<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_22_1846250</id>
	<title>Crowdsourcing Big Brother In Lancaster, PA</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1245697080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:sehlat@berkeley.edu" rel="nofollow">sehlat</a> writes <i>"From the Los Angeles Times comes word that in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-spycam-city21-2009jun21,0,3641451.story">165 public surveillance cameras are being set up</a> to be monitored by a 'non profit coalition' of volunteers. The usual suspects, including 'the innocent have nothing to fear' are being trotted out to justify this, and the following quote at the end of the article deserves mention: 'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing." His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby. "There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>sehlat writes " From the Los Angeles Times comes word that in Lancaster , Pennsylvania , 165 public surveillance cameras are being set up to be monitored by a 'non profit coalition ' of volunteers .
The usual suspects , including 'the innocent have nothing to fear ' are being trotted out to justify this , and the following quote at the end of the article deserves mention : 'But Jack Bauer , owner of the city 's largest beer and soft drink distributor , calls the network " a great thing .
" His store has n't been robbed , he said , since four cameras went up nearby .
" There 's nothing wrong with instilling fear , " he said .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sehlat writes "From the Los Angeles Times comes word that in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 165 public surveillance cameras are being set up to be monitored by a 'non profit coalition' of volunteers.
The usual suspects, including 'the innocent have nothing to fear' are being trotted out to justify this, and the following quote at the end of the article deserves mention: 'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing.
" His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby.
"There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427517</id>
	<title>Re:big effing deal</title>
	<author>iamhigh</author>
	<datestamp>1245703740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is privacy only measurable in a single moment?  Does the idea of privacy include time?  Does privacy erode when you constantly "don't invade privacy"?  Basically, do these cameras (assume they put more than a few up, imagine your entire daily route covered with cameras) with their ability to "track" you and all your movements then actually become a privacy invasion?  This is similar to the issue with GPS tracking... both are not traditional privacy issues, but technology is making us rethink the definition of privacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is privacy only measurable in a single moment ?
Does the idea of privacy include time ?
Does privacy erode when you constantly " do n't invade privacy " ?
Basically , do these cameras ( assume they put more than a few up , imagine your entire daily route covered with cameras ) with their ability to " track " you and all your movements then actually become a privacy invasion ?
This is similar to the issue with GPS tracking... both are not traditional privacy issues , but technology is making us rethink the definition of privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is privacy only measurable in a single moment?
Does the idea of privacy include time?
Does privacy erode when you constantly "don't invade privacy"?
Basically, do these cameras (assume they put more than a few up, imagine your entire daily route covered with cameras) with their ability to "track" you and all your movements then actually become a privacy invasion?
This is similar to the issue with GPS tracking... both are not traditional privacy issues, but technology is making us rethink the definition of privacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429317</id>
	<title>Re:big effing deal</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1245666540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you remember the Hobby Airport restroom posting?

Sir, I need you to step away from the paper cup.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you remember the Hobby Airport restroom posting ?
Sir , I need you to step away from the paper cup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you remember the Hobby Airport restroom posting?
Sir, I need you to step away from the paper cup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426777</id>
	<title>Interesting..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245701580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So no free as in freedom OR free as in beer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So no free as in freedom OR free as in beer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So no free as in freedom OR free as in beer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28445933</id>
	<title>the technology behind it</title>
	<author>alienhazard</author>
	<datestamp>1245754020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Something no one else has mentioned is what better uses could have been made out of this funding.  You see, most of this camera network is fiber optic and some of it is wireless.  Why spend $3mil putting in 160 cameras when we could have used this fiber optic/ wireless network to provide high speed internet to the whole city?!  THAT would have been a much better investment, but I'm sure Comcast would have had a temper tantrum.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something no one else has mentioned is what better uses could have been made out of this funding .
You see , most of this camera network is fiber optic and some of it is wireless .
Why spend $ 3mil putting in 160 cameras when we could have used this fiber optic/ wireless network to provide high speed internet to the whole city ? !
THAT would have been a much better investment , but I 'm sure Comcast would have had a temper tantrum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something no one else has mentioned is what better uses could have been made out of this funding.
You see, most of this camera network is fiber optic and some of it is wireless.
Why spend $3mil putting in 160 cameras when we could have used this fiber optic/ wireless network to provide high speed internet to the whole city?!
THAT would have been a much better investment, but I'm sure Comcast would have had a temper tantrum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426543</id>
	<title>Ahhh, Slashdot</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1245700740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We love the nanny state when it protects us from ourselves, but we don't want them watching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We love the nanny state when it protects us from ourselves , but we do n't want them watching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We love the nanny state when it protects us from ourselves, but we don't want them watching.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28431211</id>
	<title>Important note</title>
	<author>hessian</author>
	<datestamp>1245673500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We will move from the freedom and anonymity of urban society right back into the parochial, scrutinized and regulated mores of rural society.</i></p><p>I think that's the most vital part of your article.</p><p>Quite honestly, it sounds good to me.</p><p>Our society is rife with abuses, stupidity, greed, cowardice and moronic hipsters floating around.</p><p>If it takes rural-style regulation of mores to get rid of these parasites, liars, creeps and low quality people, I'm all for it.</p><p>After all, if someone you could trust was in power, you'd feel better about power.</p><p>If your neighbors weren't reckless morons who could care less about what happens to you and your possessions, you'd feel better about living near people.</p><p>From years in several cities: people talk paradoxically in them. They rave on about how great it is to be in the center of things, but the focus of every action is removing themselves from the masses to someplace over which they have control.</p><p>It seems a bad psychology to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We will move from the freedom and anonymity of urban society right back into the parochial , scrutinized and regulated mores of rural society.I think that 's the most vital part of your article.Quite honestly , it sounds good to me.Our society is rife with abuses , stupidity , greed , cowardice and moronic hipsters floating around.If it takes rural-style regulation of mores to get rid of these parasites , liars , creeps and low quality people , I 'm all for it.After all , if someone you could trust was in power , you 'd feel better about power.If your neighbors were n't reckless morons who could care less about what happens to you and your possessions , you 'd feel better about living near people.From years in several cities : people talk paradoxically in them .
They rave on about how great it is to be in the center of things , but the focus of every action is removing themselves from the masses to someplace over which they have control.It seems a bad psychology to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We will move from the freedom and anonymity of urban society right back into the parochial, scrutinized and regulated mores of rural society.I think that's the most vital part of your article.Quite honestly, it sounds good to me.Our society is rife with abuses, stupidity, greed, cowardice and moronic hipsters floating around.If it takes rural-style regulation of mores to get rid of these parasites, liars, creeps and low quality people, I'm all for it.After all, if someone you could trust was in power, you'd feel better about power.If your neighbors weren't reckless morons who could care less about what happens to you and your possessions, you'd feel better about living near people.From years in several cities: people talk paradoxically in them.
They rave on about how great it is to be in the center of things, but the focus of every action is removing themselves from the masses to someplace over which they have control.It seems a bad psychology to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28431833</id>
	<title>Re:big effing deal</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1245675900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>it's great, because parents can let their kids go to the park without the need to be supervised</p></div>
</blockquote><p>You have hit on the real reason, to make the world as safe as a padded playground that has no equipment, and a limit of one child at a time (to avoid them running into each other). It's good these parents can now free up their time for more important things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's great , because parents can let their kids go to the park without the need to be supervised You have hit on the real reason , to make the world as safe as a padded playground that has no equipment , and a limit of one child at a time ( to avoid them running into each other ) .
It 's good these parents can now free up their time for more important things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's great, because parents can let their kids go to the park without the need to be supervised
You have hit on the real reason, to make the world as safe as a padded playground that has no equipment, and a limit of one child at a time (to avoid them running into each other).
It's good these parents can now free up their time for more important things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429023</id>
	<title>Re:singular not plural</title>
	<author>Dare nMc</author>
	<datestamp>1245665520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a single camera doesn't take away freedom as such, cameras{pl} do. For instance does the local minister have the right, and freedom to hang out in a strip club, or visit a adult movie store, etc?  Do these clubs have a right to maintain some anonymity for their customers?  Should PETA, right to lifers, stalkers be allowed to build their own networks of cameras to kill/injure those they don't agree with? Putting out a single camera this is removed simply with any type of mask.  When you tie hundreds of cameras together at one location, someone with a vendetta can now track them from start to finish.  Or just claim they tracked you from start to finish as their "job" and make up lies that you can't defend against.  It is shown cameras are largely in-effective in capturing criminals, only helpful in prosecuting (unless the crime raises to a level where enough media will publish the video.)  So having people constantly looking for crimes, social morrie transgressions 24/7 is taking away freedoms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a single camera does n't take away freedom as such , cameras { pl } do .
For instance does the local minister have the right , and freedom to hang out in a strip club , or visit a adult movie store , etc ?
Do these clubs have a right to maintain some anonymity for their customers ?
Should PETA , right to lifers , stalkers be allowed to build their own networks of cameras to kill/injure those they do n't agree with ?
Putting out a single camera this is removed simply with any type of mask .
When you tie hundreds of cameras together at one location , someone with a vendetta can now track them from start to finish .
Or just claim they tracked you from start to finish as their " job " and make up lies that you ca n't defend against .
It is shown cameras are largely in-effective in capturing criminals , only helpful in prosecuting ( unless the crime raises to a level where enough media will publish the video .
) So having people constantly looking for crimes , social morrie transgressions 24/7 is taking away freedoms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a single camera doesn't take away freedom as such, cameras{pl} do.
For instance does the local minister have the right, and freedom to hang out in a strip club, or visit a adult movie store, etc?
Do these clubs have a right to maintain some anonymity for their customers?
Should PETA, right to lifers, stalkers be allowed to build their own networks of cameras to kill/injure those they don't agree with?
Putting out a single camera this is removed simply with any type of mask.
When you tie hundreds of cameras together at one location, someone with a vendetta can now track them from start to finish.
Or just claim they tracked you from start to finish as their "job" and make up lies that you can't defend against.
It is shown cameras are largely in-effective in capturing criminals, only helpful in prosecuting (unless the crime raises to a level where enough media will publish the video.
)  So having people constantly looking for crimes, social morrie transgressions 24/7 is taking away freedoms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427543</id>
	<title>Re:I LIVE in Lancaster and I didn't know!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also live in Lancaster (rather right outside it but I spend most of my time in Lancsater). I also had no idea this was happening. I had heard for years about plans for surveillance cameras, but very little happened with it and now we're at this?</p><p>No one talks about it? No one debates it? A few dozen people attended four meetings? I guarantee you that if people knew about this, they would be outraged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also live in Lancaster ( rather right outside it but I spend most of my time in Lancsater ) .
I also had no idea this was happening .
I had heard for years about plans for surveillance cameras , but very little happened with it and now we 're at this ? No one talks about it ?
No one debates it ?
A few dozen people attended four meetings ?
I guarantee you that if people knew about this , they would be outraged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also live in Lancaster (rather right outside it but I spend most of my time in Lancsater).
I also had no idea this was happening.
I had heard for years about plans for surveillance cameras, but very little happened with it and now we're at this?No one talks about it?
No one debates it?
A few dozen people attended four meetings?
I guarantee you that if people knew about this, they would be outraged.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28434369</id>
	<title>Blahrhfgh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245689220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>distilling beer = instilling fear<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>distilling beer = instilling fear : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>distilling beer = instilling fear :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427241</id>
	<title>You've bought the rhetoric.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because tickets are sent to the wrong people?</p><p>Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car?</p><p>Because you have no accuser to confront in court?</p><p>Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras?</p><p>Because yellow lights may be shorter in duration to increase revenue?</p><p>Because government and for-profit private companies collude and share the income from what is normally law enforcement (government-only) fines?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because tickets are sent to the wrong people ? Because tickets are assessed to the owner ( not the driver ) of the car ? Because you have no accuser to confront in court ? Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras ? Because yellow lights may be shorter in duration to increase revenue ? Because government and for-profit private companies collude and share the income from what is normally law enforcement ( government-only ) fines ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because tickets are sent to the wrong people?Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car?Because you have no accuser to confront in court?Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras?Because yellow lights may be shorter in duration to increase revenue?Because government and for-profit private companies collude and share the income from what is normally law enforcement (government-only) fines?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426733</id>
	<title>What's up with Amish people and Cameras...</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1245701400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you ride through Lancaster, you are far more likely to run into a horse and buggy than you are a security camera.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ride through Lancaster , you are far more likely to run into a horse and buggy than you are a security camera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ride through Lancaster, you are far more likely to run into a horse and buggy than you are a security camera.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28430871</id>
	<title>Husbands with mistresses</title>
	<author>nbauman</author>
	<datestamp>1245672360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA:<p><div class="quote"><p>Morales says he refuses all other requests. "The divorce lawyer who wants video of a husband coming out of a bar with his mistress, we won't do it," he said.</p></div><p>It seems that the guy doesn't know that a divorce lawyer can subpoena the video.
</p><p>
Any judge in any legal proceeding who decides that it's in the interests of justice to have the video can issue a subpoena for it.
</p><p>
That system doesn't just cover bars. It covers every public street. Even people who are single might not want a video record of everybody who walked through their door and spent the night with them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : Morales says he refuses all other requests .
" The divorce lawyer who wants video of a husband coming out of a bar with his mistress , we wo n't do it , " he said.It seems that the guy does n't know that a divorce lawyer can subpoena the video .
Any judge in any legal proceeding who decides that it 's in the interests of justice to have the video can issue a subpoena for it .
That system does n't just cover bars .
It covers every public street .
Even people who are single might not want a video record of everybody who walked through their door and spent the night with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:Morales says he refuses all other requests.
"The divorce lawyer who wants video of a husband coming out of a bar with his mistress, we won't do it," he said.It seems that the guy doesn't know that a divorce lawyer can subpoena the video.
Any judge in any legal proceeding who decides that it's in the interests of justice to have the video can issue a subpoena for it.
That system doesn't just cover bars.
It covers every public street.
Even people who are single might not want a video record of everybody who walked through their door and spent the night with them.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28433177</id>
	<title>Re:You've bought the rhetoric.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245682320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's kind of sad that simple, logical reasoning gets modded as flamebait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's kind of sad that simple , logical reasoning gets modded as flamebait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's kind of sad that simple, logical reasoning gets modded as flamebait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427615</id>
	<title>Step 1) Hax system...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Step 2) Run facial recognition for someone you know. Step 3)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... okay, you see where I'm going with this. But honestly, what's stopping someone from running recognition software on this puppy in order to spy on someone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Step 2 ) Run facial recognition for someone you know .
Step 3 ) ... okay , you see where I 'm going with this .
But honestly , what 's stopping someone from running recognition software on this puppy in order to spy on someone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step 2) Run facial recognition for someone you know.
Step 3) ... okay, you see where I'm going with this.
But honestly, what's stopping someone from running recognition software on this puppy in order to spy on someone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28438237</id>
	<title>There's nothing wrong with instilling fear?!?!</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1245768960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great, we have lost the battle. The socialists, after generations of subliminal programming, have won.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , we have lost the battle .
The socialists , after generations of subliminal programming , have won .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, we have lost the battle.
The socialists, after generations of subliminal programming, have won.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429999</id>
	<title>Re:An example of cameras in our town</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245669120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it's scummy that they lied about ehir main usage, at least they were used for something good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it 's scummy that they lied about ehir main usage , at least they were used for something good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it's scummy that they lied about ehir main usage, at least they were used for something good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687</id>
	<title>big effing deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245701280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time.  there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area, and with cameras being visible, there is no deception in the intent.
