he 's doing , which is pretty much all the government cares about .
If your maid finds child p0rn in your bedroom while she 's vacuuming , is her testimony ineligible because she 's a non-English speaking Ukranian with a grade-school education ?
I mean..she could have totally planted those photos.. . What about the gardener who finds a dead body under a tree ?
A mechanic that finds evidence of corporate fraud in the backseat ?
I think we 're all guilty of thinking this is a special case because it 's computer related .
Yeah , sure the RIAA can payoff techs to look for illegal downloads .
They can also pay off your maid and your gardener to go snooping too , or GASP , a private investigator .
This opens well...zero precedents that have n't already been explored since the age of paying other people to do stuff for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WE can assume that this guy was competent enough that someone would pay him to do what he's doing, which is pretty much all the government cares about.
If your maid finds child p0rn in your bedroom while she's vacuuming, is her testimony ineligible because she's a non-English speaking Ukranian with a grade-school education?
I mean..she could have totally planted those photos...

What about the gardener who finds a dead body under a tree?
A mechanic that finds evidence of corporate fraud in the backseat?
I think we're all guilty of thinking this is a special case because it's computer related.
Yeah, sure the RIAA can payoff techs to look for illegal downloads.
They can also pay off your maid and your gardener to go snooping too, or GASP, a private investigator.
This opens well...zero precedents that haven't already been explored since the age of paying other people to do stuff for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292905</id>
	<title>Not while proprietary software is involved.</title>
	<author>jbn-o</author>
	<datestamp>1244731920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One would like to believe it's that easy, but I doubt most people know enough about computing to make decisions so that they can fully control what their computer does.  Proprietary software + Internet access can easily equal someone else determining what's on someone's computer.  Proprietary software is untrustworthy by default, no amount of testing an executable binary's behavior makes that program trustworthy because the program can be written to do something undesirable after a delay.  Other than source code examination, there's no easy way to conclude that a proprietary program isn't going to grant access to someone else who could do computing on your computer without your consent.  We can't examine the source code for everything we run, but we can spread out this work so people with those skills have little incentive and opportunity to mess with others.  Therefore we all need the freedoms of free software to collectively help one another and get the best chance we're running binaries we can trust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One would like to believe it 's that easy , but I doubt most people know enough about computing to make decisions so that they can fully control what their computer does .
Proprietary software + Internet access can easily equal someone else determining what 's on someone 's computer .
Proprietary software is untrustworthy by default , no amount of testing an executable binary 's behavior makes that program trustworthy because the program can be written to do something undesirable after a delay .
Other than source code examination , there 's no easy way to conclude that a proprietary program is n't going to grant access to someone else who could do computing on your computer without your consent .
We ca n't examine the source code for everything we run , but we can spread out this work so people with those skills have little incentive and opportunity to mess with others .
Therefore we all need the freedoms of free software to collectively help one another and get the best chance we 're running binaries we can trust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One would like to believe it's that easy, but I doubt most people know enough about computing to make decisions so that they can fully control what their computer does.
Proprietary software + Internet access can easily equal someone else determining what's on someone's computer.
Proprietary software is untrustworthy by default, no amount of testing an executable binary's behavior makes that program trustworthy because the program can be written to do something undesirable after a delay.
Other than source code examination, there's no easy way to conclude that a proprietary program isn't going to grant access to someone else who could do computing on your computer without your consent.
We can't examine the source code for everything we run, but we can spread out this work so people with those skills have little incentive and opportunity to mess with others.
Therefore we all need the freedoms of free software to collectively help one another and get the best chance we're running binaries we can trust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291573</id>
	<title>what kind of defense is that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244726340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the techs should have not snooped" is a defense that implicitly admits the guy had downloaded the video. He get jailed, that's the spirit of the law.<br>What's troubling is that a pc which is tampered with by a third person, that is the tech repair guy, is then admitted as proof.<br>A random technician is elevated to the rank of police forensic tech! but how can you trust him not making mistakes (restoring somebody else's partition) or him being corrupted into intentionally downloading illegal stuff to a client PC? nevermind child porn, all you need to ruin a person are a bunch of mp3s, in this brave new world.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the techs should have not snooped " is a defense that implicitly admits the guy had downloaded the video .
He get jailed , that 's the spirit of the law.What 's troubling is that a pc which is tampered with by a third person , that is the tech repair guy , is then admitted as proof.A random technician is elevated to the rank of police forensic tech !
but how can you trust him not making mistakes ( restoring somebody else 's partition ) or him being corrupted into intentionally downloading illegal stuff to a client PC ?
nevermind child porn , all you need to ruin a person are a bunch of mp3s , in this brave new world .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the techs should have not snooped" is a defense that implicitly admits the guy had downloaded the video.
He get jailed, that's the spirit of the law.What's troubling is that a pc which is tampered with by a third person, that is the tech repair guy, is then admitted as proof.A random technician is elevated to the rank of police forensic tech!
but how can you trust him not making mistakes (restoring somebody else's partition) or him being corrupted into intentionally downloading illegal stuff to a client PC?
nevermind child porn, all you need to ruin a person are a bunch of mp3s, in this brave new world.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291705</id>
	<title>Truecrypt BEFORE you have issues</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244727240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why desktops need to have truecrypt volumes on them too.  At some point, almost everyone outside<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. readers will need to take their PC in for support.  Your Quicken files, emails, EI browsing history and **all media** will all be available to the tech.  Also, you need to encrypt your PKI keys, certs, and hopefully, passwords.</p><p>I've heard of highly organized teams searching hard drives for movies and music at computer support locations to expand their personal collections.  Same when you take your car in for service.  If you have any media left inside it, expect that media to be copied off.</p><p>I truecrypt my financial data files (quicken and stock trading).  Media isn't stored on most computers inside my home, just on the NAS, so there's really nothing on the clients besides a link to the server that is only available from inside the network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why desktops need to have truecrypt volumes on them too .
At some point , almost everyone outside / .
readers will need to take their PC in for support .
Your Quicken files , emails , EI browsing history and * * all media * * will all be available to the tech .
Also , you need to encrypt your PKI keys , certs , and hopefully , passwords.I 've heard of highly organized teams searching hard drives for movies and music at computer support locations to expand their personal collections .
Same when you take your car in for service .
If you have any media left inside it , expect that media to be copied off.I truecrypt my financial data files ( quicken and stock trading ) .
Media is n't stored on most computers inside my home , just on the NAS , so there 's really nothing on the clients besides a link to the server that is only available from inside the network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why desktops need to have truecrypt volumes on them too.
At some point, almost everyone outside /.
readers will need to take their PC in for support.
Your Quicken files, emails, EI browsing history and **all media** will all be available to the tech.
Also, you need to encrypt your PKI keys, certs, and hopefully, passwords.I've heard of highly organized teams searching hard drives for movies and music at computer support locations to expand their personal collections.
Same when you take your car in for service.
If you have any media left inside it, expect that media to be copied off.I truecrypt my financial data files (quicken and stock trading).
Media isn't stored on most computers inside my home, just on the NAS, so there's really nothing on the clients besides a link to the server that is only available from inside the network.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28295139</id>
	<title>Re:Another cause for concern...</title>
	<author>horza</author>
	<datestamp>1244740140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, this is why due process is important. If Circuit City hands the drive directly over to the police then the evidence is worthless. It would be easy for an ex-girlfriend/wife/employee to bribe the low paid employees of CC to plant such pictures and hand over the drive, and it is inevitable it will be done due to virtually no risk of getting caught.</p><p>If CC has a policy of handing back the drive and simply reporting the crime to the police, who then get a warrant and seize the computer, then there is a risk that the pictures will be found by the owner between the computer being returned and it being seized. This means the whole thing could rebound back on CC and the culprit will be found in the subsequent witch hunt. This increased risk of being caught will reduce the chance of the crime being committed.</p><p>Phillip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , this is why due process is important .
If Circuit City hands the drive directly over to the police then the evidence is worthless .
It would be easy for an ex-girlfriend/wife/employee to bribe the low paid employees of CC to plant such pictures and hand over the drive , and it is inevitable it will be done due to virtually no risk of getting caught.If CC has a policy of handing back the drive and simply reporting the crime to the police , who then get a warrant and seize the computer , then there is a risk that the pictures will be found by the owner between the computer being returned and it being seized .
This means the whole thing could rebound back on CC and the culprit will be found in the subsequent witch hunt .
This increased risk of being caught will reduce the chance of the crime being committed.Phillip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, this is why due process is important.
If Circuit City hands the drive directly over to the police then the evidence is worthless.
It would be easy for an ex-girlfriend/wife/employee to bribe the low paid employees of CC to plant such pictures and hand over the drive, and it is inevitable it will be done due to virtually no risk of getting caught.If CC has a policy of handing back the drive and simply reporting the crime to the police, who then get a warrant and seize the computer, then there is a risk that the pictures will be found by the owner between the computer being returned and it being seized.
This means the whole thing could rebound back on CC and the culprit will be found in the subsequent witch hunt.
This increased risk of being caught will reduce the chance of the crime being committed.Phillip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28295017</id>
	<title>Re:well well well</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1244739720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahem. I don't know about Limewire, but a BitTorrent client poses exactly the same risk to your system as an HTTP client. No more, no less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahem .
I do n't know about Limewire , but a BitTorrent client poses exactly the same risk to your system as an HTTP client .
No more , no less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahem.
I don't know about Limewire, but a BitTorrent client poses exactly the same risk to your system as an HTTP client.
No more, no less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292585</id>
	<title>happens a lot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244730960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was something similar in Atlanta awhile back.  A guy was walking home from his job at a local bar at 3 or 4 in the morning or so.  A bunch of teenagers get out of a cadillac with a shotgun and a pistol they confront him and he runs for it.  They follow and trapped him in an alleyway.  He kicked the shotgun out of the one guy's hands and the pistol misfired.  While he was running he managed to get a knife out of his backpack and when cornered managed to cut a couple of the teenagers.  They ran off, and took their wounded friends to the hospital.  The hospital then promptly called the police who had already been talking to the guy who was attacked.  The moral is don't go to the hospital if you are wounded doing illegal activity and don't want to get caught (and to this day I always carry a knife in my backpack unless I'm going to the airport).<br> <br>The more unfortunate thing about this story was that, despite his pleas for not to do that, the guy had his name and face plastered all over the local news as a hero, so the other gang members found out where he lived and camped out by his house.  As far as I know he had to move away, the police did manage to get some of the ones who were stalking him though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was something similar in Atlanta awhile back .
A guy was walking home from his job at a local bar at 3 or 4 in the morning or so .
A bunch of teenagers get out of a cadillac with a shotgun and a pistol they confront him and he runs for it .
They follow and trapped him in an alleyway .
He kicked the shotgun out of the one guy 's hands and the pistol misfired .
While he was running he managed to get a knife out of his backpack and when cornered managed to cut a couple of the teenagers .
They ran off , and took their wounded friends to the hospital .
The hospital then promptly called the police who had already been talking to the guy who was attacked .
The moral is do n't go to the hospital if you are wounded doing illegal activity and do n't want to get caught ( and to this day I always carry a knife in my backpack unless I 'm going to the airport ) .
The more unfortunate thing about this story was that , despite his pleas for not to do that , the guy had his name and face plastered all over the local news as a hero , so the other gang members found out where he lived and camped out by his house .
As far as I know he had to move away , the police did manage to get some of the ones who were stalking him though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was something similar in Atlanta awhile back.
A guy was walking home from his job at a local bar at 3 or 4 in the morning or so.
A bunch of teenagers get out of a cadillac with a shotgun and a pistol they confront him and he runs for it.
They follow and trapped him in an alleyway.
He kicked the shotgun out of the one guy's hands and the pistol misfired.
While he was running he managed to get a knife out of his backpack and when cornered managed to cut a couple of the teenagers.
They ran off, and took their wounded friends to the hospital.
The hospital then promptly called the police who had already been talking to the guy who was attacked.
The moral is don't go to the hospital if you are wounded doing illegal activity and don't want to get caught (and to this day I always carry a knife in my backpack unless I'm going to the airport).
The more unfortunate thing about this story was that, despite his pleas for not to do that, the guy had his name and face plastered all over the local news as a hero, so the other gang members found out where he lived and camped out by his house.
As far as I know he had to move away, the police did manage to get some of the ones who were stalking him though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294421</id>
	<title>Re:How to beat a Child Pornography Charge...</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1244737560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Its all about the kids".</p><p>BS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Its all about the kids " .BS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Its all about the kids".BS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291499</id>
	<title>From a different perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244725740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>A month ago a friend of my nephew was <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/drivers-remorse-over-students-crash-death-20090519-bcxx.html" title="theage.com.au">killed by a driver</a> [theage.com.au] in a hit and run collision (I won't call it an accident). My brother in law told me that the way the police found the driver was that her boyfriend took the car to a repair place to be resprayed in a different color. Staff at the repair place looked at the damage and called the police.<br> <br>
If you see evidence of a crime you have to call the police. Thats the law where I live.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A month ago a friend of my nephew was killed by a driver [ theage.com.au ] in a hit and run collision ( I wo n't call it an accident ) .
My brother in law told me that the way the police found the driver was that her boyfriend took the car to a repair place to be resprayed in a different color .
Staff at the repair place looked at the damage and called the police .
If you see evidence of a crime you have to call the police .
Thats the law where I live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A month ago a friend of my nephew was killed by a driver [theage.com.au] in a hit and run collision (I won't call it an accident).
My brother in law told me that the way the police found the driver was that her boyfriend took the car to a repair place to be resprayed in a different color.
Staff at the repair place looked at the damage and called the police.
If you see evidence of a crime you have to call the police.
Thats the law where I live.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291597</id>
	<title>Re:From a different perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244726580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That story is completely different to the situation here; unless the guy had child pornography as his wallpaper, the techs had to actively go looking for it, and would not find it doing the repair that he had asked for.

That said, in cases like this, I don't care whether evidence is obtained illegally or not, you committed a crime and you got caught - you should go to jail! Dismissing damning evidence on technicalities is not just.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That story is completely different to the situation here ; unless the guy had child pornography as his wallpaper , the techs had to actively go looking for it , and would not find it doing the repair that he had asked for .
That said , in cases like this , I do n't care whether evidence is obtained illegally or not , you committed a crime and you got caught - you should go to jail !
Dismissing damning evidence on technicalities is not just .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That story is completely different to the situation here; unless the guy had child pornography as his wallpaper, the techs had to actively go looking for it, and would not find it doing the repair that he had asked for.
That said, in cases like this, I don't care whether evidence is obtained illegally or not, you committed a crime and you got caught - you should go to jail!
Dismissing damning evidence on technicalities is not just.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292611</id>
	<title>Re:How to beat a Child Pornography Charge...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244731080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make sure you don't have your banking info or any credit card info there too!</p><p>THAT is something that anyone might have on their computer!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make sure you do n't have your banking info or any credit card info there too ! THAT is something that anyone might have on their computer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make sure you don't have your banking info or any credit card info there too!THAT is something that anyone might have on their computer!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292019</id>
	<title>Summary copied verbatim from Techdirt</title>
	<author>c0d3g33k</author>
	<datestamp>1244728860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... without proper attribution.  The original author was Mike Masnick, to give credit where it is due.  Interestingly, the link in the Techdirt story which pointed to the original AP story was changed in the Slashdot submission - following that link points back to the original version of itself.  I suppose that's a form of indirect attribution, but still sloppy.  And the reader has to click twice to get to the original news story.  A tiny bit of editorial review would have been helpful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... without proper attribution .
The original author was Mike Masnick , to give credit where it is due .
Interestingly , the link in the Techdirt story which pointed to the original AP story was changed in the Slashdot submission - following that link points back to the original version of itself .
I suppose that 's a form of indirect attribution , but still sloppy .
And the reader has to click twice to get to the original news story .
A tiny bit of editorial review would have been helpful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... without proper attribution.
The original author was Mike Masnick, to give credit where it is due.
Interestingly, the link in the Techdirt story which pointed to the original AP story was changed in the Slashdot submission - following that link points back to the original version of itself.
I suppose that's a form of indirect attribution, but still sloppy.
And the reader has to click twice to get to the original news story.
A tiny bit of editorial review would have been helpful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28295245</id>
	<title>"Reasonable expectation"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244740380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm very much in favor of privacy, but there has to be a comon sense rule. We don't want surveillance cameras in the street, but we also can't prohibit people from making photos in public. You don't want neighbours to spy on each other, but you can't stop them from reporting a domestic disturbance if they hear screaming. Fortunately, as far as I am aware the law pretty much does that already. Your privacy is only violated if you have a reasonable expectation of it, and while policemen aren't allowed to invade private homes to seek out crime, they can use evidence they happen on by chance (eg. drug possession after having pulled someone over for speeding).</p><p>Circuit City must not routinely search their customers' computers for criminal evidence, but if they find something in the course of their work they should report it. (That goes for criminal evidence, not evidence that could result in a civil suit if passed on.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm very much in favor of privacy , but there has to be a comon sense rule .
We do n't want surveillance cameras in the street , but we also ca n't prohibit people from making photos in public .
You do n't want neighbours to spy on each other , but you ca n't stop them from reporting a domestic disturbance if they hear screaming .
Fortunately , as far as I am aware the law pretty much does that already .
Your privacy is only violated if you have a reasonable expectation of it , and while policemen are n't allowed to invade private homes to seek out crime , they can use evidence they happen on by chance ( eg .
drug possession after having pulled someone over for speeding ) .Circuit City must not routinely search their customers ' computers for criminal evidence , but if they find something in the course of their work they should report it .
( That goes for criminal evidence , not evidence that could result in a civil suit if passed on .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm very much in favor of privacy, but there has to be a comon sense rule.
We don't want surveillance cameras in the street, but we also can't prohibit people from making photos in public.
You don't want neighbours to spy on each other, but you can't stop them from reporting a domestic disturbance if they hear screaming.
Fortunately, as far as I am aware the law pretty much does that already.
Your privacy is only violated if you have a reasonable expectation of it, and while policemen aren't allowed to invade private homes to seek out crime, they can use evidence they happen on by chance (eg.
drug possession after having pulled someone over for speeding).Circuit City must not routinely search their customers' computers for criminal evidence, but if they find something in the course of their work they should report it.
(That goes for criminal evidence, not evidence that could result in a civil suit if passed on.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291697</id>
	<title>Re:This is SO going to get abused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244727180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the government <b>required</b> the IT shop to look for that stuff and report it, I am pretty sure the Supreme Court would intervene and rule any evidence so obtained inadmissible. Such a law would move the IT shop from private citizen to government agent. The "loophole" you are referring to has existed for quite some time. <br>
It has long been accepted that if someone breaks into your house and finds evidence that you committed a crime, that evidence is admissible in court, as long as they were not asked to do so by the authorities. If the person was asked to do so by a government official, courts have ruled that they become a government agent and illegal search and seizure rules apply.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the government required the IT shop to look for that stuff and report it , I am pretty sure the Supreme Court would intervene and rule any evidence so obtained inadmissible .
Such a law would move the IT shop from private citizen to government agent .
The " loophole " you are referring to has existed for quite some time .
It has long been accepted that if someone breaks into your house and finds evidence that you committed a crime , that evidence is admissible in court , as long as they were not asked to do so by the authorities .
If the person was asked to do so by a government official , courts have ruled that they become a government agent and illegal search and seizure rules apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the government required the IT shop to look for that stuff and report it, I am pretty sure the Supreme Court would intervene and rule any evidence so obtained inadmissible.
Such a law would move the IT shop from private citizen to government agent.
The "loophole" you are referring to has existed for quite some time.
It has long been accepted that if someone breaks into your house and finds evidence that you committed a crime, that evidence is admissible in court, as long as they were not asked to do so by the authorities.
If the person was asked to do so by a government official, courts have ruled that they become a government agent and illegal search and seizure rules apply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292601</id>
	<title>Re:How to beat a Child Pornography Charge...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244731020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it worked well for those that didn't want to be charge with illegal content distribution to have no copies of recent blockbusters...</p><p>And we're not even talking about a rather clear cut law here (steer clear of content you didn't make and you shouldn't be charged... well, you can still get charged but you have an almost 100\% chance to get out clean). Look up the definition of "child porn" in your area. For me it's pretty much "anything the judge deems child porn".</p><p>So I'm at the mercy of the dirty mind of someone who probably gets to see more child porn than any heavy user of the internet, including any pedo in the world.</p><p>What's child porn? That pic of your niece in the bath (showing her only chest and up with the rest being covered by the tub)? That pic of your son at the beach in his speedos? You know, IMO the law has gone past the border between sanity and insanity when parents get charged for those kinds of pics, and teenagers for pics of their equally underage girlfriend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it worked well for those that did n't want to be charge with illegal content distribution to have no copies of recent blockbusters...And we 're not even talking about a rather clear cut law here ( steer clear of content you did n't make and you should n't be charged... well , you can still get charged but you have an almost 100 \ % chance to get out clean ) .
Look up the definition of " child porn " in your area .
For me it 's pretty much " anything the judge deems child porn " .So I 'm at the mercy of the dirty mind of someone who probably gets to see more child porn than any heavy user of the internet , including any pedo in the world.What 's child porn ?
That pic of your niece in the bath ( showing her only chest and up with the rest being covered by the tub ) ?
That pic of your son at the beach in his speedos ?
You know , IMO the law has gone past the border between sanity and insanity when parents get charged for those kinds of pics , and teenagers for pics of their equally underage girlfriend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it worked well for those that didn't want to be charge with illegal content distribution to have no copies of recent blockbusters...And we're not even talking about a rather clear cut law here (steer clear of content you didn't make and you shouldn't be charged... well, you can still get charged but you have an almost 100\% chance to get out clean).
Look up the definition of "child porn" in your area.
For me it's pretty much "anything the judge deems child porn".So I'm at the mercy of the dirty mind of someone who probably gets to see more child porn than any heavy user of the internet, including any pedo in the world.What's child porn?
That pic of your niece in the bath (showing her only chest and up with the rest being covered by the tub)?
That pic of your son at the beach in his speedos?
You know, IMO the law has gone past the border between sanity and insanity when parents get charged for those kinds of pics, and teenagers for pics of their equally underage girlfriend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28299569</id>
	<title>No government agent, no illegal search.</title>
	<author>mbstone</author>
	<datestamp>1244712300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless the person doing the search has some connection to the authorities, the Fourth Amendment doesn't come into play.  A private security guard can tackle you without probable cause, reach into your pocket, grab your contraband, and hand it over to the cops, all is admissible in evidence in your criminal case.  <i>See, e.g., In re Christopher H.</i> (Cal. App. 1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1567.</p><p>Nothing to see here, move along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless the person doing the search has some connection to the authorities , the Fourth Amendment does n't come into play .
A private security guard can tackle you without probable cause , reach into your pocket , grab your contraband , and hand it over to the cops , all is admissible in evidence in your criminal case .
See , e.g. , In re Christopher H. ( Cal. App .
1991 ) 227 Cal.App.3d 1567.Nothing to see here , move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless the person doing the search has some connection to the authorities, the Fourth Amendment doesn't come into play.
A private security guard can tackle you without probable cause, reach into your pocket, grab your contraband, and hand it over to the cops, all is admissible in evidence in your criminal case.
See, e.g., In re Christopher H. (Cal. App.
1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1567.Nothing to see here, move along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292805</id>
	<title>Re:well well well</title>
	<author>Antisyzygy</author>
	<datestamp>1244731620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I dont work at CC<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. but a larger "repair centre" in canada<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>We have, as part of our SOP, child pornography related rules.  They call them "criminal images" in the verbage, however, it is the same.  I have yet to "find" something criminal, but to my knowledge, no one goes "fishing" though a computer to look at a persons data.  I think true repair techs don't really care WHAT is on someones computer, just get paid your paycheck to fix the thing.  IF we are testing a burner and need to use data from a system (ie pictures folder) again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. drag drop, dont care what it is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. test<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. label DVD "test burn" give to customer when they come to pick it up.</p><p>After doing this for 20 years now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. I can tell you what you ALWAYS will find on a computer that comes in for "repair".
1. Lime/Frostwire - the bane of my job - and telling a "customer/uneducated person" that those types of programs make it more likely to get a virus, they immediately ask you "well, how else can I download free stuff" - my response " you can't"
2. Some sort of torrent client - see #1
3. expired/outdated or no antivirus - which leads to #4
4. massive amounts of spyware/malware/virals</p><p>This is my daily grind.  Trying to inform the public that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it makes it A: legal or B: not harmful to your computer environment - "You mean downloading all that porn got me a virus? You mean my limewire folder has massive amounts of trojans in it? ---- but I paid for it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>Sucker # 12,488 line up please<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></div><p>No kidding! The worst is working for retail IT when people bring in home computers. Small business or organization IT is much better, but you still run into idiots.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont work at CC .. but a larger " repair centre " in canada ...We have , as part of our SOP , child pornography related rules .
They call them " criminal images " in the verbage , however , it is the same .
I have yet to " find " something criminal , but to my knowledge , no one goes " fishing " though a computer to look at a persons data .
I think true repair techs do n't really care WHAT is on someones computer , just get paid your paycheck to fix the thing .
IF we are testing a burner and need to use data from a system ( ie pictures folder ) again .. drag drop , dont care what it is .. test .. label DVD " test burn " give to customer when they come to pick it up.After doing this for 20 years now .. I can tell you what you ALWAYS will find on a computer that comes in for " repair " .
1. Lime/Frostwire - the bane of my job - and telling a " customer/uneducated person " that those types of programs make it more likely to get a virus , they immediately ask you " well , how else can I download free stuff " - my response " you ca n't " 2 .
Some sort of torrent client - see # 1 3. expired/outdated or no antivirus - which leads to # 4 4. massive amounts of spyware/malware/viralsThis is my daily grind .
Trying to inform the public that just because you CAN do something does n't mean it makes it A : legal or B : not harmful to your computer environment - " You mean downloading all that porn got me a virus ?
You mean my limewire folder has massive amounts of trojans in it ?
---- but I paid for it ....Sucker # 12,488 line up please ....No kidding !
The worst is working for retail IT when people bring in home computers .
Small business or organization IT is much better , but you still run into idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont work at CC .. but a larger "repair centre" in canada ...We have, as part of our SOP, child pornography related rules.
They call them "criminal images" in the verbage, however, it is the same.
I have yet to "find" something criminal, but to my knowledge, no one goes "fishing" though a computer to look at a persons data.
I think true repair techs don't really care WHAT is on someones computer, just get paid your paycheck to fix the thing.
IF we are testing a burner and need to use data from a system (ie pictures folder) again .. drag drop, dont care what it is .. test .. label DVD "test burn" give to customer when they come to pick it up.After doing this for 20 years now .. I can tell you what you ALWAYS will find on a computer that comes in for "repair".
1. Lime/Frostwire - the bane of my job - and telling a "customer/uneducated person" that those types of programs make it more likely to get a virus, they immediately ask you "well, how else can I download free stuff" - my response " you can't"
2.