<br> <br>
it's great, because parents can let their kids go to the park without the need to be supervised (assuming the kids live in a nearby neighborhood).  i often rode my bike down the street to a neighborhood park when i was a kid, and i'm sure my parents would have appreciated the cameras at the time.
<br> <br>
they ought to make the feeds publicly available, so parents could watch what is going on, as well as allow for residents to watch parades, public gatherings and other things from home.
<br> <br>
people who get all pissy about this stuff make no sense to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time .
there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area , and with cameras being visible , there is no deception in the intent .
it 's great , because parents can let their kids go to the park without the need to be supervised ( assuming the kids live in a nearby neighborhood ) .
i often rode my bike down the street to a neighborhood park when i was a kid , and i 'm sure my parents would have appreciated the cameras at the time .
they ought to make the feeds publicly available , so parents could watch what is going on , as well as allow for residents to watch parades , public gatherings and other things from home .
people who get all pissy about this stuff make no sense to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time.
there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area, and with cameras being visible, there is no deception in the intent.
it's great, because parents can let their kids go to the park without the need to be supervised (assuming the kids live in a nearby neighborhood).
i often rode my bike down the street to a neighborhood park when i was a kid, and i'm sure my parents would have appreciated the cameras at the time.
they ought to make the feeds publicly available, so parents could watch what is going on, as well as allow for residents to watch parades, public gatherings and other things from home.
people who get all pissy about this stuff make no sense to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426627</id>
	<title>No different</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245701100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is this different from being watched inside the store anyhow?  We are always being watched no matter where we are and sometimes we don't even know it.  Sooner than later, this will become the new norm, where scaremongers will run the state/country/world in the name of protection and the few people that object will be dealt with in the manner appropriate to the "law" of the land.  We can fight it, and hopefully will keep it away for a couple of years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this different from being watched inside the store anyhow ?
We are always being watched no matter where we are and sometimes we do n't even know it .
Sooner than later , this will become the new norm , where scaremongers will run the state/country/world in the name of protection and the few people that object will be dealt with in the manner appropriate to the " law " of the land .
We can fight it , and hopefully will keep it away for a couple of years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this different from being watched inside the store anyhow?
We are always being watched no matter where we are and sometimes we don't even know it.
Sooner than later, this will become the new norm, where scaremongers will run the state/country/world in the name of protection and the few people that object will be dealt with in the manner appropriate to the "law" of the land.
We can fight it, and hopefully will keep it away for a couple of years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428653</id>
	<title>Ugh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245664260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, to summarize the posts that resonated with me, and my own impressions:</p><p>It's too bad they're NOT crowdsourcing Big Brother.  If the camera feeds were open to all citizens, with a system in place to track and lock out inappropriate uses based on votes from other citizens, there might be an argument that this is equivalent to the chance you'll be seen in a public place anyway.</p><p>Instead they're hiring non-LEOs (which means they're not as restricted as someone in a that sort of job ought to be), and letting them spy on people.  The guy they reference in the article seems harmless enough, but his attitude disturbs me.  And what happens when (not if) the citizen spies start abusing the system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , to summarize the posts that resonated with me , and my own impressions : It 's too bad they 're NOT crowdsourcing Big Brother .
If the camera feeds were open to all citizens , with a system in place to track and lock out inappropriate uses based on votes from other citizens , there might be an argument that this is equivalent to the chance you 'll be seen in a public place anyway.Instead they 're hiring non-LEOs ( which means they 're not as restricted as someone in a that sort of job ought to be ) , and letting them spy on people .
The guy they reference in the article seems harmless enough , but his attitude disturbs me .
And what happens when ( not if ) the citizen spies start abusing the system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, to summarize the posts that resonated with me, and my own impressions:It's too bad they're NOT crowdsourcing Big Brother.
If the camera feeds were open to all citizens, with a system in place to track and lock out inappropriate uses based on votes from other citizens, there might be an argument that this is equivalent to the chance you'll be seen in a public place anyway.Instead they're hiring non-LEOs (which means they're not as restricted as someone in a that sort of job ought to be), and letting them spy on people.
The guy they reference in the article seems harmless enough, but his attitude disturbs me.
And what happens when (not if) the citizen spies start abusing the system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429125</id>
	<title>Actually a great idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245665940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know those old people whose joy in life is to spy on neighbours to see if they are being sinful or in breach of the public decency?</p><p>This will let them go into overdrive. Litter not being binned, excessive kissing in public, essentially everything will get reported. The timing is perfect for the aging generation of baby boomers.</p><p>You can then put them on intravenous drips.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know those old people whose joy in life is to spy on neighbours to see if they are being sinful or in breach of the public decency ? This will let them go into overdrive .
Litter not being binned , excessive kissing in public , essentially everything will get reported .
The timing is perfect for the aging generation of baby boomers.You can then put them on intravenous drips .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know those old people whose joy in life is to spy on neighbours to see if they are being sinful or in breach of the public decency?This will let them go into overdrive.
Litter not being binned, excessive kissing in public, essentially everything will get reported.
The timing is perfect for the aging generation of baby boomers.You can then put them on intravenous drips.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426813</id>
	<title>I for one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245701760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>welcome our new community based, volunteer overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>welcome our new community based , volunteer overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>welcome our new community based, volunteer overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428985</id>
	<title>As one who lives in downtown Lancaster PA...</title>
	<author>minderaser</author>
	<datestamp>1245665400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Allow me to say, this is the 1st I've heard of these cameras, so no surprise there's no public outcry. There will be now, at least from this part of the public.</p><p>"If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear."</p><p>"Yea, really? If I've done nothing wrong, WHY ARE YOU WATCHING ME?"</p><p>On a side note: I've bought beer at the store (Jack Bauer) they mentioned - never again!</p><p>Side note 2: The article mentions getting someone getting busted for drinking beer in Farnum Park. I, too, have drank beer in Farnum Park, on numerous occasions, the last time just last Thursday while playing basketball. Or...wait...actually it was brandy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Allow me to say , this is the 1st I 've heard of these cameras , so no surprise there 's no public outcry .
There will be now , at least from this part of the public .
" If you 've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear .
" " Yea , really ?
If I 've done nothing wrong , WHY ARE YOU WATCHING ME ?
" On a side note : I 've bought beer at the store ( Jack Bauer ) they mentioned - never again ! Side note 2 : The article mentions getting someone getting busted for drinking beer in Farnum Park .
I , too , have drank beer in Farnum Park , on numerous occasions , the last time just last Thursday while playing basketball .
Or...wait...actually it was brandy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allow me to say, this is the 1st I've heard of these cameras, so no surprise there's no public outcry.
There will be now, at least from this part of the public.
"If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.
""Yea, really?
If I've done nothing wrong, WHY ARE YOU WATCHING ME?
"On a side note: I've bought beer at the store (Jack Bauer) they mentioned - never again!Side note 2: The article mentions getting someone getting busted for drinking beer in Farnum Park.
I, too, have drank beer in Farnum Park, on numerous occasions, the last time just last Thursday while playing basketball.
Or...wait...actually it was brandy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427235</id>
	<title>Re:Ahhh, Slashdot</title>
	<author>DdJ</author>
	<datestamp>1245703020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, I don't believe in the whole "if you can be seen by a private citizen then it's the same thing." Once that citizen can play back an exact copy of the event in his/her head at a later time without any chance of fault, then I'll consider it the same damn thing.</p></div><p>Let me see if I've got this right.</p><p>You have a problem with this, <em>as opposed to a private citizen witness</em>, because you want to preserve the right to accuse a private citizen witness who is telling the truth of lying?  You want to preserve the option of lying about someone else who's telling the truth?</p><p>If I'm getting you correctly, I think I <em>understand</em> your point of view, but do not personally respect it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I do n't believe in the whole " if you can be seen by a private citizen then it 's the same thing .
" Once that citizen can play back an exact copy of the event in his/her head at a later time without any chance of fault , then I 'll consider it the same damn thing.Let me see if I 've got this right.You have a problem with this , as opposed to a private citizen witness , because you want to preserve the right to accuse a private citizen witness who is telling the truth of lying ?
You want to preserve the option of lying about someone else who 's telling the truth ? If I 'm getting you correctly , I think I understand your point of view , but do not personally respect it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I don't believe in the whole "if you can be seen by a private citizen then it's the same thing.
" Once that citizen can play back an exact copy of the event in his/her head at a later time without any chance of fault, then I'll consider it the same damn thing.Let me see if I've got this right.You have a problem with this, as opposed to a private citizen witness, because you want to preserve the right to accuse a private citizen witness who is telling the truth of lying?
You want to preserve the option of lying about someone else who's telling the truth?If I'm getting you correctly, I think I understand your point of view, but do not personally respect it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28431559</id>
	<title>Re:Ahhh, Slashdot</title>
	<author>dave420</author>
	<datestamp>1245674520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about "if you are videotaped you are allowed, by law, to get a copy of any and all footage a public or private enterprise has of you"?  That sounds a bit more fair (and sensible) than giving access to everyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about " if you are videotaped you are allowed , by law , to get a copy of any and all footage a public or private enterprise has of you " ?
That sounds a bit more fair ( and sensible ) than giving access to everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about "if you are videotaped you are allowed, by law, to get a copy of any and all footage a public or private enterprise has of you"?
That sounds a bit more fair (and sensible) than giving access to everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28436381</id>
	<title>King George back in your faces</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1245752580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Welcome to oppressive surveillance British-style. If you really want to see Big Brother in action, come to the UK, where all town centres bristle with spy cameras, and the government recently ran a poster campaign suggesting that anyone who even took any notice of the cameras was a terrorist who should be reported. Pay no attention to the man behind the camera!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to oppressive surveillance British-style .
If you really want to see Big Brother in action , come to the UK , where all town centres bristle with spy cameras , and the government recently ran a poster campaign suggesting that anyone who even took any notice of the cameras was a terrorist who should be reported .
Pay no attention to the man behind the camera !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to oppressive surveillance British-style.
If you really want to see Big Brother in action, come to the UK, where all town centres bristle with spy cameras, and the government recently ran a poster campaign suggesting that anyone who even took any notice of the cameras was a terrorist who should be reported.
Pay no attention to the man behind the camera!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427357</id>
	<title>Re:big effing deal</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1245703320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>it's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time. there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area, and with cameras being visible, there is no deception in the intent.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I wonder about that. I really do.</p><p>Why is it that photographs and videos taken of models need copyright consent forms in order to be used, but my images can be snapped by thousands of cameras and copied about servers until doomsday without me even being informed?</p><p>Why is it that if I followed someone around every day, taking pictures and recording their movements, I would be convicted or stalking or have a restraining order put on me, yet it's OK for any old group to set up a nationwide system of cameras to track and record forever the movements of every single person in the state?</p><p>Why is it OK for them to record me, but it's not OK for me to see the footage?</p><p>I think Jack Bauer's comment really says it all. This system is not about protecting people. It's about intimidating them. It's about instilling fear. It's about the watchers gaining power over the watched. That is the systems <b>primary purpose</b>.</p><p>Who do you think will be manning these cameras? College students and libertarians? Not a chance. Think prudes and gossips, closet authoritarians and morality police, the perpetually offended and those who long for a society in which people know their place. And that place will be certainly be on camera instead of behind it.</p><p>Surveillance systems like this are getting implemented, everywhere, and their effect on society will be colossal. I believe it will be uniformly negative. We will move from the freedom and anonymity of urban society right back into the parochial, scrutinized and regulated mores of rural society. It's coming. In many ways, it's already here. You're only hope is that such systems have legal restrictions placed on them before they run completely rampant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time .
there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area , and with cameras being visible , there is no deception in the intent .
I wonder about that .
I really do.Why is it that photographs and videos taken of models need copyright consent forms in order to be used , but my images can be snapped by thousands of cameras and copied about servers until doomsday without me even being informed ? Why is it that if I followed someone around every day , taking pictures and recording their movements , I would be convicted or stalking or have a restraining order put on me , yet it 's OK for any old group to set up a nationwide system of cameras to track and record forever the movements of every single person in the state ? Why is it OK for them to record me , but it 's not OK for me to see the footage ? I think Jack Bauer 's comment really says it all .
This system is not about protecting people .
It 's about intimidating them .
It 's about instilling fear .
It 's about the watchers gaining power over the watched .
That is the systems primary purpose.Who do you think will be manning these cameras ?
College students and libertarians ?
Not a chance .
Think prudes and gossips , closet authoritarians and morality police , the perpetually offended and those who long for a society in which people know their place .
And that place will be certainly be on camera instead of behind it.Surveillance systems like this are getting implemented , everywhere , and their effect on society will be colossal .
I believe it will be uniformly negative .
We will move from the freedom and anonymity of urban society right back into the parochial , scrutinized and regulated mores of rural society .
It 's coming .
In many ways , it 's already here .
You 're only hope is that such systems have legal restrictions placed on them before they run completely rampant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time.
there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area, and with cameras being visible, there is no deception in the intent.
I wonder about that.
I really do.Why is it that photographs and videos taken of models need copyright consent forms in order to be used, but my images can be snapped by thousands of cameras and copied about servers until doomsday without me even being informed?Why is it that if I followed someone around every day, taking pictures and recording their movements, I would be convicted or stalking or have a restraining order put on me, yet it's OK for any old group to set up a nationwide system of cameras to track and record forever the movements of every single person in the state?Why is it OK for them to record me, but it's not OK for me to see the footage?I think Jack Bauer's comment really says it all.
This system is not about protecting people.
It's about intimidating them.
It's about instilling fear.
It's about the watchers gaining power over the watched.
That is the systems primary purpose.Who do you think will be manning these cameras?
College students and libertarians?
Not a chance.
Think prudes and gossips, closet authoritarians and morality police, the perpetually offended and those who long for a society in which people know their place.
And that place will be certainly be on camera instead of behind it.Surveillance systems like this are getting implemented, everywhere, and their effect on society will be colossal.
I believe it will be uniformly negative.
We will move from the freedom and anonymity of urban society right back into the parochial, scrutinized and regulated mores of rural society.
It's coming.
In many ways, it's already here.
You're only hope is that such systems have legal restrictions placed on them before they run completely rampant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427453</id>
	<title>Re:You've bought the rhetoric.</title>
	<author>Ultra64</author>
	<datestamp>1245703620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Because tickets are sent to the wrong people?<br>2. Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car?<br>3. Because you have no accuser to confront in court?</p><p>These three are irrelevant, because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail. If you don't look like the picture, then it's pretty easy to contest it.</p><p>4. Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras?<br>Citation needed.</p><p>5. Because yellow lights may be shorter in duration to increase revenue?<br>Good point.</p><p>6. Because government and for-profit private companies collude and share the income from what is normally law enforcement (government-only) fines?<br>Good point.</p><p>As far as I can tell only two of your concerns are valid. These can be remedied by not allowing the camera company to define the yellow light duration, and by agreeing only to a fixed fee for camera maintenance rather than a percentage of the income.</p><p>You don't throw away a good idea just because it doesn't work perfectly the first time, you figure out what you're doing wrong and fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Because tickets are sent to the wrong people ? 2 .
Because tickets are assessed to the owner ( not the driver ) of the car ? 3 .
Because you have no accuser to confront in court ? These three are irrelevant , because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail .
If you do n't look like the picture , then it 's pretty easy to contest it.4 .
Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras ? Citation needed.5 .
Because yellow lights may be shorter in duration to increase revenue ? Good point.6 .