Some sort of torrent client - see #1
3. expired/outdated or no antivirus - which leads to #4
4. massive amounts of spyware/malware/viralsThis is my daily grind.
Trying to inform the public that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it makes it A: legal or B: not harmful to your computer environment - "You mean downloading all that porn got me a virus?
You mean my limewire folder has massive amounts of trojans in it?
---- but I paid for it ....Sucker # 12,488 line up please ....No kidding!
The worst is working for retail IT when people bring in home computers.
Small business or organization IT is much better, but you still run into idiots.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28297439</id>
	<title>Re:This is SO going to get abused</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1244747940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but imagine the RIAA buying themselves some laws requiring techs to report file sharing software and MP3's...</p></div><p>Why would they need to do that?  Every computer has unlicensed MP3s on it, almost by definition.  If the computer's owner is under 30 or the computer can be accessed by someone under 30, there is certainly illegally downloaded music on it.</p><p>Problem is, RIAA doesn't care about downloading.  All they care about is distribution, proven over and over again.  So get your music from offshore distributors and you are fine.  Oh, and don't distribute.  Nothing the RIAA can do about that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but imagine the RIAA buying themselves some laws requiring techs to report file sharing software and MP3 's...Why would they need to do that ?
Every computer has unlicensed MP3s on it , almost by definition .
If the computer 's owner is under 30 or the computer can be accessed by someone under 30 , there is certainly illegally downloaded music on it.Problem is , RIAA does n't care about downloading .
All they care about is distribution , proven over and over again .
So get your music from offshore distributors and you are fine .
Oh , and do n't distribute .
Nothing the RIAA can do about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but imagine the RIAA buying themselves some laws requiring techs to report file sharing software and MP3's...Why would they need to do that?
Every computer has unlicensed MP3s on it, almost by definition.
If the computer's owner is under 30 or the computer can be accessed by someone under 30, there is certainly illegally downloaded music on it.Problem is, RIAA doesn't care about downloading.
All they care about is distribution, proven over and over again.
So get your music from offshore distributors and you are fine.
Oh, and don't distribute.
Nothing the RIAA can do about that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291637</id>
	<title>Re:Easy solution</title>
	<author>QCompson</author>
	<datestamp>1244726820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until the circuit city lackey starts to comb through thumbnail images in your browser cache and sees something that <i>might</i> be considered child porn, so he calls the police, who are anxious to bust some scary pedos and take you into custody.  Presto!  Your life is ruined!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until the circuit city lackey starts to comb through thumbnail images in your browser cache and sees something that might be considered child porn , so he calls the police , who are anxious to bust some scary pedos and take you into custody .
Presto ! Your life is ruined !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until the circuit city lackey starts to comb through thumbnail images in your browser cache and sees something that might be considered child porn, so he calls the police, who are anxious to bust some scary pedos and take you into custody.
Presto!  Your life is ruined!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28316713</id>
	<title>Court was wrong, as they cannot be partially right</title>
	<author>lsatenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1244819820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no proof that between the time the computer was handed in, and the technician discovered the files, that the system was never out of his hands, and that one or other at his employment deposited the files therein.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no proof that between the time the computer was handed in , and the technician discovered the files , that the system was never out of his hands , and that one or other at his employment deposited the files therein .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no proof that between the time the computer was handed in, and the technician discovered the files, that the system was never out of his hands, and that one or other at his employment deposited the files therein.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292503</id>
	<title>I would love..</title>
	<author>NervousNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1244730660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would love if a Microsoft developer went to Circuit City to get their computer fixed they had some Microsoft source code on that machine, and the tech fixing the machine hated Microsoft...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love if a Microsoft developer went to Circuit City to get their computer fixed they had some Microsoft source code on that machine , and the tech fixing the machine hated Microsoft.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love if a Microsoft developer went to Circuit City to get their computer fixed they had some Microsoft source code on that machine, and the tech fixing the machine hated Microsoft...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292999</id>
	<title>Subjective</title>
	<author>ledow</author>
	<datestamp>1244732280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like all things, this can't be a blanket warning - you can't say "tech's can do what they want your computer" (Data Protection Act, etc. would then pretty much mean that you could NEVER use an external tech), and you can't say "tech's can ignore illegal content they find accidentally".</p><p>Let's have a car analogy - If you put your car into service, and the garage finds bloodspots in the boot or bits of flesh or a dead body, damn yes they should be calling the cops to take it further.  But should they be scraping DNA off the handles and running it through the national databases?  No.</p><p>If I was to stumble across something illegal, or some outside factor made me suspect, I would expect to be able to use that as evidence.  To not be able to because it might invade the person's privacy is stupid.  Similarly, allowing me a license to snoop into anything I want just because I've been asked to look at a computer is stupid (much like a garage mechanic pulling your GPS logs from your car and seeing everywhere you've been when you only took it in to change a bulb).  And in this case, it's suggested/assumed/proven? that the technician in question was doing things reasonably in line with his job.</p><p>Quite often I will open the first document in My Documents, or load up the first image I find in order to check file associations etc. work - I usually ask for an "example" file for the problem that the user then points me to, but if the user isn't around, I have to just pick one at random.  Hell, I've searched for "a" in the Find File dialogs before now and then hit the first file that crops up.  If I'm restoring backups, or copying files, I *need* to do this to ensure my job was done properly.  The tech did nothing wrong here, unless they were snooping into every folder just on the off-chance of finding something.  If the customer's manner or the programs installed, or even just a vague hint in an email they happened to flick through while checking the connection worked suggested that illegal content was on the computer, then the tech is in a very tricky position.  They can't just ignore the possibility and they can't go reporting grandmas to the police because of a bit of misdirected spam.  If the AV finds a virus on a machine in a file named "underage girls" or similar and pops it up in a big red warning message, then that tech HAS to be certain of what that contains.  If it's illegal, when he DOES report it the current law in most countries means he'll be crapping himself until the trial in case the police decide to arrest him for having seen it.</p><p>As an example that I've dealt with:  A staff laptop had a virus.  In order to get at the data on the machine, I had to look up the virus details and block its entry points and get a list of files that would be *potentially* infected by it (this was all done on an enclosed system, obviously, but the laptop had been running with the virus for several days).  The list of possibly affected files happened to include "randomly-created filenames" in some sub-folders of Windows.  When I checked whether they existed, I found a randomly-named subdir with thousands of sub-folders, each with hundreds of large files in.  The names of the folders hinted at the sort of illegal activity we're discussing here.  In the end, it was actually quite innocent because the folders were Kazaa honey-traps - the virus ran a P2P client and hoped to trick people into downloading copies of itself by putting itself in files/folders named after other things it found on Kazaa (which happened to include some extremely illegal stuff).  Do you report that to the police or not?  Does a named folder automatically incriminate a user even if they're unaware of its existence?  Is it worth wasting police time checking *every* computer that gets that virus for every filename and having it run through a police lab, possibly taking months or years to come back with a result?  (Wasting police time is an offence, too, you know).</p><p>Everything comes down to "reasonable" behaviour.  Is it reasonable for someone who do</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like all things , this ca n't be a blanket warning - you ca n't say " tech 's can do what they want your computer " ( Data Protection Act , etc .
would then pretty much mean that you could NEVER use an external tech ) , and you ca n't say " tech 's can ignore illegal content they find accidentally " .Let 's have a car analogy - If you put your car into service , and the garage finds bloodspots in the boot or bits of flesh or a dead body , damn yes they should be calling the cops to take it further .
But should they be scraping DNA off the handles and running it through the national databases ?
No.If I was to stumble across something illegal , or some outside factor made me suspect , I would expect to be able to use that as evidence .
To not be able to because it might invade the person 's privacy is stupid .
Similarly , allowing me a license to snoop into anything I want just because I 've been asked to look at a computer is stupid ( much like a garage mechanic pulling your GPS logs from your car and seeing everywhere you 've been when you only took it in to change a bulb ) .
And in this case , it 's suggested/assumed/proven ?
that the technician in question was doing things reasonably in line with his job.Quite often I will open the first document in My Documents , or load up the first image I find in order to check file associations etc .
work - I usually ask for an " example " file for the problem that the user then points me to , but if the user is n't around , I have to just pick one at random .
Hell , I 've searched for " a " in the Find File dialogs before now and then hit the first file that crops up .
If I 'm restoring backups , or copying files , I * need * to do this to ensure my job was done properly .
The tech did nothing wrong here , unless they were snooping into every folder just on the off-chance of finding something .
If the customer 's manner or the programs installed , or even just a vague hint in an email they happened to flick through while checking the connection worked suggested that illegal content was on the computer , then the tech is in a very tricky position .
They ca n't just ignore the possibility and they ca n't go reporting grandmas to the police because of a bit of misdirected spam .
If the AV finds a virus on a machine in a file named " underage girls " or similar and pops it up in a big red warning message , then that tech HAS to be certain of what that contains .
If it 's illegal , when he DOES report it the current law in most countries means he 'll be crapping himself until the trial in case the police decide to arrest him for having seen it.As an example that I 've dealt with : A staff laptop had a virus .
In order to get at the data on the machine , I had to look up the virus details and block its entry points and get a list of files that would be * potentially * infected by it ( this was all done on an enclosed system , obviously , but the laptop had been running with the virus for several days ) .