Because government and for-profit private companies collude and share the income from what is normally law enforcement ( government-only ) fines ? Good point.As far as I can tell only two of your concerns are valid .
These can be remedied by not allowing the camera company to define the yellow light duration , and by agreeing only to a fixed fee for camera maintenance rather than a percentage of the income.You do n't throw away a good idea just because it does n't work perfectly the first time , you figure out what you 're doing wrong and fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Because tickets are sent to the wrong people?2.
Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car?3.
Because you have no accuser to confront in court?These three are irrelevant, because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail.
If you don't look like the picture, then it's pretty easy to contest it.4.
Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras?Citation needed.5.
Because yellow lights may be shorter in duration to increase revenue?Good point.6.
Because government and for-profit private companies collude and share the income from what is normally law enforcement (government-only) fines?Good point.As far as I can tell only two of your concerns are valid.
These can be remedied by not allowing the camera company to define the yellow light duration, and by agreeing only to a fixed fee for camera maintenance rather than a percentage of the income.You don't throw away a good idea just because it doesn't work perfectly the first time, you figure out what you're doing wrong and fix it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28437897</id>
	<title>Re:You've bought the rhetoric.</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1245767100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"These three are irrelevant, because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail. If you don't look like the picture, then it's pretty easy to contest it."</i> <p>
Nope...not in LA. Part of the law passed did actually take into account privacy issues...so, no they can't take a picture of the driver.</p><p>
Also, down here...the cameras are run by a private business for profit. The charges don't come at you from regular traffic court, these are treated basically as civil crimes/fines...you don't have the same rights to confront the evidence as in normal traffic ct.</p><p>
Currently I think they are still trying to rule the unconstitutional down here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" These three are irrelevant , because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail .
If you do n't look like the picture , then it 's pretty easy to contest it .
" Nope...not in LA .
Part of the law passed did actually take into account privacy issues...so , no they ca n't take a picture of the driver .
Also , down here...the cameras are run by a private business for profit .
The charges do n't come at you from regular traffic court , these are treated basically as civil crimes/fines...you do n't have the same rights to confront the evidence as in normal traffic ct . Currently I think they are still trying to rule the unconstitutional down here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"These three are irrelevant, because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail.
If you don't look like the picture, then it's pretty easy to contest it.
" 
Nope...not in LA.
Part of the law passed did actually take into account privacy issues...so, no they can't take a picture of the driver.
Also, down here...the cameras are run by a private business for profit.
The charges don't come at you from regular traffic court, these are treated basically as civil crimes/fines...you don't have the same rights to confront the evidence as in normal traffic ct.
Currently I think they are still trying to rule the unconstitutional down here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429191</id>
	<title>Re:"There's nothing wrong with instilling fear,"??</title>
	<author>Kilroy</author>
	<datestamp>1245666180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are right, the only people who should be afraid are the ones who try to be decent citizens.  It would be rude of us to wish inconvenience on violent thugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right , the only people who should be afraid are the ones who try to be decent citizens .
It would be rude of us to wish inconvenience on violent thugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right, the only people who should be afraid are the ones who try to be decent citizens.
It would be rude of us to wish inconvenience on violent thugs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427333</id>
	<title>About those cameras...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many areas use cameras sitting on top of the red lights to activate them. They don't record, they simply detect motion. Those of us who ride motorcycles are rather appreciative of that as induction loop sensors (those cuts you sometimes see in the road at intersections) usually don't work for us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many areas use cameras sitting on top of the red lights to activate them .
They do n't record , they simply detect motion .
Those of us who ride motorcycles are rather appreciative of that as induction loop sensors ( those cuts you sometimes see in the road at intersections ) usually do n't work for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many areas use cameras sitting on top of the red lights to activate them.
They don't record, they simply detect motion.
Those of us who ride motorcycles are rather appreciative of that as induction loop sensors (those cuts you sometimes see in the road at intersections) usually don't work for us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428509</id>
	<title>Re:Following the UK's lead...</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1245663900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, the whole "<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=998565" title="ssrn.com">if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear</a> [ssrn.com]" defense. What's your credit card number? Do you have curtains or blinds in your house/apartment? Let me check through your computer files, too. Gotta make sure you don't have any child porn on that machine. You don't have anything to hide, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the whole " if you do n't have anything to hide , you have nothing to fear [ ssrn.com ] " defense .
What 's your credit card number ?
Do you have curtains or blinds in your house/apartment ?
Let me check through your computer files , too .
Got ta make sure you do n't have any child porn on that machine .
You do n't have anything to hide , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the whole "if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear [ssrn.com]" defense.
What's your credit card number?
Do you have curtains or blinds in your house/apartment?
Let me check through your computer files, too.
Gotta make sure you don't have any child porn on that machine.
You don't have anything to hide, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28434535</id>
	<title>Re:Ahhh, Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245690420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I too was against thoughtcrime laws, however after a short stay at a Miniluv reeducation center I learned to love Big Brother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I too was against thoughtcrime laws , however after a short stay at a Miniluv reeducation center I learned to love Big Brother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too was against thoughtcrime laws, however after a short stay at a Miniluv reeducation center I learned to love Big Brother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28437751</id>
	<title>Just print the names of operators.</title>
	<author>herbert92x</author>
	<datestamp>1245766320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are the people who are controlling the cameras anonymous? People are a lot less willing to be nosy if it's known they're doing so. If they're such noble, upright citizens, surely they won't object to having their names and addresses published in realtime.</p><p>"Now operating camera: Herbert Xavier of 211 W. Main Street. Assessed home value, $239,000. Previous arrests for endangering the welfare of a minor and public lewdness."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are the people who are controlling the cameras anonymous ?
People are a lot less willing to be nosy if it 's known they 're doing so .
If they 're such noble , upright citizens , surely they wo n't object to having their names and addresses published in realtime .
" Now operating camera : Herbert Xavier of 211 W. Main Street .
Assessed home value , $ 239,000 .
Previous arrests for endangering the welfare of a minor and public lewdness .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are the people who are controlling the cameras anonymous?
People are a lot less willing to be nosy if it's known they're doing so.
If they're such noble, upright citizens, surely they won't object to having their names and addresses published in realtime.
"Now operating camera: Herbert Xavier of 211 W. Main Street.
Assessed home value, $239,000.
Previous arrests for endangering the welfare of a minor and public lewdness.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427795</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't so bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245661440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Making the video public is not the solution because the relationship is not symmetric.  Those with authority still have more power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Making the video public is not the solution because the relationship is not symmetric .
Those with authority still have more power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making the video public is not the solution because the relationship is not symmetric.
Those with authority still have more power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28434511</id>
	<title>Re:An example of cameras in our town</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245690240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Hartford, Connecticut a few years back there was an old man by the name of Angel Arce Torres who was the victim of a hit-and-run by two cars dragracing in the street on his way home from a corner grocery store. The entire thing was captured by several security cameras, and Hartford was given loads of ridicule for the footage, which seemingly showed a bunch of people on the street watching this man suffer (in fact, several of them had called the police).</p><p>When it came time for the police investigation, the first thing that they looked at was the security camera footage - and sure enough, it was too grainy to be able to make out the license plates or the people inside the cars. The cops still haven't caught either of the drivers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Hartford , Connecticut a few years back there was an old man by the name of Angel Arce Torres who was the victim of a hit-and-run by two cars dragracing in the street on his way home from a corner grocery store .
The entire thing was captured by several security cameras , and Hartford was given loads of ridicule for the footage , which seemingly showed a bunch of people on the street watching this man suffer ( in fact , several of them had called the police ) .When it came time for the police investigation , the first thing that they looked at was the security camera footage - and sure enough , it was too grainy to be able to make out the license plates or the people inside the cars .
The cops still have n't caught either of the drivers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Hartford, Connecticut a few years back there was an old man by the name of Angel Arce Torres who was the victim of a hit-and-run by two cars dragracing in the street on his way home from a corner grocery store.
The entire thing was captured by several security cameras, and Hartford was given loads of ridicule for the footage, which seemingly showed a bunch of people on the street watching this man suffer (in fact, several of them had called the police).When it came time for the police investigation, the first thing that they looked at was the security camera footage - and sure enough, it was too grainy to be able to make out the license plates or the people inside the cars.
The cops still haven't caught either of the drivers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427473</id>
	<title>Re:Ends and means</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The ends don't always justify the means, Jack. How many people have to be tortured to death during an interrogation before you realise that.</p></div><p>Just one: Him</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ends do n't always justify the means , Jack .
How many people have to be tortured to death during an interrogation before you realise that.Just one : Him</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ends don't always justify the means, Jack.
How many people have to be tortured to death during an interrogation before you realise that.Just one: Him
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428453</id>
	<title>Re:I LIVE in Lancaster and I didn't know!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get some spray paint. But, you probably gonna need a license for that too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get some spray paint .
But , you probably gon na need a license for that too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get some spray paint.
But, you probably gonna need a license for that too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28430481</id>
	<title>Re:I'm all for this if...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245670920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's right! Put a monitor on the pole next to each camera. That way you can watch whomever is watching you watch them, etc. etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's right !
Put a monitor on the pole next to each camera .
That way you can watch whomever is watching you watch them , etc .
etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's right!
Put a monitor on the pole next to each camera.
That way you can watch whomever is watching you watch them, etc.
etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427399</id>
	<title>Re:big effing deal</title>
	<author>evil\_aar0n</author>
	<datestamp>1245703440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get your point: if they're filming public space, it's not really "Big Brother."</p><p>But since when do strategically placed cameras replace "supervision"?  How are you, as a parent, going to prevent Johnny from doing something potentially dangerous if you're three blocks away?  How are you going to provide first aid when the kid gets hurt, or keep Bad Guys from running off with him?  The surveillance might be useful "after the fact," but it's in no way a substitute for hands-on parenting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get your point : if they 're filming public space , it 's not really " Big Brother .
" But since when do strategically placed cameras replace " supervision " ?
How are you , as a parent , going to prevent Johnny from doing something potentially dangerous if you 're three blocks away ?
How are you going to provide first aid when the kid gets hurt , or keep Bad Guys from running off with him ?
The surveillance might be useful " after the fact , " but it 's in no way a substitute for hands-on parenting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get your point: if they're filming public space, it's not really "Big Brother.
"But since when do strategically placed cameras replace "supervision"?
How are you, as a parent, going to prevent Johnny from doing something potentially dangerous if you're three blocks away?
How are you going to provide first aid when the kid gets hurt, or keep Bad Guys from running off with him?
The surveillance might be useful "after the fact," but it's in no way a substitute for hands-on parenting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427593</id>
	<title>Re:big effing deal</title>
	<author>Bigby</author>
	<datestamp>1245703920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMO, it is OK if the cameras are on private property.  If the cameras are on public property, then I should be able to just steal it...because it is "public".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMO , it is OK if the cameras are on private property .
If the cameras are on public property , then I should be able to just steal it...because it is " public " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMO, it is OK if the cameras are on private property.
If the cameras are on public property, then I should be able to just steal it...because it is "public".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28433447</id>
	<title>Re:A town gone "funny'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245683940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we couldn't have done it years ago, its only because of the technology limitations.</p><p>No substantive changes in privacy law have occurred recently which impact the ability of anyone to record anything in public spaces.  That is, your expectation of privacy has not changed at all.  Technology has made it easy to monitor.</p><p>While I share the concerns about this, and value my privacy, I understand I have no expectation of privacy in public.  I am unaware of an alternative workable standard...  (imagine if tourists had to secure rights to use the likeness of all the stranglers in their pictures for example).</p><p>What I think might be an interesting discussion is the right of the government to routinely monitor public areas vs. the rights of private citizens against each other (that is, a government right versus a civil tort claim).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we could n't have done it years ago , its only because of the technology limitations.No substantive changes in privacy law have occurred recently which impact the ability of anyone to record anything in public spaces .
That is , your expectation of privacy has not changed at all .
Technology has made it easy to monitor.While I share the concerns about this , and value my privacy , I understand I have no expectation of privacy in public .
I am unaware of an alternative workable standard... ( imagine if tourists had to secure rights to use the likeness of all the stranglers in their pictures for example ) .What I think might be an interesting discussion is the right of the government to routinely monitor public areas vs. the rights of private citizens against each other ( that is , a government right versus a civil tort claim ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we couldn't have done it years ago, its only because of the technology limitations.No substantive changes in privacy law have occurred recently which impact the ability of anyone to record anything in public spaces.
That is, your expectation of privacy has not changed at all.
Technology has made it easy to monitor.While I share the concerns about this, and value my privacy, I understand I have no expectation of privacy in public.
I am unaware of an alternative workable standard...  (imagine if tourists had to secure rights to use the likeness of all the stranglers in their pictures for example).What I think might be an interesting discussion is the right of the government to routinely monitor public areas vs. the rights of private citizens against each other (that is, a government right versus a civil tort claim).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426871</id>
	<title>Is it a crime?</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1245702000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If no one is around to see me running around naked, is it a crime?  Because the camera is there watching, it could be.  What if I pee on a bush?  If no one is looking it wouldn't be a crime, but with camera's watching everywhere...  And what about the children?  What about those toddlers running around or getting their diapers changed in public, would those now be child porn?  If it is child porn, who is responsible?</p><p>Living in an open society with 0 privacy would be ok IF the only things the camera's would be used for were theft and assault.  But since our society seems to think it has the right to decide what is morally ok and put people in jail for things like having sex and doing drugs, it is not and never will be ok.  When society gets to the point where I can shoot crack on the courthouse steps while having sex on the steps screaming racially degrading remarks and preaching the truths of the noodle god and nobody care, then and only then will camera's watching our every move be a good idea.  Until then some prude with their panties in the wad is going arrest innocent people for child abuse, lewd conduct, or a number of other crimes that really aren't crimes just moral impositions on society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If no one is around to see me running around naked , is it a crime ?
Because the camera is there watching , it could be .
What if I pee on a bush ?
If no one is looking it would n't be a crime , but with camera 's watching everywhere... And what about the children ?
What about those toddlers running around or getting their diapers changed in public , would those now be child porn ?
If it is child porn , who is responsible ? Living in an open society with 0 privacy would be ok IF the only things the camera 's would be used for were theft and assault .
But since our society seems to think it has the right to decide what is morally ok and put people in jail for things like having sex and doing drugs , it is not and never will be ok. When society gets to the point where I can shoot crack on the courthouse steps while having sex on the steps screaming racially degrading remarks and preaching the truths of the noodle god and nobody care , then and only then will camera 's watching our every move be a good idea .
Until then some prude with their panties in the wad is going arrest innocent people for child abuse , lewd conduct , or a number of other crimes that really are n't crimes just moral impositions on society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If no one is around to see me running around naked, is it a crime?
Because the camera is there watching, it could be.
What if I pee on a bush?
If no one is looking it wouldn't be a crime, but with camera's watching everywhere...  And what about the children?
What about those toddlers running around or getting their diapers changed in public, would those now be child porn?
If it is child porn, who is responsible?Living in an open society with 0 privacy would be ok IF the only things the camera's would be used for were theft and assault.
But since our society seems to think it has the right to decide what is morally ok and put people in jail for things like having sex and doing drugs, it is not and never will be ok.  When society gets to the point where I can shoot crack on the courthouse steps while having sex on the steps screaming racially degrading remarks and preaching the truths of the noodle god and nobody care, then and only then will camera's watching our every move be a good idea.
Until then some prude with their panties in the wad is going arrest innocent people for child abuse, lewd conduct, or a number of other crimes that really aren't crimes just moral impositions on society.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428433</id>
	<title>Two deterrents of abuse</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1245663660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Flood the volunteer lists with people who will sleep, facebook or otherwise not watch the cameras. Old school denial of service attack.<br>2) Install cameras in the monitoring center that gets monitored and shared with other monitoring centers. See if people seeing themselves creeps them out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Flood the volunteer lists with people who will sleep , facebook or otherwise not watch the cameras .
Old school denial of service attack.2 ) Install cameras in the monitoring center that gets monitored and shared with other monitoring centers .
See if people seeing themselves creeps them out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Flood the volunteer lists with people who will sleep, facebook or otherwise not watch the cameras.
Old school denial of service attack.2) Install cameras in the monitoring center that gets monitored and shared with other monitoring centers.
See if people seeing themselves creeps them out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426849</id>
	<title>Misleading Headline/Summary</title>
	<author>JonBuck</author>
	<datestamp>1245701880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I first saw this I thought: "Great! A bunch of people are getting together to put the kibosh on this insane Big Brother scheme."</p><p>How wrong I was.</p><p>Instead we have a group of volunteers with dubious accountability and no public access to the video feeds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I first saw this I thought : " Great !
A bunch of people are getting together to put the kibosh on this insane Big Brother scheme .
" How wrong I was.Instead we have a group of volunteers with dubious accountability and no public access to the video feeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I first saw this I thought: "Great!
A bunch of people are getting together to put the kibosh on this insane Big Brother scheme.
"How wrong I was.Instead we have a group of volunteers with dubious accountability and no public access to the video feeds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427155</id>
	<title>Re:Neighborhood watch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that you can't see who, if anyone, is watching.  You glance back &amp; forth, then pick your nose, and you never know 10 people were watching &amp; recording.</p><p>That said, this stuff is inevitable.  Cameras and high speed networking become ubiquitous and cheap, and privacy anywhere that can be seen by a public space is gone.</p><p>Get used to it or it'll drive you nuts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that you ca n't see who , if anyone , is watching .
You glance back &amp; forth , then pick your nose , and you never know 10 people were watching &amp; recording.That said , this stuff is inevitable .
Cameras and high speed networking become ubiquitous and cheap , and privacy anywhere that can be seen by a public space is gone.Get used to it or it 'll drive you nuts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that you can't see who, if anyone, is watching.
You glance back &amp; forth, then pick your nose, and you never know 10 people were watching &amp; recording.That said, this stuff is inevitable.
Cameras and high speed networking become ubiquitous and cheap, and privacy anywhere that can be seen by a public space is gone.Get used to it or it'll drive you nuts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426615</id>
	<title>instilling responsibility</title>
	<author>eagee</author>
	<datestamp>1245701040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a lot wrong with instilling fear, when you could be instilling responsibility. It all depends on how these are used - if you ask me it's too easy to abuse.</p><p>Queue snide remarks below.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a lot wrong with instilling fear , when you could be instilling responsibility .
It all depends on how these are used - if you ask me it 's too easy to abuse.Queue snide remarks below .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a lot wrong with instilling fear, when you could be instilling responsibility.
It all depends on how these are used - if you ask me it's too easy to abuse.Queue snide remarks below.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428983</id>
	<title>Where are the Somalia Bombs today?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245665400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will be off-topic (well, flaimbait, for sure), but I find it very interesting to note that in the last several days of hitting this site, YRO articles are peppered with passionate, uneducated jabs at "Internet Libertarians" or "Slashdot Libertarians."  And occasionally there would be a link to Wikipedia, pointing to an entry on Somalia, surely in jest.  I haven't seen any of these "Somalia Bombs" yet today in this article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be off-topic ( well , flaimbait , for sure ) , but I find it very interesting to note that in the last several days of hitting this site , YRO articles are peppered with passionate , uneducated jabs at " Internet Libertarians " or " Slashdot Libertarians .
" And occasionally there would be a link to Wikipedia , pointing to an entry on Somalia , surely in jest .
I have n't seen any of these " Somalia Bombs " yet today in this article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be off-topic (well, flaimbait, for sure), but I find it very interesting to note that in the last several days of hitting this site, YRO articles are peppered with passionate, uneducated jabs at "Internet Libertarians" or "Slashdot Libertarians.
"  And occasionally there would be a link to Wikipedia, pointing to an entry on Somalia, surely in jest.
I haven't seen any of these "Somalia Bombs" yet today in this article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427379</id>
	<title>"There's nothing wrong with instilling fear,"???</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245703380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," -- Jack Bauer</p></div><p>O rly? Allright then:<strong>*</strong> I will come over, catch you, and rape you for one week straight. Including your whole family. Then I will burn down your company. With you. Veeery slowly. And piss on your grave. Then I'll start the really sick things.</p><p>Do you really think there is nothing wrong with saying that?<br>REALLY? ^^</p><p>* This paragraph is there for demonstration purposes, and does not reflect my personality in any way. I don't think I have to mention this. But I know some<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers are really *weird*.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" There 's nothing wrong with instilling fear , " -- Jack BauerO rly ?
Allright then : * I will come over , catch you , and rape you for one week straight .
Including your whole family .
Then I will burn down your company .
With you .
Veeery slowly .
And piss on your grave .
Then I 'll start the really sick things.Do you really think there is nothing wrong with saying that ? REALLY ?
^ ^ * This paragraph is there for demonstration purposes , and does not reflect my personality in any way .
I do n't think I have to mention this .
But I know some /.ers are really * weird * .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," -- Jack BauerO rly?
Allright then:* I will come over, catch you, and rape you for one week straight.
Including your whole family.
Then I will burn down your company.
With you.
Veeery slowly.
And piss on your grave.
Then I'll start the really sick things.Do you really think there is nothing wrong with saying that?REALLY?
^^* This paragraph is there for demonstration purposes, and does not reflect my personality in any way.
I don't think I have to mention this.
But I know some /.ers are really *weird*.
:)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427365</id>
	<title>Re:Neighborhood watch?</title>
	<author>gzearfoss</author>
	<datestamp>1245703320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the difference?  For one thing, there's the matter of scope.  I know the people in my neighborhood, I watch out for them, they watch out for me, we all benefit.  With this, it's a select group of ten or so people *recording* the entire city.  I don't know them, or even who they are.  It's not so much neighbors helping neighbors as Big Brother watching neighbors.</p><p>Also, with the neighborhood watch, nobody sits there all night long with a video camera, except for good reason.  (You know, if there's been a pattern of criminal activity or whatnot.)</p><p>It's similar to having your local policeman who has patrolled your neighborhood for years replaced by state troopers patrolling your neighborhood.  Yeah, they'll both keep your street safe, but one carries a lot more heft than the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the difference ?
For one thing , there 's the matter of scope .
I know the people in my neighborhood , I watch out for them , they watch out for me , we all benefit .
With this , it 's a select group of ten or so people * recording * the entire city .
I do n't know them , or even who they are .
It 's not so much neighbors helping neighbors as Big Brother watching neighbors.Also , with the neighborhood watch , nobody sits there all night long with a video camera , except for good reason .
( You know , if there 's been a pattern of criminal activity or whatnot .
) It 's similar to having your local policeman who has patrolled your neighborhood for years replaced by state troopers patrolling your neighborhood .
Yeah , they 'll both keep your street safe , but one carries a lot more heft than the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the difference?
For one thing, there's the matter of scope.
I know the people in my neighborhood, I watch out for them, they watch out for me, we all benefit.
With this, it's a select group of ten or so people *recording* the entire city.
I don't know them, or even who they are.
It's not so much neighbors helping neighbors as Big Brother watching neighbors.Also, with the neighborhood watch, nobody sits there all night long with a video camera, except for good reason.
(You know, if there's been a pattern of criminal activity or whatnot.
)It's similar to having your local policeman who has patrolled your neighborhood for years replaced by state troopers patrolling your neighborhood.
Yeah, they'll both keep your street safe, but one carries a lot more heft than the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426983</id>
	<title>Privacy, Yes. Anonymity, NO.</title>
	<author>Dr\_Ken</author>
	<datestamp>1245702300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That seems to be the situation we are faced with. You visit the liquor store three times in one week and the cams note it. But who cares? If you didn't do anything bad. But wait until some lawyer obtains the camera footage to destroy your reputation in court over a totally unrelated matter. You'll think differently then. This whole thing is creepy. In the UK you can't wear a hat or hoody in a pub because the mandatory spy cams can't make out your face and the watchers don't like this. Very creepy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That seems to be the situation we are faced with .
You visit the liquor store three times in one week and the cams note it .
But who cares ?
If you did n't do anything bad .
But wait until some lawyer obtains the camera footage to destroy your reputation in court over a totally unrelated matter .
You 'll think differently then .
This whole thing is creepy .
In the UK you ca n't wear a hat or hoody in a pub because the mandatory spy cams ca n't make out your face and the watchers do n't like this .
Very creepy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That seems to be the situation we are faced with.
You visit the liquor store three times in one week and the cams note it.
But who cares?
If you didn't do anything bad.
But wait until some lawyer obtains the camera footage to destroy your reputation in court over a totally unrelated matter.
You'll think differently then.
This whole thing is creepy.
In the UK you can't wear a hat or hoody in a pub because the mandatory spy cams can't make out your face and the watchers don't like this.
Very creepy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28432795</id>
	<title>Jack Bauer vs the Amish</title>
	<author>gatkinso</author>
	<datestamp>1245680400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My money is on the Amish... but atleast we will now have it on video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My money is on the Amish... but atleast we will now have it on video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My money is on the Amish... but atleast we will now have it on video.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429287</id>
	<title>Sneezing the wrong way.</title>
	<author>californication</author>
	<datestamp>1245666480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>    I'm not total anti-camera, but this is ridiculous.  Sure, everything is fine and dandy right now, but what if we start passing ridiculous laws, enforcing those ridiculous laws become even easier.  Smoking a crime in public?  Cameras process an image of you smoking, identify your face, automatically print out your ticket and email a copy to your phone.  Homosexuality is criminalized?  A same-sex couple holds hands in public, camera records it, notifies the police who swiftly arrest said couple.  Don't laugh at this, even Ron Paul claims that sodomy laws are not unconstitutional and states have every right to criminalize it.  Since we seem to be stepping closer and closer to a "mob rule" mentality in this country, the possibilities of the majority criminalizing the minority are endless, and this only makes it easier and more oppressive.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; My question is, how does someone "opt-out" of this kind of surveillance?  You can't!  In order to survive, you typically have to go outside into public space, using public roads to get to/from work or the grocery store.  By choosing to survive, we are consenting to being films?  If you want to "opt-out" you'd have to be a complete shut-in.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Limits need to be set on the increasingly prevalent introduction of cameras into every crevice of public life.  There should be a limit to the number of cameras or viewable area from cameras per sq. mile.  Recorded footage from these cameras should also not be admissible in court, it should require an eye witness to back-up the claim.  With computer generating imaging become increasingly realistic, it's going to become possible to create fictional footage which is indistinguishable from reality.  You won't even need to commit a crime yourself to actually commit a crime, they'll just have footage of you doing it and unless you have an alibi you will be screwed.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; We will live in a world where we will be constantly afraid of making a mistake, afraid of sneezing the wrong way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not total anti-camera , but this is ridiculous .
Sure , everything is fine and dandy right now , but what if we start passing ridiculous laws , enforcing those ridiculous laws become even easier .
Smoking a crime in public ?
Cameras process an image of you smoking , identify your face , automatically print out your ticket and email a copy to your phone .
Homosexuality is criminalized ?
A same-sex couple holds hands in public , camera records it , notifies the police who swiftly arrest said couple .
Do n't laugh at this , even Ron Paul claims that sodomy laws are not unconstitutional and states have every right to criminalize it .
Since we seem to be stepping closer and closer to a " mob rule " mentality in this country , the possibilities of the majority criminalizing the minority are endless , and this only makes it easier and more oppressive .
        My question is , how does someone " opt-out " of this kind of surveillance ?
You ca n't !
In order to survive , you typically have to go outside into public space , using public roads to get to/from work or the grocery store .
By choosing to survive , we are consenting to being films ?
If you want to " opt-out " you 'd have to be a complete shut-in .
        Limits need to be set on the increasingly prevalent introduction of cameras into every crevice of public life .
There should be a limit to the number of cameras or viewable area from cameras per sq .
mile. Recorded footage from these cameras should also not be admissible in court , it should require an eye witness to back-up the claim .
With computer generating imaging become increasingly realistic , it 's going to become possible to create fictional footage which is indistinguishable from reality .
You wo n't even need to commit a crime yourself to actually commit a crime , they 'll just have footage of you doing it and unless you have an alibi you will be screwed .
        We will live in a world where we will be constantly afraid of making a mistake , afraid of sneezing the wrong way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>    I'm not total anti-camera, but this is ridiculous.
Sure, everything is fine and dandy right now, but what if we start passing ridiculous laws, enforcing those ridiculous laws become even easier.
Smoking a crime in public?
Cameras process an image of you smoking, identify your face, automatically print out your ticket and email a copy to your phone.
Homosexuality is criminalized?
A same-sex couple holds hands in public, camera records it, notifies the police who swiftly arrest said couple.
Don't laugh at this, even Ron Paul claims that sodomy laws are not unconstitutional and states have every right to criminalize it.
Since we seem to be stepping closer and closer to a "mob rule" mentality in this country, the possibilities of the majority criminalizing the minority are endless, and this only makes it easier and more oppressive.
        My question is, how does someone "opt-out" of this kind of surveillance?
You can't!
In order to survive, you typically have to go outside into public space, using public roads to get to/from work or the grocery store.
By choosing to survive, we are consenting to being films?
If you want to "opt-out" you'd have to be a complete shut-in.
        Limits need to be set on the increasingly prevalent introduction of cameras into every crevice of public life.
There should be a limit to the number of cameras or viewable area from cameras per sq.
mile.  Recorded footage from these cameras should also not be admissible in court, it should require an eye witness to back-up the claim.
With computer generating imaging become increasingly realistic, it's going to become possible to create fictional footage which is indistinguishable from reality.
You won't even need to commit a crime yourself to actually commit a crime, they'll just have footage of you doing it and unless you have an alibi you will be screwed.
        We will live in a world where we will be constantly afraid of making a mistake, afraid of sneezing the wrong way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28433867</id>
	<title>living with Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt</title>
	<author>toby</author>
	<datestamp>1245686520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not just a Microsoft tactic - it's a way of life!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just a Microsoft tactic - it 's a way of life !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just a Microsoft tactic - it's a way of life!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426605</id>
	<title>Neighborhood watch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245700980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, what's the difference between this and a neighborhood watch?  No, seriously, I'm asking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what 's the difference between this and a neighborhood watch ?
No , seriously , I 'm asking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what's the difference between this and a neighborhood watch?
No, seriously, I'm asking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28434135</id>
	<title>Exactly what I've been suggesting (for the UK)</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1245687960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is exactly sort of solution I've been suggesting to avoid concerns of Big Brother while creating better awareness and security.  This particular instance might not take it as far as I'd like, but it's a step.  OPEN THE PROCESS UP, let citizens monitor the cameras and "be the eyes" and the police react when they're called.  That's the way it's supposed to work.  What we have then is a lot more like an old-fashioned Neighborhood Watch brought forward into the Digital Age than a close resemblance to Big Brother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly sort of solution I 've been suggesting to avoid concerns of Big Brother while creating better awareness and security .