The list of possibly affected files happened to include " randomly-created filenames " in some sub-folders of Windows .
When I checked whether they existed , I found a randomly-named subdir with thousands of sub-folders , each with hundreds of large files in .
The names of the folders hinted at the sort of illegal activity we 're discussing here .
In the end , it was actually quite innocent because the folders were Kazaa honey-traps - the virus ran a P2P client and hoped to trick people into downloading copies of itself by putting itself in files/folders named after other things it found on Kazaa ( which happened to include some extremely illegal stuff ) .
Do you report that to the police or not ?
Does a named folder automatically incriminate a user even if they 're unaware of its existence ?
Is it worth wasting police time checking * every * computer that gets that virus for every filename and having it run through a police lab , possibly taking months or years to come back with a result ?
( Wasting police time is an offence , too , you know ) .Everything comes down to " reasonable " behaviour .
Is it reasonable for someone who do</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like all things, this can't be a blanket warning - you can't say "tech's can do what they want your computer" (Data Protection Act, etc.
would then pretty much mean that you could NEVER use an external tech), and you can't say "tech's can ignore illegal content they find accidentally".Let's have a car analogy - If you put your car into service, and the garage finds bloodspots in the boot or bits of flesh or a dead body, damn yes they should be calling the cops to take it further.
But should they be scraping DNA off the handles and running it through the national databases?
No.If I was to stumble across something illegal, or some outside factor made me suspect, I would expect to be able to use that as evidence.
To not be able to because it might invade the person's privacy is stupid.
Similarly, allowing me a license to snoop into anything I want just because I've been asked to look at a computer is stupid (much like a garage mechanic pulling your GPS logs from your car and seeing everywhere you've been when you only took it in to change a bulb).
And in this case, it's suggested/assumed/proven?
that the technician in question was doing things reasonably in line with his job.Quite often I will open the first document in My Documents, or load up the first image I find in order to check file associations etc.
work - I usually ask for an "example" file for the problem that the user then points me to, but if the user isn't around, I have to just pick one at random.
Hell, I've searched for "a" in the Find File dialogs before now and then hit the first file that crops up.
If I'm restoring backups, or copying files, I *need* to do this to ensure my job was done properly.
The tech did nothing wrong here, unless they were snooping into every folder just on the off-chance of finding something.
If the customer's manner or the programs installed, or even just a vague hint in an email they happened to flick through while checking the connection worked suggested that illegal content was on the computer, then the tech is in a very tricky position.
They can't just ignore the possibility and they can't go reporting grandmas to the police because of a bit of misdirected spam.
If the AV finds a virus on a machine in a file named "underage girls" or similar and pops it up in a big red warning message, then that tech HAS to be certain of what that contains.
If it's illegal, when he DOES report it the current law in most countries means he'll be crapping himself until the trial in case the police decide to arrest him for having seen it.As an example that I've dealt with:  A staff laptop had a virus.
In order to get at the data on the machine, I had to look up the virus details and block its entry points and get a list of files that would be *potentially* infected by it (this was all done on an enclosed system, obviously, but the laptop had been running with the virus for several days).
The list of possibly affected files happened to include "randomly-created filenames" in some sub-folders of Windows.
When I checked whether they existed, I found a randomly-named subdir with thousands of sub-folders, each with hundreds of large files in.
The names of the folders hinted at the sort of illegal activity we're discussing here.
In the end, it was actually quite innocent because the folders were Kazaa honey-traps - the virus ran a P2P client and hoped to trick people into downloading copies of itself by putting itself in files/folders named after other things it found on Kazaa (which happened to include some extremely illegal stuff).
Do you report that to the police or not?
Does a named folder automatically incriminate a user even if they're unaware of its existence?
Is it worth wasting police time checking *every* computer that gets that virus for every filename and having it run through a police lab, possibly taking months or years to come back with a result?
(Wasting police time is an offence, too, you know).Everything comes down to "reasonable" behaviour.
Is it reasonable for someone who do</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292517</id>
	<title>Fixed evidence?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244730720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anybody stopped to think that the tech might have planted the child porn on the computer? I could see a few reasons for this:</p><p>- The person turning in the computer for repair is the grandfather of someone who pissed you off in high school.<br>- He's turning in the computer for the fifth time to fix the "cyberspace gigarams", and you want to bring it to a stop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anybody stopped to think that the tech might have planted the child porn on the computer ?
I could see a few reasons for this : - The person turning in the computer for repair is the grandfather of someone who pissed you off in high school.- He 's turning in the computer for the fifth time to fix the " cyberspace gigarams " , and you want to bring it to a stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anybody stopped to think that the tech might have planted the child porn on the computer?
I could see a few reasons for this:- The person turning in the computer for repair is the grandfather of someone who pissed you off in high school.- He's turning in the computer for the fifth time to fix the "cyberspace gigarams", and you want to bring it to a stop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294079</id>
	<title>Remove Hard Drive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244736180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm about to have a PC shop remove my heatsink and re-goop my CPU because I don't want the risk of breaking/cracking my CPU on my hands.  I'm going to remove my harddrives before I take it to them.  My data is *not* their business, whatever it may be (and no, I really don't have any pron on this PC, especially not child pron).<br>IMHO, you are a stoopid ID10T if you need someone to install software for you.  Most sw has very simple instructions for installation PRINTED RIGHT ON THE MEDIA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm about to have a PC shop remove my heatsink and re-goop my CPU because I do n't want the risk of breaking/cracking my CPU on my hands .
I 'm going to remove my harddrives before I take it to them .
My data is * not * their business , whatever it may be ( and no , I really do n't have any pron on this PC , especially not child pron ) .IMHO , you are a stoopid ID10T if you need someone to install software for you .
Most sw has very simple instructions for installation PRINTED RIGHT ON THE MEDIA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm about to have a PC shop remove my heatsink and re-goop my CPU because I don't want the risk of breaking/cracking my CPU on my hands.
I'm going to remove my harddrives before I take it to them.
My data is *not* their business, whatever it may be (and no, I really don't have any pron on this PC, especially not child pron).IMHO, you are a stoopid ID10T if you need someone to install software for you.
Most sw has very simple instructions for installation PRINTED RIGHT ON THE MEDIA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291761</id>
	<title>It's a huge barrel of worms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244727660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Years ago, I worked for $BIG\_PHARMA, and in one of the labs, there was a shared printer and some shared PCs. Each PC required a user to log in, using their own credentials.

</p><p>One day, one of the female scientists walked over to the printer to retrieve some print jobs, and found full-color pr0n prints sitting on the printer that someone had printed from one of the shared PCs in that lab.

</p><p>An investigation ensued, and they found the offending machine, but couldn't pinpoint who had actually browsed to the site or printed the images. What they did find, was a VERY organized local directory of pr0n on the machine.

</p><p>When they were looking through the upstream proxy and web logs, they found the site that the images were sourced from, found the date and time they were viewed and requested, etc. They finally figured out who the culpret was... and terminated him.

</p><p> <em> <strong>HOWEVER</strong> </em>, they also found <em>hundreds</em> of other PCs across the company visiting the same site all over the logs, including some VERY high-level directors.

</p><p>So now what do you do? Do you just fire the one person who was caught because of the reported incident, or do you start firing everybody because they're guilty of the same "offense" (browsing restricted content on company resources).

</p><p>I don't know how it ended up, but I do know a lot of people were talked to and put on probation/had their public web browsing rights restricted or removed (only internal/intranet allowed).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Years ago , I worked for $ BIG \ _PHARMA , and in one of the labs , there was a shared printer and some shared PCs .
Each PC required a user to log in , using their own credentials .
One day , one of the female scientists walked over to the printer to retrieve some print jobs , and found full-color pr0n prints sitting on the printer that someone had printed from one of the shared PCs in that lab .
An investigation ensued , and they found the offending machine , but could n't pinpoint who had actually browsed to the site or printed the images .
What they did find , was a VERY organized local directory of pr0n on the machine .
When they were looking through the upstream proxy and web logs , they found the site that the images were sourced from , found the date and time they were viewed and requested , etc .
They finally figured out who the culpret was... and terminated him .
HOWEVER , they also found hundreds of other PCs across the company visiting the same site all over the logs , including some VERY high-level directors .
So now what do you do ?
Do you just fire the one person who was caught because of the reported incident , or do you start firing everybody because they 're guilty of the same " offense " ( browsing restricted content on company resources ) .
I do n't know how it ended up , but I do know a lot of people were talked to and put on probation/had their public web browsing rights restricted or removed ( only internal/intranet allowed ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Years ago, I worked for $BIG\_PHARMA, and in one of the labs, there was a shared printer and some shared PCs.
Each PC required a user to log in, using their own credentials.
One day, one of the female scientists walked over to the printer to retrieve some print jobs, and found full-color pr0n prints sitting on the printer that someone had printed from one of the shared PCs in that lab.
An investigation ensued, and they found the offending machine, but couldn't pinpoint who had actually browsed to the site or printed the images.
What they did find, was a VERY organized local directory of pr0n on the machine.
When they were looking through the upstream proxy and web logs, they found the site that the images were sourced from, found the date and time they were viewed and requested, etc.