This particular instance might not take it as far as I 'd like , but it 's a step .
OPEN THE PROCESS UP , let citizens monitor the cameras and " be the eyes " and the police react when they 're called .
That 's the way it 's supposed to work .
What we have then is a lot more like an old-fashioned Neighborhood Watch brought forward into the Digital Age than a close resemblance to Big Brother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly sort of solution I've been suggesting to avoid concerns of Big Brother while creating better awareness and security.
This particular instance might not take it as far as I'd like, but it's a step.
OPEN THE PROCESS UP, let citizens monitor the cameras and "be the eyes" and the police react when they're called.
That's the way it's supposed to work.
What we have then is a lot more like an old-fashioned Neighborhood Watch brought forward into the Digital Age than a close resemblance to Big Brother.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429767</id>
	<title>anonymous coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245668160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>your an idiot if you think cameras will stop crime.  I lived in the uk, specifically in cambridge and the crime rate in london is just as high as places that have no cameras.  as a matter of fact, it was suggested to us that if you got mugged you more than likely were not going to survive because they would stab you in the back, and take your wallet while you bled to death.  just more proof that the police's job is not to protect you but to prosecute the criminal.  just wait till dear old jack gets his head blown off and the cops cant find the "male in the dark hoodie" bet he'll be singing a different tune... oh wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>your an idiot if you think cameras will stop crime .
I lived in the uk , specifically in cambridge and the crime rate in london is just as high as places that have no cameras .
as a matter of fact , it was suggested to us that if you got mugged you more than likely were not going to survive because they would stab you in the back , and take your wallet while you bled to death .
just more proof that the police 's job is not to protect you but to prosecute the criminal .
just wait till dear old jack gets his head blown off and the cops cant find the " male in the dark hoodie " bet he 'll be singing a different tune... oh wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your an idiot if you think cameras will stop crime.
I lived in the uk, specifically in cambridge and the crime rate in london is just as high as places that have no cameras.
as a matter of fact, it was suggested to us that if you got mugged you more than likely were not going to survive because they would stab you in the back, and take your wallet while you bled to death.
just more proof that the police's job is not to protect you but to prosecute the criminal.
just wait till dear old jack gets his head blown off and the cops cant find the "male in the dark hoodie" bet he'll be singing a different tune... oh wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426937</id>
	<title>"There's nothing wrong with instilling fear"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And thus, the free republic was ended soon after.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And thus , the free republic was ended soon after .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And thus, the free republic was ended soon after.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428269</id>
	<title>Re:You've bought the rhetoric.</title>
	<author>Hotawa Hawk-eye</author>
	<datestamp>1245663180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1. Because tickets are sent to the wrong people?<br>
2. Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car?<br>
3. Because you have no accuser to confront in court?<br>
<br>
These three are irrelevant, because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail. If you don't look like the picture, then it's pretty easy to contest it.</p></div></blockquote><p>
So the same picture includes enough information to positively identify both the car (which, if it's a common make and color, means that it includes the license plate) and the driver?  If there are two photos, one to identify the car and another to identify the driver, what evidence do you have that they were taken at the same time and in the same location?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Because tickets are sent to the wrong people ?
2. Because tickets are assessed to the owner ( not the driver ) of the car ?
3. Because you have no accuser to confront in court ?
These three are irrelevant , because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail .
If you do n't look like the picture , then it 's pretty easy to contest it .
So the same picture includes enough information to positively identify both the car ( which , if it 's a common make and color , means that it includes the license plate ) and the driver ?
If there are two photos , one to identify the car and another to identify the driver , what evidence do you have that they were taken at the same time and in the same location ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Because tickets are sent to the wrong people?
2. Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car?
3. Because you have no accuser to confront in court?
These three are irrelevant, because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail.
If you don't look like the picture, then it's pretty easy to contest it.
So the same picture includes enough information to positively identify both the car (which, if it's a common make and color, means that it includes the license plate) and the driver?
If there are two photos, one to identify the car and another to identify the driver, what evidence do you have that they were taken at the same time and in the same location?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428231</id>
	<title>Re:You've bought the rhetoric.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it.</p><p>4. Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras?
Citation needed.</p></div><p> <a href="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rear-end+collisions+increase+at+intersections+with+red-light+cameras" title="lmgtfy.com" rel="nofollow">http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rear-end+collisions+increase+at+intersections+with+red-light+cameras</a> [lmgtfy.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it.4 .
Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras ?
Citation needed .
http : //lmgtfy.com/ ? q = rear-end + collisions + increase + at + intersections + with + red-light + cameras [ lmgtfy.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it.4.
Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras?
Citation needed.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rear-end+collisions+increase+at+intersections+with+red-light+cameras [lmgtfy.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429631</id>
	<title>Re:big effing deal</title>
	<author>mikedeanklein</author>
	<datestamp>1245667680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is my take...public cameras are fine as long as the public has access.

And...if you are putting up cameras they need to be "the right kind" (enough mpixels for forensics) and archived for a decent period of time.

I only mention this 2nd fact after hearing that San Francisco's cameras aren't high-res nor are being archived (due to lack of $$ apparently).</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is my take...public cameras are fine as long as the public has access .
And...if you are putting up cameras they need to be " the right kind " ( enough mpixels for forensics ) and archived for a decent period of time .
I only mention this 2nd fact after hearing that San Francisco 's cameras are n't high-res nor are being archived ( due to lack of $ $ apparently ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is my take...public cameras are fine as long as the public has access.
And...if you are putting up cameras they need to be "the right kind" (enough mpixels for forensics) and archived for a decent period of time.
I only mention this 2nd fact after hearing that San Francisco's cameras aren't high-res nor are being archived (due to lack of $$ apparently).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28439167</id>
	<title>The Amish...</title>
	<author>mikeasu</author>
	<datestamp>1245773160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those crazy Amish...what will they think of next?

"Nobody knows electricity like the Amish!" - Homer Simpson, just before his Amish-wired treehouse bursts into flame.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those crazy Amish...what will they think of next ?
" Nobody knows electricity like the Amish !
" - Homer Simpson , just before his Amish-wired treehouse bursts into flame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those crazy Amish...what will they think of next?
"Nobody knows electricity like the Amish!
" - Homer Simpson, just before his Amish-wired treehouse bursts into flame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427865</id>
	<title>Would you let me stalk you?</title>
	<author>Animaether</author>
	<datestamp>1245661620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think about that for a moment, if you will.  Would you let me follow you around, wherever you go, as long as it is in public places, of course, and not private establishments.  I.e. I wouldn't follow you into your house per se - though I might stand at the side of your house on public property and catch a glimpse of you through your windows (you do have curtains, right).. I won't follow you into your place of occupation presuming that's a private company, etc.</p><p>I will follow you around the moment you leave your house, go into the street, get into your car, follow your car around, follow you into the library, check which books you're checking out, follow you into the pub, follow you out the back door that you might otherwise use to leave quietly, follow you all day long.</p><p>If you are not okay with that - then you shouldn't be okay with 'security camera' footage being shared between random individuals - or even the world - who have no business whatsoever seeing the feeds from those cameras, and being able to piece them together.  Because that is -exactly- what the cameras allow, given enough cameras.</p><p>It's bad enough that some governments do this - but at least they have some limitation as to what they can do, what footage they can request from non-gov't cameras, etc. (for now, anyway).  Like it or not - the common man is far more likely to abuse such a system (vigilantism, etc.) than any reasonably benign government is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about that for a moment , if you will .
Would you let me follow you around , wherever you go , as long as it is in public places , of course , and not private establishments .
I.e. I would n't follow you into your house per se - though I might stand at the side of your house on public property and catch a glimpse of you through your windows ( you do have curtains , right ) .. I wo n't follow you into your place of occupation presuming that 's a private company , etc.I will follow you around the moment you leave your house , go into the street , get into your car , follow your car around , follow you into the library , check which books you 're checking out , follow you into the pub , follow you out the back door that you might otherwise use to leave quietly , follow you all day long.If you are not okay with that - then you should n't be okay with 'security camera ' footage being shared between random individuals - or even the world - who have no business whatsoever seeing the feeds from those cameras , and being able to piece them together .
Because that is -exactly- what the cameras allow , given enough cameras.It 's bad enough that some governments do this - but at least they have some limitation as to what they can do , what footage they can request from non-gov't cameras , etc .
( for now , anyway ) .
Like it or not - the common man is far more likely to abuse such a system ( vigilantism , etc .
) than any reasonably benign government is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about that for a moment, if you will.
Would you let me follow you around, wherever you go, as long as it is in public places, of course, and not private establishments.
I.e. I wouldn't follow you into your house per se - though I might stand at the side of your house on public property and catch a glimpse of you through your windows (you do have curtains, right).. I won't follow you into your place of occupation presuming that's a private company, etc.I will follow you around the moment you leave your house, go into the street, get into your car, follow your car around, follow you into the library, check which books you're checking out, follow you into the pub, follow you out the back door that you might otherwise use to leave quietly, follow you all day long.If you are not okay with that - then you shouldn't be okay with 'security camera' footage being shared between random individuals - or even the world - who have no business whatsoever seeing the feeds from those cameras, and being able to piece them together.
Because that is -exactly- what the cameras allow, given enough cameras.It's bad enough that some governments do this - but at least they have some limitation as to what they can do, what footage they can request from non-gov't cameras, etc.
(for now, anyway).
Like it or not - the common man is far more likely to abuse such a system (vigilantism, etc.
) than any reasonably benign government is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427901</id>
	<title>Re:big effing deal</title>
	<author>legirons</author>
	<datestamp>1245661740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time.  there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area, and with cameras being visible, there is no deception in the intent.</p></div><p>tell that to all the police who arrest people photographing them...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time .
there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area , and with cameras being visible , there is no deception in the intent.tell that to all the police who arrest people photographing them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time.
there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area, and with cameras being visible, there is no deception in the intent.tell that to all the police who arrest people photographing them...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427397</id>
	<title>Re:No different</title>
	<author>odourpreventer</author>
	<datestamp>1245703440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; How is this different from being watched inside the store anyhow?</p><p>Because you can choose not to shop there. At least philosophically it's big difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; How is this different from being watched inside the store anyhow ? Because you can choose not to shop there .
At least philosophically it 's big difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; How is this different from being watched inside the store anyhow?Because you can choose not to shop there.
At least philosophically it's big difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28430247</id>
	<title>Sounds about right.....</title>
	<author>Berkyjay</author>
	<datestamp>1245670140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...for the area.  Anything that keeps the youth down and stamps out fun will fly there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...for the area .
Anything that keeps the youth down and stamps out fun will fly there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for the area.
Anything that keeps the youth down and stamps out fun will fly there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426623</id>
	<title>Instilling fear?</title>
	<author>lawnboy5-O</author>
	<datestamp>1245701100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you kidding?  How about hope; love; tolerance - the greatest attribute of any civilization; freedom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding ?
How about hope ; love ; tolerance - the greatest attribute of any civilization ; freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding?
How about hope; love; tolerance - the greatest attribute of any civilization; freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28433917</id>
	<title>Re:big effing deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245686760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do it for the beautiful children of Germany! Zig Heil!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do it for the beautiful children of Germany !
Zig Heil !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do it for the beautiful children of Germany!
Zig Heil!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426847</id>
	<title>A town gone "funny'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245701880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A chilling quote:</p><p>"Years ago, there's no way we could do this," said Keith Sadler, Lancaster's police chief. "It brings to mind Big Brother, George Orwell and '1984.' It's just funny how Americans have softened on these issues."</p><p>I am not sure "funny" is the term I would use to describe the change.</p><p>But then again, I for one welcome our new...actually I don't, screw them and the fear they rode in on!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A chilling quote : " Years ago , there 's no way we could do this , " said Keith Sadler , Lancaster 's police chief .
" It brings to mind Big Brother , George Orwell and '1984 .
' It 's just funny how Americans have softened on these issues .
" I am not sure " funny " is the term I would use to describe the change.But then again , I for one welcome our new...actually I do n't , screw them and the fear they rode in on !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A chilling quote:"Years ago, there's no way we could do this," said Keith Sadler, Lancaster's police chief.
"It brings to mind Big Brother, George Orwell and '1984.
' It's just funny how Americans have softened on these issues.
"I am not sure "funny" is the term I would use to describe the change.But then again, I for one welcome our new...actually I don't, screw them and the fear they rode in on!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28432321</id>
	<title>The vandalism tax</title>
	<author>scifiber\_phil</author>
	<datestamp>1245678060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I lived in Lancaster, I had on average one car window broken out every 12-18 months. Nothing stolen, just vandalism for the fun of it. insurance never paid. Repair always came out of my pocket. I used to call it the vandalism tax. Drive around town early Sunday morning, and you should be able to easily find ten other cars with similar vandalism. Still, I resist this kind of surveillance. Sure, in a public place, there is no expectation of privacy, but 24-7 surveillance is ok only for God, and Santa Claus. It's a matter of trust, really, trust and politeness. Although I've lived here nearly all my life, I've never taken a picture of one of the Amish. They don't want to be photographed, and I am willing to respect their wishes. To be watching all the citizens 24-7 basically says that all are untrustworthy. Some are untrustworthy, but the ones who are trustworthy can be forgiven for resenting the lack of trust. Of course, the founding fathers felt that only a moral society was able to be a free society, as then individuals restrained themselves. This kind of surveillance is always evidence that a society is lacking the moral underpinnings to self-regulate. It can be as simple as the Hippocratic oath statement, "First, do no harm", or the golden rule. Now, instead of self-restraint, and self-discipline, we see narrcissism. I want something, so I steal it. I don't like you, so you must die. So we all end up as prisoners in a zero tolerance prison that used to be a medium sized town.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I lived in Lancaster , I had on average one car window broken out every 12-18 months .
Nothing stolen , just vandalism for the fun of it .
insurance never paid .
Repair always came out of my pocket .
I used to call it the vandalism tax .
Drive around town early Sunday morning , and you should be able to easily find ten other cars with similar vandalism .
Still , I resist this kind of surveillance .
Sure , in a public place , there is no expectation of privacy , but 24-7 surveillance is ok only for God , and Santa Claus .
It 's a matter of trust , really , trust and politeness .
Although I 've lived here nearly all my life , I 've never taken a picture of one of the Amish .
They do n't want to be photographed , and I am willing to respect their wishes .
To be watching all the citizens 24-7 basically says that all are untrustworthy .
Some are untrustworthy , but the ones who are trustworthy can be forgiven for resenting the lack of trust .
Of course , the founding fathers felt that only a moral society was able to be a free society , as then individuals restrained themselves .
This kind of surveillance is always evidence that a society is lacking the moral underpinnings to self-regulate .
It can be as simple as the Hippocratic oath statement , " First , do no harm " , or the golden rule .
Now , instead of self-restraint , and self-discipline , we see narrcissism .
I want something , so I steal it .
I do n't like you , so you must die .
So we all end up as prisoners in a zero tolerance prison that used to be a medium sized town .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I lived in Lancaster, I had on average one car window broken out every 12-18 months.
Nothing stolen, just vandalism for the fun of it.
insurance never paid.
Repair always came out of my pocket.
I used to call it the vandalism tax.
Drive around town early Sunday morning, and you should be able to easily find ten other cars with similar vandalism.
Still, I resist this kind of surveillance.
Sure, in a public place, there is no expectation of privacy, but 24-7 surveillance is ok only for God, and Santa Claus.
It's a matter of trust, really, trust and politeness.
Although I've lived here nearly all my life, I've never taken a picture of one of the Amish.
They don't want to be photographed, and I am willing to respect their wishes.
To be watching all the citizens 24-7 basically says that all are untrustworthy.
Some are untrustworthy, but the ones who are trustworthy can be forgiven for resenting the lack of trust.
Of course, the founding fathers felt that only a moral society was able to be a free society, as then individuals restrained themselves.
This kind of surveillance is always evidence that a society is lacking the moral underpinnings to self-regulate.
It can be as simple as the Hippocratic oath statement, "First, do no harm", or the golden rule.
Now, instead of self-restraint, and self-discipline, we see narrcissism.
I want something, so I steal it.
I don't like you, so you must die.
So we all end up as prisoners in a zero tolerance prison that used to be a medium sized town.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427363</id>
	<title>Re:Oblig. Ben Franklin quote</title>
	<author>oodaloop</author>
	<datestamp>1245703320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you like having locks on your doors?  They impede your freedom of movement (ever get locked out accidentally?) in order to improve your personal security.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you like having locks on your doors ?
They impede your freedom of movement ( ever get locked out accidentally ?
) in order to improve your personal security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you like having locks on your doors?
They impede your freedom of movement (ever get locked out accidentally?
) in order to improve your personal security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426795</id>
	<title>Lived here for years...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245701640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So strange to see my hometown on the front page of Slashdot...</p><p>The Los Angeles Times article states:</p><p>"Perhaps most surprising, the near-saturation surveillance of a community that saw four murders last year has sparked little public debate about whether the benefits for law enforcement outweigh the loss of privacy."</p><p>I've lived in Lancaster for years and haven't heard a thing about this.  I just searched our local newspaper with no results.</p><p>There's no public debate because as far as I know this is the first time it's even been mentioned.  I saw the cameras go up, now I know the story behind them... thanks to a random mention on a tech news site linking an article from a newspaper on the other side of the country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So strange to see my hometown on the front page of Slashdot...The Los Angeles Times article states : " Perhaps most surprising , the near-saturation surveillance of a community that saw four murders last year has sparked little public debate about whether the benefits for law enforcement outweigh the loss of privacy .
" I 've lived in Lancaster for years and have n't heard a thing about this .
I just searched our local newspaper with no results.There 's no public debate because as far as I know this is the first time it 's even been mentioned .
I saw the cameras go up , now I know the story behind them... thanks to a random mention on a tech news site linking an article from a newspaper on the other side of the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So strange to see my hometown on the front page of Slashdot...The Los Angeles Times article states:"Perhaps most surprising, the near-saturation surveillance of a community that saw four murders last year has sparked little public debate about whether the benefits for law enforcement outweigh the loss of privacy.
"I've lived in Lancaster for years and haven't heard a thing about this.
I just searched our local newspaper with no results.There's no public debate because as far as I know this is the first time it's even been mentioned.
I saw the cameras go up, now I know the story behind them... thanks to a random mention on a tech news site linking an article from a newspaper on the other side of the country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426583</id>
	<title>Following the UK's lead...</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1245700920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure it's not hard to find volunteers for this sort of thing.  Anyone who is nosy/power-seeking/voyeuristic would enjoy watching these cams without pay.</p><p>How much more freedom do we have to lose before we do something about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure it 's not hard to find volunteers for this sort of thing .
Anyone who is nosy/power-seeking/voyeuristic would enjoy watching these cams without pay.How much more freedom do we have to lose before we do something about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure it's not hard to find volunteers for this sort of thing.
Anyone who is nosy/power-seeking/voyeuristic would enjoy watching these cams without pay.How much more freedom do we have to lose before we do something about it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426917</id>
	<title>Amish are people too....</title>
	<author>reidiq</author>
	<datestamp>1245702120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need cameras in Lancaster. (I live here) Amish people are criminals too. Some Amish deal drugs. Drunk drive and stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need cameras in Lancaster .
( I live here ) Amish people are criminals too .
Some Amish deal drugs .
Drunk drive and stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need cameras in Lancaster.
(I live here) Amish people are criminals too.
Some Amish deal drugs.
Drunk drive and stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427343</id>
	<title>An example of cameras in our town</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1245703260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This seems to mirror the spiel before cameras were put up in the central city park called "the square" here in a medium city in New Zealand. The Square had problems with violence at nights, and really did become a place not to walk thru at night. It was intended cameras would be put in The Square and  the police would monitor them at trouble times at night, and the city council  would pay(hence it needed selling to the ratepayers).

<br> <br> The ratepayers fell into line very quickly and funding was given, helped by the robbery of an employee leaving working at just 6:30pm.

<br> <br>

The first camera was installed at an intersection well away from The Square, not in it. The next camera was similar. More were installed. Then there was a headline, drunk drivers were being caught. It turns out they were turning the cameras to the streets surrounding The Square and watching up to 400m down side streets for patrons to leave taverns and pubs and directing police cars if "staggering patrons got into a car".

When asked  6 months later why crime wasn't being reduced in the square the council said "oh, the  ones there do not work, they havent been wired up."

<br> <br>

A real snow job</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems to mirror the spiel before cameras were put up in the central city park called " the square " here in a medium city in New Zealand .
The Square had problems with violence at nights , and really did become a place not to walk thru at night .
It was intended cameras would be put in The Square and the police would monitor them at trouble times at night , and the city council would pay ( hence it needed selling to the ratepayers ) .
The ratepayers fell into line very quickly and funding was given , helped by the robbery of an employee leaving working at just 6 : 30pm .
The first camera was installed at an intersection well away from The Square , not in it .
The next camera was similar .
More were installed .
Then there was a headline , drunk drivers were being caught .
It turns out they were turning the cameras to the streets surrounding The Square and watching up to 400m down side streets for patrons to leave taverns and pubs and directing police cars if " staggering patrons got into a car " .
When asked 6 months later why crime was n't being reduced in the square the council said " oh , the ones there do not work , they havent been wired up .
" A real snow job</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems to mirror the spiel before cameras were put up in the central city park called "the square" here in a medium city in New Zealand.
The Square had problems with violence at nights, and really did become a place not to walk thru at night.
It was intended cameras would be put in The Square and  the police would monitor them at trouble times at night, and the city council  would pay(hence it needed selling to the ratepayers).
The ratepayers fell into line very quickly and funding was given, helped by the robbery of an employee leaving working at just 6:30pm.
The first camera was installed at an intersection well away from The Square, not in it.
The next camera was similar.
More were installed.
Then there was a headline, drunk drivers were being caught.
It turns out they were turning the cameras to the streets surrounding The Square and watching up to 400m down side streets for patrons to leave taverns and pubs and directing police cars if "staggering patrons got into a car".
When asked  6 months later why crime wasn't being reduced in the square the council said "oh, the  ones there do not work, they havent been wired up.
"

 

A real snow job</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428379</id>
	<title>Re:You've bought the rhetoric.</title>
	<author>networkBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1245663480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>4:<br>Citation:<br>my wife.<br><a href="http://farmersreallysucks.com/storymystory.shtml" title="farmersreallysucks.com">http://farmersreallysucks.com/storymystory.shtml</a> [farmersreallysucks.com]<br>-nB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4 : Citation : my wife.http : //farmersreallysucks.com/storymystory.shtml [ farmersreallysucks.com ] -nB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4:Citation:my wife.http://farmersreallysucks.com/storymystory.shtml [farmersreallysucks.com]-nB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426995</id>
	<title>Re:Ahhh, Slashdot</title>
	<author>Ultra64</author>
	<datestamp>1245702300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would anyone be against red light cameras?<br>All you have to do is not drive like a jackass and you have nothing to worry about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone be against red light cameras ? All you have to do is not drive like a jackass and you have nothing to worry about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone be against red light cameras?All you have to do is not drive like a jackass and you have nothing to worry about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428347</id>
	<title>Guilty until proven guilty.</title>
	<author>Elwar123</author>
	<datestamp>1245663360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idea of "if you didn't do anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about it" strikes me as...if you're not guilty, then prove your innocense.<p>
Or as was brought up on <a href="http://www.theobamaforum.com/" title="theobamaforum.com" rel="nofollow">The Obama Forum</a> [theobamaforum.com] </p><p>
"If people don't have anything to hide then they shouldn't be worried, prove that you're innocent by having a camera in your house."</p><p>
<a href="http://www.theobamaforum.com/showthread.php?t=11257" title="theobamaforum.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.theobamaforum.com/showthread.php?t=11257</a> [theobamaforum.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of " if you did n't do anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about it " strikes me as...if you 're not guilty , then prove your innocense .
Or as was brought up on The Obama Forum [ theobamaforum.com ] " If people do n't have anything to hide then they should n't be worried , prove that you 're innocent by having a camera in your house .
" http : //www.theobamaforum.com/showthread.php ? t = 11257 [ theobamaforum.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of "if you didn't do anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about it" strikes me as...if you're not guilty, then prove your innocense.
Or as was brought up on The Obama Forum [theobamaforum.com] 
"If people don't have anything to hide then they shouldn't be worried, prove that you're innocent by having a camera in your house.
"
http://www.theobamaforum.com/showthread.php?t=11257 [theobamaforum.com] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426935</id>
	<title>Oblig. Ben Franklin quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"<br>-Benjamin Franklin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither " -Benjamin Franklin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"-Benjamin Franklin</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28432857</id>
	<title>Re:singular not plural</title>
	<author>adminstring</author>
	<datestamp>1245680700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting choice of examples here... PETA has never killed or injured any human.  They've killed a bunch of cats and dogs in their "shelters" (as have most "humane societies") but as far as humans are concerned, they're harmless.  If you have a counter-example, please provide a hyperlink.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting choice of examples here... PETA has never killed or injured any human .
They 've killed a bunch of cats and dogs in their " shelters " ( as have most " humane societies " ) but as far as humans are concerned , they 're harmless .
If you have a counter-example , please provide a hyperlink .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting choice of examples here... PETA has never killed or injured any human.
They've killed a bunch of cats and dogs in their "shelters" (as have most "humane societies") but as far as humans are concerned, they're harmless.
If you have a counter-example, please provide a hyperlink.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28439475</id>
	<title>youth and bb guns</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245774300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I were 20 years younger and a little dumber, I'd do a little vigilante justice and have fun shooting these cameras out with a bb gun. I'd also go for all the traffic cameras that aren't intended for safety, but only to collect files for people who go 1/2 second after a light flips from yellow to red.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were 20 years younger and a little dumber , I 'd do a little vigilante justice and have fun shooting these cameras out with a bb gun .
I 'd also go for all the traffic cameras that are n't intended for safety , but only to collect files for people who go 1/2 second after a light flips from yellow to red .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were 20 years younger and a little dumber, I'd do a little vigilante justice and have fun shooting these cameras out with a bb gun.
I'd also go for all the traffic cameras that aren't intended for safety, but only to collect files for people who go 1/2 second after a light flips from yellow to red.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427525</id>
	<title>Re:Neighborhood watch?</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245703740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know when the neighborhood watch is watching. If the neighborhood watch reports me, than I can easily track them down and retaliate. If it is a camera, I am never sure when they are watching or which observer narced me out, so I have to bust a cap in ALL their asses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know when the neighborhood watch is watching .
If the neighborhood watch reports me , than I can easily track them down and retaliate .
If it is a camera , I am never sure when they are watching or which observer narced me out , so I have to bust a cap in ALL their asses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know when the neighborhood watch is watching.
If the neighborhood watch reports me, than I can easily track them down and retaliate.
If it is a camera, I am never sure when they are watching or which observer narced me out, so I have to bust a cap in ALL their asses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426971</id>
	<title>CTU Lancaster</title>
	<author>C4st13v4n14</author>
	<datestamp>1245702240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just the name Jack Bauer instils fear in broke Pennsylvanian caffeine junkies looking for their next fix.</p><p>--------------------<br>I spell differently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just the name Jack Bauer instils fear in broke Pennsylvanian caffeine junkies looking for their next fix.--------------------I spell differently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just the name Jack Bauer instils fear in broke Pennsylvanian caffeine junkies looking for their next fix.--------------------I spell differently.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28431467</id>
	<title>Re:Ahhh, Slashdot</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1245674220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  However, if there are any other people in your car, then you may become a projectile that can harm the other occupants of the vehicle in a collision.</p></div><p>I really don't think the additional damage is significant. They certainly aren't worried about buses. And do you strap down every other object in your car that could become a projectile?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>  "If a passerby with a cell phone could have recorded the same video, then it is the same thing." One should never assume their actions outside of their own home are private. The addition of a few cameras doesn't change that principle.</p></div><p>There is a difference between non-private and under scrutiny. Yes, someone could be taking a picture of you with a cellphone camera, <i>but they probably aren't</i>; and if someone was following you around doing that all the time you'd get the hell away from them. The only way to get away from the surveillance cameras is to hide in your house with the curtains drawn, which is no way to live.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , if there are any other people in your car , then you may become a projectile that can harm the other occupants of the vehicle in a collision.I really do n't think the additional damage is significant .
They certainly are n't worried about buses .
And do you strap down every other object in your car that could become a projectile ?
" If a passerby with a cell phone could have recorded the same video , then it is the same thing .
" One should never assume their actions outside of their own home are private .
The addition of a few cameras does n't change that principle.There is a difference between non-private and under scrutiny .
Yes , someone could be taking a picture of you with a cellphone camera , but they probably are n't ; and if someone was following you around doing that all the time you 'd get the hell away from them .
The only way to get away from the surveillance cameras is to hide in your house with the curtains drawn , which is no way to live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  However, if there are any other people in your car, then you may become a projectile that can harm the other occupants of the vehicle in a collision.I really don't think the additional damage is significant.
They certainly aren't worried about buses.
And do you strap down every other object in your car that could become a projectile?
"If a passerby with a cell phone could have recorded the same video, then it is the same thing.
" One should never assume their actions outside of their own home are private.
The addition of a few cameras doesn't change that principle.There is a difference between non-private and under scrutiny.
Yes, someone could be taking a picture of you with a cellphone camera, but they probably aren't; and if someone was following you around doing that all the time you'd get the hell away from them.
The only way to get away from the surveillance cameras is to hide in your house with the curtains drawn, which is no way to live.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427561</id>
	<title>Is there anything wrong with instilling terror?</title>
	<author>Weedhopper</author>
	<datestamp>1245703860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> 'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing." His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby. "There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'"</p><p>I nearly choked on my coffee when I read this.  I wonder if Jack Bauer thinks anything is wrong with instilling terror.</p><p>Mind boggling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'But Jack Bauer , owner of the city 's largest beer and soft drink distributor , calls the network " a great thing .
" His store has n't been robbed , he said , since four cameras went up nearby .
" There 's nothing wrong with instilling fear , " he said .
' " I nearly choked on my coffee when I read this .
I wonder if Jack Bauer thinks anything is wrong with instilling terror.Mind boggling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing.
" His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby.
"There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.
'"I nearly choked on my coffee when I read this.
I wonder if Jack Bauer thinks anything is wrong with instilling terror.Mind boggling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427791</id>
	<title>Re:Following the UK's lead...</title>
	<author>BasilBrush</author>
	<datestamp>1245661440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cameras don't take away your freedom; they don't change your rights. They only make it more likely that you will be caught if you are doing something you don't have the right or freedom to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cameras do n't take away your freedom ; they do n't change your rights .