They finally figured out who the culpret was... and terminated him.
HOWEVER , they also found hundreds of other PCs across the company visiting the same site all over the logs, including some VERY high-level directors.
So now what do you do?
Do you just fire the one person who was caught because of the reported incident, or do you start firing everybody because they're guilty of the same "offense" (browsing restricted content on company resources).
I don't know how it ended up, but I do know a lot of people were talked to and put on probation/had their public web browsing rights restricted or removed (only internal/intranet allowed).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292133</id>
	<title>Re:Another cause for concern...</title>
	<author>cheftw</author>
	<datestamp>1244729340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Solution: Good practise,</p><p>1. Always keep backup images<br>2. Never give your computer (or root) to someone you don't trust.</p><p>They should teach that in school rather than how to do a textbox in MS Word</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Solution : Good practise,1 .
Always keep backup images2 .
Never give your computer ( or root ) to someone you do n't trust.They should teach that in school rather than how to do a textbox in MS Word</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solution: Good practise,1.
Always keep backup images2.
Never give your computer (or root) to someone you don't trust.They should teach that in school rather than how to do a textbox in MS Word</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291551</id>
	<title>This is SO going to get abused</title>
	<author>WCMI92</author>
	<datestamp>1244726160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I certainly despite people who desire or who peddle in child porn (and that includes the government "sting" entrappers themselves who are the LARGEST distributor of the stuff in the country, and who keep the largest amount of it around) this decision dumps barrels of oil onto the slippery slope.</p><p>I guarantee that the aforementioned "stingers" are going to start pressuring IT shops to search for the disgusting stuff and report to them.  I can even see localities passing laws REQUIRING technicians to search hard drives for illegal material, and probably not just porn, but imagine the RIAA buying themselves some laws requiring techs to report file sharing software and MP3's...</p><p>It's a HUGE loophole that needs to be closed.  If the evidence would be inadmissible in a criminal court if government actors collected it in that manner (ie: no warrant, no probable cause, no witnessing something happening in front of them) then evidence collected by civilians passed to the government should also be inadmissible.  Indeed, in those circumstances, a citizen getting involved in law enforcement by implication is part of the "unorganized militia" and should be subject to the same limitations because they ARE, in effect, a government actor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I certainly despite people who desire or who peddle in child porn ( and that includes the government " sting " entrappers themselves who are the LARGEST distributor of the stuff in the country , and who keep the largest amount of it around ) this decision dumps barrels of oil onto the slippery slope.I guarantee that the aforementioned " stingers " are going to start pressuring IT shops to search for the disgusting stuff and report to them .
I can even see localities passing laws REQUIRING technicians to search hard drives for illegal material , and probably not just porn , but imagine the RIAA buying themselves some laws requiring techs to report file sharing software and MP3 's...It 's a HUGE loophole that needs to be closed .
If the evidence would be inadmissible in a criminal court if government actors collected it in that manner ( ie : no warrant , no probable cause , no witnessing something happening in front of them ) then evidence collected by civilians passed to the government should also be inadmissible .
Indeed , in those circumstances , a citizen getting involved in law enforcement by implication is part of the " unorganized militia " and should be subject to the same limitations because they ARE , in effect , a government actor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I certainly despite people who desire or who peddle in child porn (and that includes the government "sting" entrappers themselves who are the LARGEST distributor of the stuff in the country, and who keep the largest amount of it around) this decision dumps barrels of oil onto the slippery slope.I guarantee that the aforementioned "stingers" are going to start pressuring IT shops to search for the disgusting stuff and report to them.
I can even see localities passing laws REQUIRING technicians to search hard drives for illegal material, and probably not just porn, but imagine the RIAA buying themselves some laws requiring techs to report file sharing software and MP3's...It's a HUGE loophole that needs to be closed.
If the evidence would be inadmissible in a criminal court if government actors collected it in that manner (ie: no warrant, no probable cause, no witnessing something happening in front of them) then evidence collected by civilians passed to the government should also be inadmissible.
Indeed, in those circumstances, a citizen getting involved in law enforcement by implication is part of the "unorganized militia" and should be subject to the same limitations because they ARE, in effect, a government actor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294109</id>
	<title>i hope the mpaa/riaa does not get wind of this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244736300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>imagine if they offer a reward to repair techs for information of people who may have "illegally obtained" music or movies. this was not taken up by SCOTUS because most of them are not tech savvy and fail to realize the importance of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>imagine if they offer a reward to repair techs for information of people who may have " illegally obtained " music or movies .
this was not taken up by SCOTUS because most of them are not tech savvy and fail to realize the importance of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>imagine if they offer a reward to repair techs for information of people who may have "illegally obtained" music or movies.
this was not taken up by SCOTUS because most of them are not tech savvy and fail to realize the importance of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294055</id>
	<title>Crucial point</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1244736120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The police were not the ones who illegally searched his computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The police were not the ones who illegally searched his computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The police were not the ones who illegally searched his computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292769</id>
	<title>yes but the tech is also guilty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244731500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a technician finds child pornography during the course of performing work on a said computer unrelated to the stored data in question, it should be admissible. However the technician should also be held accountable ie; charged with trespass or the electronic equivalent if he or she has no legitimate need to look at said data in the course of his or her work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a technician finds child pornography during the course of performing work on a said computer unrelated to the stored data in question , it should be admissible .
However the technician should also be held accountable ie ; charged with trespass or the electronic equivalent if he or she has no legitimate need to look at said data in the course of his or her work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a technician finds child pornography during the course of performing work on a said computer unrelated to the stored data in question, it should be admissible.
However the technician should also be held accountable ie; charged with trespass or the electronic equivalent if he or she has no legitimate need to look at said data in the course of his or her work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293409</id>
	<title>The real crime here</title>
	<author>Disstress</author>
	<datestamp>1244733660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>is that people actually pay to install a DVD player on a computer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>is that people actually pay to install a DVD player on a computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that people actually pay to install a DVD player on a computer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294495</id>
	<title>Icelandic laws...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244737800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a techy in Iceland my office has had some incidents of similar nature.</p><p>Fortuneatly, Icelandic law states that if child pornography is found the technician is bound by law to inform the police.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a techy in Iceland my office has had some incidents of similar nature.Fortuneatly , Icelandic law states that if child pornography is found the technician is bound by law to inform the police .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a techy in Iceland my office has had some incidents of similar nature.Fortuneatly, Icelandic law states that if child pornography is found the technician is bound by law to inform the police.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294939</id>
	<title>No sympathy from me</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1244739420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Knowing that I have no expectation of privacy when I send my computer to someone else, I wiped my drive and used the system restore disk when I had to send a laptop back to the company...and that was because I didn't want the techs going through my Quicken files. This loser was doing something he knew was illegal, yet sent it in anyway. Notwithstanding the fact that people who jerk it to kids (creating the market for child porn) deserve to have their genitalia attacked with a weed whacker, the dipshit can't expect constitutional protection from someone who wasn't acting as an agent of the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Knowing that I have no expectation of privacy when I send my computer to someone else , I wiped my drive and used the system restore disk when I had to send a laptop back to the company...and that was because I did n't want the techs going through my Quicken files .
This loser was doing something he knew was illegal , yet sent it in anyway .
Notwithstanding the fact that people who jerk it to kids ( creating the market for child porn ) deserve to have their genitalia attacked with a weed whacker , the dipshit ca n't expect constitutional protection from someone who was n't acting as an agent of the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knowing that I have no expectation of privacy when I send my computer to someone else, I wiped my drive and used the system restore disk when I had to send a laptop back to the company...and that was because I didn't want the techs going through my Quicken files.
This loser was doing something he knew was illegal, yet sent it in anyway.
Notwithstanding the fact that people who jerk it to kids (creating the market for child porn) deserve to have their genitalia attacked with a weed whacker, the dipshit can't expect constitutional protection from someone who wasn't acting as an agent of the government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293575</id>
	<title>Re:This is SO going to get abused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244734320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> If the evidence would be inadmissible in a criminal court if government actors collected it in that manner (ie: no warrant, no probable cause, no witnessing something happening in front of them) then evidence collected by civilians passed to the government should also be inadmissible.</i></p><p>Do you include such cases as the infamous 'burgular finds a corpse' scenario?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the evidence would be inadmissible in a criminal court if government actors collected it in that manner ( ie : no warrant , no probable cause , no witnessing something happening in front of them ) then evidence collected by civilians passed to the government should also be inadmissible.Do you include such cases as the infamous 'burgular finds a corpse ' scenario ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If the evidence would be inadmissible in a criminal court if government actors collected it in that manner (ie: no warrant, no probable cause, no witnessing something happening in front of them) then evidence collected by civilians passed to the government should also be inadmissible.Do you include such cases as the infamous 'burgular finds a corpse' scenario?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291599</id>
	<title>Re:From a different perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244726640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is jaywalking a crime? How bout spitting on the sidewalk? Littering?</p><p>You must be on the phone a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is jaywalking a crime ?
How bout spitting on the sidewalk ?
Littering ? You must be on the phone a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is jaywalking a crime?
How bout spitting on the sidewalk?
Littering?You must be on the phone a lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291935</id>
	<title>Re:Another cause for concern...</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1244728500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But that's not an issue here. According to the summary (I'm not going to go digging through actual court filings), the guy argued that CC didn't have a right to snoop. He didn't argue that the evidence was untrustworthy because of the chain of custody. Thus, your point doesn't touch on this case (you can't introduce new theories in further appeals; you're limited to what you argued originally).</p><p>A better lawyer would have argued that and likely would have won.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that 's not an issue here .
According to the summary ( I 'm not going to go digging through actual court filings ) , the guy argued that CC did n't have a right to snoop .
He did n't argue that the evidence was untrustworthy because of the chain of custody .
Thus , your point does n't touch on this case ( you ca n't introduce new theories in further appeals ; you 're limited to what you argued originally ) .A better lawyer would have argued that and likely would have won .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that's not an issue here.
According to the summary (I'm not going to go digging through actual court filings), the guy argued that CC didn't have a right to snoop.
He didn't argue that the evidence was untrustworthy because of the chain of custody.
Thus, your point doesn't touch on this case (you can't introduce new theories in further appeals; you're limited to what you argued originally).A better lawyer would have argued that and likely would have won.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28302289</id>
	<title>It all depends...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244723760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on a lot of things in computer repair. I work with a large computer repair company. In the case of doing work on a machine, where a DVD install was done, the owner probably Windows Media Player as the default DVD player. In a lot of cases, units will autorun the DVD - but in certain cases you may have to go to the disc through "menu" in the menu bar. WMP ALWAYS has a "recently opened" list of movies, and sounds. One time that got me busted in a relationship since the GF was against the idea of Porn (degrading to women, men, animals - blah, blah, blah). The Firedog guys probably saw it and saw file name "14 year old (insert filth here)" and had to report it to a supervisor. That is normally the case. Geek Squad has a clause in the terms and conditions that says when CP is found, they will hand the unit over to the police. Circuit City/Firedog probably had the same thing.</p><p>In cases where I've come across something (and people - not A person - have left the files on the DESKTOP) I have contacted police.</p><p>It always depends on the situation and what is being done, but I don't go searching for it. IF it is found, that unit is now in local law enforcements hands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on a lot of things in computer repair .
I work with a large computer repair company .
In the case of doing work on a machine , where a DVD install was done , the owner probably Windows Media Player as the default DVD player .
In a lot of cases , units will autorun the DVD - but in certain cases you may have to go to the disc through " menu " in the menu bar .
WMP ALWAYS has a " recently opened " list of movies , and sounds .
One time that got me busted in a relationship since the GF was against the idea of Porn ( degrading to women , men , animals - blah , blah , blah ) .
The Firedog guys probably saw it and saw file name " 14 year old ( insert filth here ) " and had to report it to a supervisor .
That is normally the case .
Geek Squad has a clause in the terms and conditions that says when CP is found , they will hand the unit over to the police .
Circuit City/Firedog probably had the same thing.In cases where I 've come across something ( and people - not A person - have left the files on the DESKTOP ) I have contacted police.It always depends on the situation and what is being done , but I do n't go searching for it .
IF it is found , that unit is now in local law enforcements hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on a lot of things in computer repair.
I work with a large computer repair company.
In the case of doing work on a machine, where a DVD install was done, the owner probably Windows Media Player as the default DVD player.
In a lot of cases, units will autorun the DVD - but in certain cases you may have to go to the disc through "menu" in the menu bar.
WMP ALWAYS has a "recently opened" list of movies, and sounds.
One time that got me busted in a relationship since the GF was against the idea of Porn (degrading to women, men, animals - blah, blah, blah).
The Firedog guys probably saw it and saw file name "14 year old (insert filth here)" and had to report it to a supervisor.
That is normally the case.
Geek Squad has a clause in the terms and conditions that says when CP is found, they will hand the unit over to the police.
Circuit City/Firedog probably had the same thing.In cases where I've come across something (and people - not A person - have left the files on the DESKTOP) I have contacted police.It always depends on the situation and what is being done, but I don't go searching for it.
IF it is found, that unit is now in local law enforcements hands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294639</id>
	<title>Re:Justice...</title>
	<author>Mister Whirly</author>
	<datestamp>1244738280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A pervert has been punished. What more justice does anyone need?</p></div><p>

The kind of justice where the prosecutors follow the established set of rules.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A pervert has been punished .
What more justice does anyone need ?
The kind of justice where the prosecutors follow the established set of rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A pervert has been punished.
What more justice does anyone need?
The kind of justice where the prosecutors follow the established set of rules.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28304481</id>
	<title>Re:How to beat a Child Pornography Charge...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244742720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Condsidering having pictures of your babies or kids bathing has considered CP and made life miserable for people, you are missing the point. You may decide not to have CP on your computer, but someone else may decide that what you had is actually CP. The nightmare begins, and good luck on cleaning your name after that.</p><p>Insightful? Really?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Condsidering having pictures of your babies or kids bathing has considered CP and made life miserable for people , you are missing the point .
You may decide not to have CP on your computer , but someone else may decide that what you had is actually CP .
The nightmare begins , and good luck on cleaning your name after that.Insightful ?
Really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Condsidering having pictures of your babies or kids bathing has considered CP and made life miserable for people, you are missing the point.
You may decide not to have CP on your computer, but someone else may decide that what you had is actually CP.
The nightmare begins, and good luck on cleaning your name after that.Insightful?
Really?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291865</id>
	<title>Re:From a different perspective</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1244728260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>unless the guy had child pornography as his wallpaper, the techs had to actively go looking for it, and would not find it doing the repair that he had asked for.</p></div></blockquote><p>Did you conduct the repair? How do you know the pics weren't on his desktop? (granted I didn't RTFA in glorious<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. tradition)</p><blockquote><div><p>Dismissing damning evidence on technicalities is not just.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's very short-sighted. Technicalities exist for a reason, and that is to provide long-term security against infringement of rights. Here, there is no technicality upon which to dismiss the charge. The guy's lawyer tried to create a new technicality, and the courts didn't agree. But technicalities exist for a reason (assuming we're in an ideal world where lawmakers do not get bribed or make mistakes, inb4slashdotcynicism), and to do away with a technicality because in a handful of instances we'd get an unjust result would be more detrimental than to let that handful of people go freely when we "know" they did it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>unless the guy had child pornography as his wallpaper , the techs had to actively go looking for it , and would not find it doing the repair that he had asked for.Did you conduct the repair ?
How do you know the pics were n't on his desktop ?
( granted I did n't RTFA in glorious / .
tradition ) Dismissing damning evidence on technicalities is not just.That 's very short-sighted .
Technicalities exist for a reason , and that is to provide long-term security against infringement of rights .
Here , there is no technicality upon which to dismiss the charge .
The guy 's lawyer tried to create a new technicality , and the courts did n't agree .
But technicalities exist for a reason ( assuming we 're in an ideal world where lawmakers do not get bribed or make mistakes , inb4slashdotcynicism ) , and to do away with a technicality because in a handful of instances we 'd get an unjust result would be more detrimental than to let that handful of people go freely when we " know " they did it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unless the guy had child pornography as his wallpaper, the techs had to actively go looking for it, and would not find it doing the repair that he had asked for.Did you conduct the repair?
How do you know the pics weren't on his desktop?
(granted I didn't RTFA in glorious /.
tradition)Dismissing damning evidence on technicalities is not just.That's very short-sighted.
Technicalities exist for a reason, and that is to provide long-term security against infringement of rights.
Here, there is no technicality upon which to dismiss the charge.
The guy's lawyer tried to create a new technicality, and the courts didn't agree.
But technicalities exist for a reason (assuming we're in an ideal world where lawmakers do not get bribed or make mistakes, inb4slashdotcynicism), and to do away with a technicality because in a handful of instances we'd get an unjust result would be more detrimental than to let that handful of people go freely when we "know" they did it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293033</id>
	<title>Re:From a different perspective</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1244732400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That said, in cases like this, I don't care whether evidence is obtained illegally or not, you committed a crime and you got caught - you should go to jail! Dismissing damning evidence on technicalities is not just.</i></p><p>That's fair, as long as you prosecute those who gathered the evidence illegally for their crimes.  If in every case where currently evidence would be dismissed under the exclusionary rule, instead a cop went to jail for breaking and entering or whatever, I think they'd be a lot more careful about how they gathered evidence.</p><p>If evidence is gathered illegally, you have two criminals.  The criminal under investigation, and the criminal investigating that criminal.  If you really want to be tough on crime, prosecute them both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That said , in cases like this , I do n't care whether evidence is obtained illegally or not , you committed a crime and you got caught - you should go to jail !
Dismissing damning evidence on technicalities is not just.That 's fair , as long as you prosecute those who gathered the evidence illegally for their crimes .
If in every case where currently evidence would be dismissed under the exclusionary rule , instead a cop went to jail for breaking and entering or whatever , I think they 'd be a lot more careful about how they gathered evidence.If evidence is gathered illegally , you have two criminals .
The criminal under investigation , and the criminal investigating that criminal .
If you really want to be tough on crime , prosecute them both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That said, in cases like this, I don't care whether evidence is obtained illegally or not, you committed a crime and you got caught - you should go to jail!