They only make it more likely that you will be caught if you are doing something you do n't have the right or freedom to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cameras don't take away your freedom; they don't change your rights.
They only make it more likely that you will be caught if you are doing something you don't have the right or freedom to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428473</id>
	<title>For Great Security!</title>
	<author>Your Anus</author>
	<datestamp>1245663780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a rock that keeps tigers away. Haven't been attacked yet!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a rock that keeps tigers away .
Have n't been attacked yet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a rock that keeps tigers away.
Haven't been attacked yet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427923</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't so bad</title>
	<author>oneirophrenos</author>
	<datestamp>1245661860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I also firmly believe that whenever a politician advocates the installation of monitoring cameras, the first camera installed should be aimed at their bedroom window and the video made freely available to everyone. If they don't have a problem with being treated that way themselves, then nobody else should either.</p></div><p>I dunno. I know some people like having people watching them with cameras in their bedrooms. That doesn't mean I would, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also firmly believe that whenever a politician advocates the installation of monitoring cameras , the first camera installed should be aimed at their bedroom window and the video made freely available to everyone .
If they do n't have a problem with being treated that way themselves , then nobody else should either.I dunno .
I know some people like having people watching them with cameras in their bedrooms .
That does n't mean I would , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also firmly believe that whenever a politician advocates the installation of monitoring cameras, the first camera installed should be aimed at their bedroom window and the video made freely available to everyone.
If they don't have a problem with being treated that way themselves, then nobody else should either.I dunno.
I know some people like having people watching them with cameras in their bedrooms.
That doesn't mean I would, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426597</id>
	<title>Ends and means</title>
	<author>RichardJenkins</author>
	<datestamp>1245700980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing." His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby. "There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'"</p></div><p>The ends don't always justify the means, Jack. How many people have to be tortured to death during an interrogation before you realise that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'But Jack Bauer , owner of the city 's largest beer and soft drink distributor , calls the network " a great thing .
" His store has n't been robbed , he said , since four cameras went up nearby .
" There 's nothing wrong with instilling fear , " he said .
' " The ends do n't always justify the means , Jack .
How many people have to be tortured to death during an interrogation before you realise that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing.
" His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby.
"There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.
'"The ends don't always justify the means, Jack.
How many people have to be tortured to death during an interrogation before you realise that.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28443013</id>
	<title>Re:big effing deal</title>
	<author>verbalcontract</author>
	<datestamp>1245786900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I agree with you in principle, I would venture to guess that you couldn't visually identify anyone on those cameras, let alone use them as evidence against someone in court. The money spent on the cameras is much better spent elsewhere, for example on real police.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with you in principle , I would venture to guess that you could n't visually identify anyone on those cameras , let alone use them as evidence against someone in court .
The money spent on the cameras is much better spent elsewhere , for example on real police .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with you in principle, I would venture to guess that you couldn't visually identify anyone on those cameras, let alone use them as evidence against someone in court.
The money spent on the cameras is much better spent elsewhere, for example on real police.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427027</id>
	<title>I'm all for this if...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I all for public surveillance only if we, the private citizen also get to have cameras on those who are doing the surveillance. Only then is it completely fair. Public surveillance is inevitable, just like we see in the UK...we might as well get used to it and make sure that the playing field is equal, that the government doesn't have a leg up over its citizens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I all for public surveillance only if we , the private citizen also get to have cameras on those who are doing the surveillance .
Only then is it completely fair .
Public surveillance is inevitable , just like we see in the UK...we might as well get used to it and make sure that the playing field is equal , that the government does n't have a leg up over its citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I all for public surveillance only if we, the private citizen also get to have cameras on those who are doing the surveillance.
Only then is it completely fair.
Public surveillance is inevitable, just like we see in the UK...we might as well get used to it and make sure that the playing field is equal, that the government doesn't have a leg up over its citizens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426691</id>
	<title>In keeping with diversity and equal opportunity...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245701280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...they should hire Amish sketch artists to monitor those of Pennsylvania Dutch persuasion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...they should hire Amish sketch artists to monitor those of Pennsylvania Dutch persuasion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they should hire Amish sketch artists to monitor those of Pennsylvania Dutch persuasion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427863</id>
	<title>Re:Neighborhood watch?</title>
	<author>legirons</author>
	<datestamp>1245661620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, what's the difference between this and a neighborhood watch?  No, seriously, I'm asking.</p></div><p>freakier neighbours.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what 's the difference between this and a neighborhood watch ?
No , seriously , I 'm asking.freakier neighbours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what's the difference between this and a neighborhood watch?
No, seriously, I'm asking.freakier neighbours.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427227</id>
	<title>Smile, You're on Amish Camera!</title>
	<author>bcolflesh</author>
	<datestamp>1245703020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work in Lancaster (off New Holland Ave) - I believe one of the cameras is mounted on my building - the lot it overlooks has random car window smash &amp; grabs every couple months, due to the close proximity of a high school. There has been no discussion about the monitoring system at all as far as I can tell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work in Lancaster ( off New Holland Ave ) - I believe one of the cameras is mounted on my building - the lot it overlooks has random car window smash &amp; grabs every couple months , due to the close proximity of a high school .
There has been no discussion about the monitoring system at all as far as I can tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work in Lancaster (off New Holland Ave) - I believe one of the cameras is mounted on my building - the lot it overlooks has random car window smash &amp; grabs every couple months, due to the close proximity of a high school.
There has been no discussion about the monitoring system at all as far as I can tell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28445821</id>
	<title>Re:Lived here for years...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245753540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in Lancaster City also.  Actually, this has been mentioned in the local newspaper a couple times.  Front page news in January or February, before they started implementing them.  But you are right, no one seems to care.  I submitted this story to slashdot and digg the day the article was in the paper - i got like 4 diggs and slashdot ignored this story.  Why is it news now?  its too late to do anything most of the cameras are in place now.  What i thought was interesting is that in the printed article, there was a map showing where all the cameras would be.  They were in downtown (where all the business are) and in the more ghetto areas.  Absolutely NONE in the wealthy sections!  What does this mean to you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in Lancaster City also .
Actually , this has been mentioned in the local newspaper a couple times .
Front page news in January or February , before they started implementing them .
But you are right , no one seems to care .
I submitted this story to slashdot and digg the day the article was in the paper - i got like 4 diggs and slashdot ignored this story .
Why is it news now ?
its too late to do anything most of the cameras are in place now .
What i thought was interesting is that in the printed article , there was a map showing where all the cameras would be .
They were in downtown ( where all the business are ) and in the more ghetto areas .
Absolutely NONE in the wealthy sections !
What does this mean to you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in Lancaster City also.
Actually, this has been mentioned in the local newspaper a couple times.
Front page news in January or February, before they started implementing them.
But you are right, no one seems to care.
I submitted this story to slashdot and digg the day the article was in the paper - i got like 4 diggs and slashdot ignored this story.
Why is it news now?
its too late to do anything most of the cameras are in place now.
What i thought was interesting is that in the printed article, there was a map showing where all the cameras would be.
They were in downtown (where all the business are) and in the more ghetto areas.
Absolutely NONE in the wealthy sections!
What does this mean to you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28432787</id>
	<title>Re:big effing deal</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1245680340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Surveillance systems like this are getting implemented, everywhere, and their effect on society will be colossal. I believe it will be uniformly negative. We will move from the freedom and anonymity of urban society right back into the parochial, scrutinized and regulated mores of rural society. It's coming. In many ways, it's already here. You're only hope is that such systems have legal restrictions placed on them before they run completely rampant.</p></div><p>I see this as further urbanization of the rural developed world myself. Truly rural areas don't need widespread surveillance. They might have mores (as the Lancaster area does) but they don't regulate mores. This sort of thing is more an urban disease than a rural one in my view.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surveillance systems like this are getting implemented , everywhere , and their effect on society will be colossal .
I believe it will be uniformly negative .
We will move from the freedom and anonymity of urban society right back into the parochial , scrutinized and regulated mores of rural society .
It 's coming .
In many ways , it 's already here .
You 're only hope is that such systems have legal restrictions placed on them before they run completely rampant.I see this as further urbanization of the rural developed world myself .
Truly rural areas do n't need widespread surveillance .
They might have mores ( as the Lancaster area does ) but they do n't regulate mores .
This sort of thing is more an urban disease than a rural one in my view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surveillance systems like this are getting implemented, everywhere, and their effect on society will be colossal.
I believe it will be uniformly negative.
We will move from the freedom and anonymity of urban society right back into the parochial, scrutinized and regulated mores of rural society.
It's coming.
In many ways, it's already here.
You're only hope is that such systems have legal restrictions placed on them before they run completely rampant.I see this as further urbanization of the rural developed world myself.
Truly rural areas don't need widespread surveillance.
They might have mores (as the Lancaster area does) but they don't regulate mores.
This sort of thing is more an urban disease than a rural one in my view.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28434025</id>
	<title>Re:big effing deal</title>
	<author>libcln</author>
	<datestamp>1245687360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not a chance. Think prudes and gossips, closet authoritarians and morality police, the perpetually offended and those who long for a society in which people know their place.</p></div><p>Yep, you just described Lancaster county's population to a T.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a chance .
Think prudes and gossips , closet authoritarians and morality police , the perpetually offended and those who long for a society in which people know their place.Yep , you just described Lancaster county 's population to a T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a chance.
Think prudes and gossips, closet authoritarians and morality police, the perpetually offended and those who long for a society in which people know their place.Yep, you just described Lancaster county's population to a T.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427371</id>
	<title>The innocent have nothing to fear</title>
	<author>Husgaard</author>
	<datestamp>1245703380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This argument will only last until the first case of stalking by one of the surveillance volunteers breaks the news.
<p>
That is... if it breaks the news. Consider the journalist with this story contacting the major for a comment, and getting this message: "Publish this and we will publish the video of your wife going to the abortion clinic."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This argument will only last until the first case of stalking by one of the surveillance volunteers breaks the news .
That is... if it breaks the news .
Consider the journalist with this story contacting the major for a comment , and getting this message : " Publish this and we will publish the video of your wife going to the abortion clinic .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This argument will only last until the first case of stalking by one of the surveillance volunteers breaks the news.
That is... if it breaks the news.
Consider the journalist with this story contacting the major for a comment, and getting this message: "Publish this and we will publish the video of your wife going to the abortion clinic.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428251</id>
	<title>Fear</title>
	<author>DaMattster</author>
	<datestamp>1245663120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fear is never a good motivating factor!  I am all for private CCTV cameras to protect people and property.  I am NOT in favor of government surveillance.  If you want to hire a private firm to watch your property and relay the information to the authorities, by all means, please do.  But if you allow government to do it, you have just given up your right to privacy.  Once you give up a right, it is difficult, if not impossible, to get it back.  Look at what the Patriot Act did to our freedoms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fear is never a good motivating factor !
I am all for private CCTV cameras to protect people and property .
I am NOT in favor of government surveillance .
If you want to hire a private firm to watch your property and relay the information to the authorities , by all means , please do .
But if you allow government to do it , you have just given up your right to privacy .
Once you give up a right , it is difficult , if not impossible , to get it back .
Look at what the Patriot Act did to our freedoms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fear is never a good motivating factor!
I am all for private CCTV cameras to protect people and property.
I am NOT in favor of government surveillance.
If you want to hire a private firm to watch your property and relay the information to the authorities, by all means, please do.
But if you allow government to do it, you have just given up your right to privacy.
Once you give up a right, it is difficult, if not impossible, to get it back.
Look at what the Patriot Act did to our freedoms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427731</id>
	<title>Re:Lived here for years...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245661200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why hasn't it been in the local papers?  Probably because if it had been mentioned in the media *before* the cameras went up, the hue and cry would have been sufficient to scrap the plan.<br>Note that the only people who were informed of the plan were business leaders whose property would be protected, not the general populace whose activities would be watched.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why has n't it been in the local papers ?
Probably because if it had been mentioned in the media * before * the cameras went up , the hue and cry would have been sufficient to scrap the plan.Note that the only people who were informed of the plan were business leaders whose property would be protected , not the general populace whose activities would be watched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why hasn't it been in the local papers?
Probably because if it had been mentioned in the media *before* the cameras went up, the hue and cry would have been sufficient to scrap the plan.Note that the only people who were informed of the plan were business leaders whose property would be protected, not the general populace whose activities would be watched.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428309</id>
	<title>frikin lasers</title>
	<author>Joe U</author>
	<datestamp>1245663300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If stuff like that shows up in my neighborhood then I'm going to build a IR &amp; LASER camera blinding system.

Anyone want to help with the design?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If stuff like that shows up in my neighborhood then I 'm going to build a IR &amp; LASER camera blinding system .
Anyone want to help with the design ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If stuff like that shows up in my neighborhood then I'm going to build a IR &amp; LASER camera blinding system.
Anyone want to help with the design?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429981</id>
	<title>Re:big effing deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245669060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ugh.. the for the children excuse. I know, how about the parents<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...I don't know.. PARENT their children? Kids in previous decades did not need that kind of surveillance.  They don't today.</p><p>
&nbsp; please, try to do better than that if you want to justify a police state.  Privacy SHOULD be a civil right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ugh.. the for the children excuse .
I know , how about the parents ...I do n't know.. PARENT their children ?
Kids in previous decades did not need that kind of surveillance .
They do n't today .
  please , try to do better than that if you want to justify a police state .
Privacy SHOULD be a civil right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ugh.. the for the children excuse.
I know, how about the parents ...I don't know.. PARENT their children?
Kids in previous decades did not need that kind of surveillance.
They don't today.
  please, try to do better than that if you want to justify a police state.
Privacy SHOULD be a civil right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28434181</id>
	<title>Re:An example of cameras in our town</title>
	<author>DavidD\_CA</author>
	<datestamp>1245688200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the cameras were still used, lawfully, to remove drunk drivers from the road, right?</p><p>Sounds like an argument for more cameras.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the cameras were still used , lawfully , to remove drunk drivers from the road , right ? Sounds like an argument for more cameras .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the cameras were still used, lawfully, to remove drunk drivers from the road, right?Sounds like an argument for more cameras.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28449203</id>
	<title>Public space</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1245779880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, how much more life can one beat out of a dead horse?</p><p>So, there is a number of CCTV cameras somewhere and a group of volunteers spend time looking at them? Big deal. And it really doesn't have anything to do with privacy that I can spot. These cameras are put up in public spaces - if people move out into public space, they can't expect to be private.</p><p>Don't get me wrong - I can see why it would worry people that e.g. the police record everything on cameras, because you can't go and check out the material to see if you are in there looking like you might be doing something you shouldn't, but that can be amended - don't you have a Freedom of Information Act in the US? Or better - put it all on a public server, so everybody can go and see what goes on.</p><p>I don't buy that nonsense about "If you are innocent<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." either; there are too many examples to the contrary, but there are hardly any circumstances that are only bad, it's just a matter of finding the good side of things. Couldn't it actually be quite cool if it was possible to check out what was going on downtown via live cameras? So perhaps instead of just crappy CCTV, what is really needed is good quality cameras?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , how much more life can one beat out of a dead horse ? So , there is a number of CCTV cameras somewhere and a group of volunteers spend time looking at them ?
Big deal .
And it really does n't have anything to do with privacy that I can spot .
These cameras are put up in public spaces - if people move out into public space , they ca n't expect to be private.Do n't get me wrong - I can see why it would worry people that e.g .
the police record everything on cameras , because you ca n't go and check out the material to see if you are in there looking like you might be doing something you should n't , but that can be amended - do n't you have a Freedom of Information Act in the US ?