Dismissing damning evidence on technicalities is not just.That's fair, as long as you prosecute those who gathered the evidence illegally for their crimes.
If in every case where currently evidence would be dismissed under the exclusionary rule, instead a cop went to jail for breaking and entering or whatever, I think they'd be a lot more careful about how they gathered evidence.If evidence is gathered illegally, you have two criminals.
The criminal under investigation, and the criminal investigating that criminal.
If you really want to be tough on crime, prosecute them both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28308787</id>
	<title>Slippery Slope</title>
	<author>bonedog73</author>
	<datestamp>1244823840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree the guy should go to jail, but this is a slippery slope if I ever heard one... He gave the Circuit City guys permission to install a DVD drive, NOT to F'ing access every file on his computer. FFS</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree the guy should go to jail , but this is a slippery slope if I ever heard one... He gave the Circuit City guys permission to install a DVD drive , NOT to F'ing access every file on his computer .
FFS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree the guy should go to jail, but this is a slippery slope if I ever heard one... He gave the Circuit City guys permission to install a DVD drive, NOT to F'ing access every file on his computer.
FFS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291495</id>
	<title>If it wasn't child porn</title>
	<author>mikesd81</author>
	<datestamp>1244725740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder of the Supreme  Court would have been more inclined to take the case?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder of the Supreme Court would have been more inclined to take the case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder of the Supreme  Court would have been more inclined to take the case?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291503</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1244725800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>... RIAA dumps Mediasentry in favor of new sweeping deal with Circuit City. Details are currently kept silent, but if you've been downloading music and your computer breaks down, <i>you'll know.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>... RIAA dumps Mediasentry in favor of new sweeping deal with Circuit City .
Details are currently kept silent , but if you 've been downloading music and your computer breaks down , you 'll know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... RIAA dumps Mediasentry in favor of new sweeping deal with Circuit City.
Details are currently kept silent, but if you've been downloading music and your computer breaks down, you'll know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28295093</id>
	<title>Always keep the good stuff ;-)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244739960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and all private and personal information on a usb drive. Have a spare with some innocuous data on it handy in case the man demands your removable drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and all private and personal information on a usb drive .
Have a spare with some innocuous data on it handy in case the man demands your removable drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and all private and personal information on a usb drive.
Have a spare with some innocuous data on it handy in case the man demands your removable drive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291831</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244728140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the detective to whom i talked with once concerning said issue(a PC containing MP3s that were obviously downloaded(limewire, etc installed)), told me that the police really don't give a shit about your MP3 collection since it's a civil matter and therefore falls in the hands of those agencies who claim copyright over the material. And, therefore, any tech or shop who doesn't "call the cops" over some MP3s is not liable in any manner. However, possession of pictures depicting sexual interaction between adults and minors IS a liability if not reported. as always, IANAL, YMMV, and this may only be relevant to my region, state, municipality, etc, etc, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the detective to whom i talked with once concerning said issue ( a PC containing MP3s that were obviously downloaded ( limewire , etc installed ) ) , told me that the police really do n't give a shit about your MP3 collection since it 's a civil matter and therefore falls in the hands of those agencies who claim copyright over the material .
And , therefore , any tech or shop who does n't " call the cops " over some MP3s is not liable in any manner .
However , possession of pictures depicting sexual interaction between adults and minors IS a liability if not reported .
as always , IANAL , YMMV , and this may only be relevant to my region , state , municipality , etc , etc , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the detective to whom i talked with once concerning said issue(a PC containing MP3s that were obviously downloaded(limewire, etc installed)), told me that the police really don't give a shit about your MP3 collection since it's a civil matter and therefore falls in the hands of those agencies who claim copyright over the material.
And, therefore, any tech or shop who doesn't "call the cops" over some MP3s is not liable in any manner.
However, possession of pictures depicting sexual interaction between adults and minors IS a liability if not reported.
as always, IANAL, YMMV, and this may only be relevant to my region, state, municipality, etc, etc, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292857</id>
	<title>Violation of Privacy</title>
	<author>fast turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1244731800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless the tech was installing a DVD Burner, he had no business looking at the customers file system as that's a violation of the customers right to privacy. The reason I say this revolves around ethics. If the tech is installing a playback only drive, then all he needs to do for testing purposes is ensure the drive can playback its intended medium. If it can not, then you diagnose the issue which is either hardware related  such as using onboard video, or an OS problem in that the appropriate software is not installed (should come with the drive).</p><p>In the case of a burner, you can easily test such an installation by looking at the Windows directory only or the shared docs folder on an XP/Vista system. Otherwise you're crossing the line by examining private data (My Docs is a personal directory placed under "UserName" in both XP and Vista, so any entry into that directory is a violation of the customers expected privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless the tech was installing a DVD Burner , he had no business looking at the customers file system as that 's a violation of the customers right to privacy .
The reason I say this revolves around ethics .
If the tech is installing a playback only drive , then all he needs to do for testing purposes is ensure the drive can playback its intended medium .
If it can not , then you diagnose the issue which is either hardware related such as using onboard video , or an OS problem in that the appropriate software is not installed ( should come with the drive ) .In the case of a burner , you can easily test such an installation by looking at the Windows directory only or the shared docs folder on an XP/Vista system .
Otherwise you 're crossing the line by examining private data ( My Docs is a personal directory placed under " UserName " in both XP and Vista , so any entry into that directory is a violation of the customers expected privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless the tech was installing a DVD Burner, he had no business looking at the customers file system as that's a violation of the customers right to privacy.
The reason I say this revolves around ethics.
If the tech is installing a playback only drive, then all he needs to do for testing purposes is ensure the drive can playback its intended medium.
If it can not, then you diagnose the issue which is either hardware related  such as using onboard video, or an OS problem in that the appropriate software is not installed (should come with the drive).In the case of a burner, you can easily test such an installation by looking at the Windows directory only or the shared docs folder on an XP/Vista system.
Otherwise you're crossing the line by examining private data (My Docs is a personal directory placed under "UserName" in both XP and Vista, so any entry into that directory is a violation of the customers expected privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291779</id>
	<title>Re:From a different perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244727840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>unless the guy had child pornography as his wallpaper, the techs had to actively go looking for it</p></div><p>Not necessarily.<br>
A: They need the driver for the dvd drive and open up his browser, go to google, type "S" to search for 'Sony DVD rom Driver' and the auto complete history pops up 100 variations on 'sex with kids'.<br>
B: They want to test the DVD drive so they fire up Roxio Bloatware Creator and figure the easiest thing to do is to burn a picture dvd, since there may not be music or video but there are images on every computer.  At this point they discover that My Pictures is full of 10 gigs of nasty.<br> <br>Of course I will admit since these are probably high-school or college aged 'experts' just working for beer money, there is a possibility that they get bored and pore through every hard drive that crosses their workbench.<br>You can't necessarily assume they were intentionally being nosey, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>unless the guy had child pornography as his wallpaper , the techs had to actively go looking for itNot necessarily .
A : They need the driver for the dvd drive and open up his browser , go to google , type " S " to search for 'Sony DVD rom Driver ' and the auto complete history pops up 100 variations on 'sex with kids' .
B : They want to test the DVD drive so they fire up Roxio Bloatware Creator and figure the easiest thing to do is to burn a picture dvd , since there may not be music or video but there are images on every computer .
At this point they discover that My Pictures is full of 10 gigs of nasty .
Of course I will admit since these are probably high-school or college aged 'experts ' just working for beer money , there is a possibility that they get bored and pore through every hard drive that crosses their workbench.You ca n't necessarily assume they were intentionally being nosey , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unless the guy had child pornography as his wallpaper, the techs had to actively go looking for itNot necessarily.
A: They need the driver for the dvd drive and open up his browser, go to google, type "S" to search for 'Sony DVD rom Driver' and the auto complete history pops up 100 variations on 'sex with kids'.
B: They want to test the DVD drive so they fire up Roxio Bloatware Creator and figure the easiest thing to do is to burn a picture dvd, since there may not be music or video but there are images on every computer.
At this point they discover that My Pictures is full of 10 gigs of nasty.
Of course I will admit since these are probably high-school or college aged 'experts' just working for beer money, there is a possibility that they get bored and pore through every hard drive that crosses their workbench.You can't necessarily assume they were intentionally being nosey, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293429</id>
	<title>Yeah, that's how it should be.</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1244733720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you let someone access your information, they can do with it what they want.  It seems obvious and self-explanatory to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you let someone access your information , they can do with it what they want .
It seems obvious and self-explanatory to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you let someone access your information, they can do with it what they want.
It seems obvious and self-explanatory to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28297439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28296539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28298995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28295045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28295139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28297653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28304481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28296899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28295017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28295413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_0319215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291831
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28296539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28304481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28295045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28297439
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28295017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28296899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292805
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291597
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293033
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291779
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28298995
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291569
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28297653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291599
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294055
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292857
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291441
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294899
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28295413
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28295139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292769
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292541
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294639
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294293
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28292957
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291637
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28291495
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28293429
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294939
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_0319215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_0319215.28294407
</commentlist>
</conversation>