Or better - put it all on a public server , so everybody can go and see what goes on.I do n't buy that nonsense about " If you are innocent ... " either ; there are too many examples to the contrary , but there are hardly any circumstances that are only bad , it 's just a matter of finding the good side of things .
Could n't it actually be quite cool if it was possible to check out what was going on downtown via live cameras ?
So perhaps instead of just crappy CCTV , what is really needed is good quality cameras ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, how much more life can one beat out of a dead horse?So, there is a number of CCTV cameras somewhere and a group of volunteers spend time looking at them?
Big deal.
And it really doesn't have anything to do with privacy that I can spot.
These cameras are put up in public spaces - if people move out into public space, they can't expect to be private.Don't get me wrong - I can see why it would worry people that e.g.
the police record everything on cameras, because you can't go and check out the material to see if you are in there looking like you might be doing something you shouldn't, but that can be amended - don't you have a Freedom of Information Act in the US?
Or better - put it all on a public server, so everybody can go and see what goes on.I don't buy that nonsense about "If you are innocent ..." either; there are too many examples to the contrary, but there are hardly any circumstances that are only bad, it's just a matter of finding the good side of things.
Couldn't it actually be quite cool if it was possible to check out what was going on downtown via live cameras?
So perhaps instead of just crappy CCTV, what is really needed is good quality cameras?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28430253</id>
	<title>Re:You've bought the rhetoric.</title>
	<author>Sancho</author>
	<datestamp>1245670140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. Because tickets are sent to the wrong people?<br>2. Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car?<br>3. Because you have no accuser to confront in court?</p><p>These three are irrelevant, because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail. If you don't look like the picture, then it's pretty easy to contest it.</p></div><p>Not in Texas.  There's no requirement that there be a photo of the driver, and there are several places where there is one camera pointed in one direction covering both directions of traffic.</p><p>Furthermore, they're <b>civil</b> penalties.  How on earth this is the case is beyond me.  The fact that a state law is enforced using a civil fine is a terrifying precedent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Because tickets are sent to the wrong people ? 2 .
Because tickets are assessed to the owner ( not the driver ) of the car ? 3 .
Because you have no accuser to confront in court ? These three are irrelevant , because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail .
If you do n't look like the picture , then it 's pretty easy to contest it.Not in Texas .
There 's no requirement that there be a photo of the driver , and there are several places where there is one camera pointed in one direction covering both directions of traffic.Furthermore , they 're civil penalties .
How on earth this is the case is beyond me .
The fact that a state law is enforced using a civil fine is a terrifying precedent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Because tickets are sent to the wrong people?2.
Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car?3.
Because you have no accuser to confront in court?These three are irrelevant, because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail.
If you don't look like the picture, then it's pretty easy to contest it.Not in Texas.
There's no requirement that there be a photo of the driver, and there are several places where there is one camera pointed in one direction covering both directions of traffic.Furthermore, they're civil penalties.
How on earth this is the case is beyond me.
The fact that a state law is enforced using a civil fine is a terrifying precedent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28437953</id>
	<title>Those crazy Amish</title>
	<author>SuperByelich</author>
	<datestamp>1245767520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What goes clip-clop, clip-clop, bang-bang, clip-clop?  A drive-by shooting in Lancaster, PA.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-p</htmltext>
<tokenext>What goes clip-clop , clip-clop , bang-bang , clip-clop ?
A drive-by shooting in Lancaster , PA. : -p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What goes clip-clop, clip-clop, bang-bang, clip-clop?
A drive-by shooting in Lancaster, PA. :-p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28431101</id>
	<title>Re:big effing deal</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1245673140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  i often rode my bike down the street to a neighborhood park when i was a kid, and i'm sure my parents would have appreciated the cameras at the time.</p></div><p>But how would you have felt if your parents were watching your every move with the possibility of replaying them in slow motion with the rest of your relatives? Would you have held hands with that cute girl? Would you have tripped that bully? Would you have eaten that candy bar?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i often rode my bike down the street to a neighborhood park when i was a kid , and i 'm sure my parents would have appreciated the cameras at the time.But how would you have felt if your parents were watching your every move with the possibility of replaying them in slow motion with the rest of your relatives ?
Would you have held hands with that cute girl ?
Would you have tripped that bully ?
Would you have eaten that candy bar ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  i often rode my bike down the street to a neighborhood park when i was a kid, and i'm sure my parents would have appreciated the cameras at the time.But how would you have felt if your parents were watching your every move with the possibility of replaying them in slow motion with the rest of your relatives?
Would you have held hands with that cute girl?
Would you have tripped that bully?
Would you have eaten that candy bar?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28432179</id>
	<title>Re:You've bought the rhetoric.</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1245677460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>These three are irrelevant, because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail. If you don't look like the picture, then it's pretty easy to contest it.</i> <br>
<br>
I don't know about where you live, but this is not the case in Atlanta.  My beloved Volvo recently died so my stepfather was nice enough to loan me his car for a week while I shopped around.  I apparently ran* a red light in his car, and the ticket ended up going to him.  The picture was only of the car, from the rear, without any way to see who was driving it.  He had to get a notarized letter saying he was not the driver, and go through a bunch of idiotic paperwork, to get the ticket transferred to me.  Of course, we're friendly, reasonable sorts, so this was not an issue, but what if I turned around and claimed that no, I was not the driver either?  The camera itself has no way of determining who is telling the truth, but the state sure as hell isn't going to just drop the matter.<br>
<br>
Furthermore, the issue of "you have no accuser to face in court" is absolutely correct.   <a href="http://www.wdsu.com/news/19461887/detail.html" title="wdsu.com">Many judges agree.</a> [wdsu.com]  You can't just say "Well, it's on camera," because all I see in the picture is the back of a car, which may or may not be driven by me, and in some of these pictures, depending on camera placement, you can't even tell where the picture was taken.  <br>
<br>
Even if my face is clearly identifiable in the picture, it's still not taking into account mitigating circumstances which a cop might notice but the camera won't.  Maybe I saw some lunatic approaching from the rear at 50mph and wasn't slowing down, and decided that getting out of his way would be a really great idea.  Or, less dramatically, maybe it's four in the morning, with visibility for miles and nobody around, and I've been stuck at the same red light for six minutes for no reason.  I've done that, got pulled over, and the cop let me go because he realised it was absurd.  I've seen judges in traffic court let infractions like that slide with similar excuses.  A camera would not have been so forgiving.
<br> <br>
<i>4. Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras?</i> <br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/" title="motorists.org">Your requested citation, sir.</a> [motorists.org]  It seems rather obvious anyway -- if you instill into people the fear that they are going to get ticketed, they're going to be a lot more stompy on that brake pedal if there is even the slightest chance they won't clear the intersection.  And like it or not, people follow too closely, and do not expect the guy in front of them to suddenly hit the anchors.  Maybe the accident will be the fault of the guy in back, but that doesn't chance the fact that an accident occured.  The cameras and laws just ignore the mechanical realities of the situation.<br>
<br>
In general drivers are not suicidal and will not deliberately run red lights.  If there's a problem at a certain intersection with many drivers blowing through the light at the last second, maybe the answer is to adjust the damn timing, not try to profit from it.<br>
<br>
<i>* I had pulled out into the intersection to make a left turn, the light changed, so I went.  Apparently the state would rather I just sit there in the intersection like a jackass.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P  </i></htmltext>
<tokenext>These three are irrelevant , because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail .
If you do n't look like the picture , then it 's pretty easy to contest it .
I do n't know about where you live , but this is not the case in Atlanta .
My beloved Volvo recently died so my stepfather was nice enough to loan me his car for a week while I shopped around .
I apparently ran * a red light in his car , and the ticket ended up going to him .
The picture was only of the car , from the rear , without any way to see who was driving it .
He had to get a notarized letter saying he was not the driver , and go through a bunch of idiotic paperwork , to get the ticket transferred to me .
Of course , we 're friendly , reasonable sorts , so this was not an issue , but what if I turned around and claimed that no , I was not the driver either ?
The camera itself has no way of determining who is telling the truth , but the state sure as hell is n't going to just drop the matter .
Furthermore , the issue of " you have no accuser to face in court " is absolutely correct .
Many judges agree .
[ wdsu.com ] You ca n't just say " Well , it 's on camera , " because all I see in the picture is the back of a car , which may or may not be driven by me , and in some of these pictures , depending on camera placement , you ca n't even tell where the picture was taken .
Even if my face is clearly identifiable in the picture , it 's still not taking into account mitigating circumstances which a cop might notice but the camera wo n't .
Maybe I saw some lunatic approaching from the rear at 50mph and was n't slowing down , and decided that getting out of his way would be a really great idea .
Or , less dramatically , maybe it 's four in the morning , with visibility for miles and nobody around , and I 've been stuck at the same red light for six minutes for no reason .
I 've done that , got pulled over , and the cop let me go because he realised it was absurd .
I 've seen judges in traffic court let infractions like that slide with similar excuses .
A camera would not have been so forgiving .
4. Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras ?
Your requested citation , sir .
[ motorists.org ] It seems rather obvious anyway -- if you instill into people the fear that they are going to get ticketed , they 're going to be a lot more stompy on that brake pedal if there is even the slightest chance they wo n't clear the intersection .
And like it or not , people follow too closely , and do not expect the guy in front of them to suddenly hit the anchors .
Maybe the accident will be the fault of the guy in back , but that does n't chance the fact that an accident occured .
The cameras and laws just ignore the mechanical realities of the situation .
In general drivers are not suicidal and will not deliberately run red lights .
If there 's a problem at a certain intersection with many drivers blowing through the light at the last second , maybe the answer is to adjust the damn timing , not try to profit from it .
* I had pulled out into the intersection to make a left turn , the light changed , so I went .
Apparently the state would rather I just sit there in the intersection like a jackass .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These three are irrelevant, because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail.
If you don't look like the picture, then it's pretty easy to contest it.
I don't know about where you live, but this is not the case in Atlanta.
My beloved Volvo recently died so my stepfather was nice enough to loan me his car for a week while I shopped around.
I apparently ran* a red light in his car, and the ticket ended up going to him.
The picture was only of the car, from the rear, without any way to see who was driving it.
He had to get a notarized letter saying he was not the driver, and go through a bunch of idiotic paperwork, to get the ticket transferred to me.
Of course, we're friendly, reasonable sorts, so this was not an issue, but what if I turned around and claimed that no, I was not the driver either?
The camera itself has no way of determining who is telling the truth, but the state sure as hell isn't going to just drop the matter.
Furthermore, the issue of "you have no accuser to face in court" is absolutely correct.
Many judges agree.
[wdsu.com]  You can't just say "Well, it's on camera," because all I see in the picture is the back of a car, which may or may not be driven by me, and in some of these pictures, depending on camera placement, you can't even tell where the picture was taken.
Even if my face is clearly identifiable in the picture, it's still not taking into account mitigating circumstances which a cop might notice but the camera won't.
Maybe I saw some lunatic approaching from the rear at 50mph and wasn't slowing down, and decided that getting out of his way would be a really great idea.
Or, less dramatically, maybe it's four in the morning, with visibility for miles and nobody around, and I've been stuck at the same red light for six minutes for no reason.
I've done that, got pulled over, and the cop let me go because he realised it was absurd.
I've seen judges in traffic court let infractions like that slide with similar excuses.
A camera would not have been so forgiving.
4. Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras?
Your requested citation, sir.
[motorists.org]  It seems rather obvious anyway -- if you instill into people the fear that they are going to get ticketed, they're going to be a lot more stompy on that brake pedal if there is even the slightest chance they won't clear the intersection.
And like it or not, people follow too closely, and do not expect the guy in front of them to suddenly hit the anchors.
Maybe the accident will be the fault of the guy in back, but that doesn't chance the fact that an accident occured.
The cameras and laws just ignore the mechanical realities of the situation.
In general drivers are not suicidal and will not deliberately run red lights.
If there's a problem at a certain intersection with many drivers blowing through the light at the last second, maybe the answer is to adjust the damn timing, not try to profit from it.
* I had pulled out into the intersection to make a left turn, the light changed, so I went.
Apparently the state would rather I just sit there in the intersection like a jackass.
:P  </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426965</id>
	<title>could be good?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think massive anonymous recording might actually be good thing. We're already in public and people are looking at us and potentially filming us anyway. Google street view seems like a good thing. Consider when a crime actually happens--say a group of renegade cops clubbing some innocent mentally ill person for jollies or a person shot or killed in a robbery. That video could be useful in court. Some years ago I picked up some trash off a sidewalk and tossed it in the nearest dumpster--it was behind an open gate on the private property of SCE. A guard spoke on a speaker and said "Thank You". Almost soiled myself...that was 1996...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think massive anonymous recording might actually be good thing .
We 're already in public and people are looking at us and potentially filming us anyway .
Google street view seems like a good thing .
Consider when a crime actually happens--say a group of renegade cops clubbing some innocent mentally ill person for jollies or a person shot or killed in a robbery .
That video could be useful in court .
Some years ago I picked up some trash off a sidewalk and tossed it in the nearest dumpster--it was behind an open gate on the private property of SCE .
A guard spoke on a speaker and said " Thank You " .
Almost soiled myself...that was 1996.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think massive anonymous recording might actually be good thing.
We're already in public and people are looking at us and potentially filming us anyway.
Google street view seems like a good thing.
Consider when a crime actually happens--say a group of renegade cops clubbing some innocent mentally ill person for jollies or a person shot or killed in a robbery.
That video could be useful in court.
Some years ago I picked up some trash off a sidewalk and tossed it in the nearest dumpster--it was behind an open gate on the private property of SCE.
A guard spoke on a speaker and said "Thank You".
Almost soiled myself...that was 1996...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426807</id>
	<title>Re:Ends and means</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1245701700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, if this is anything like "24" there will be about 3 moles inside this 10 person organization. Apparently one prerequisite for working at CTU is that you don't go through any sort of background check.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , if this is anything like " 24 " there will be about 3 moles inside this 10 person organization .
Apparently one prerequisite for working at CTU is that you do n't go through any sort of background check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, if this is anything like "24" there will be about 3 moles inside this 10 person organization.
Apparently one prerequisite for working at CTU is that you don't go through any sort of background check.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28476245</id>
	<title>Re:I LIVE in Lancaster and I didn't know!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245941940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I LIVE in Lancaster</p></div><p>Which means you pronounce it "lang-cast-er" while everyone else pronounces it "lan-caster", right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I LIVE in LancasterWhich means you pronounce it " lang-cast-er " while everyone else pronounces it " lan-caster " , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I LIVE in LancasterWhich means you pronounce it "lang-cast-er" while everyone else pronounces it "lan-caster", right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429341</id>
	<title>Re:I LIVE in Lancaster and I didn't know!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245666600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I remember reading something about this in the Lancaster New Era a while back.  Seeing as I only read the front page of newspapers before going to the crossword page, it wasn't really hidden from the public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I remember reading something about this in the Lancaster New Era a while back .
Seeing as I only read the front page of newspapers before going to the crossword page , it was n't really hidden from the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I remember reading something about this in the Lancaster New Era a while back.
Seeing as I only read the front page of newspapers before going to the crossword page, it wasn't really hidden from the public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28436197</id>
	<title>I'm converting to Islam</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1245750480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then I can wear a veil all day long.<br> <br>Seriously, who would know I was a guy? Schoolgirls have stuffed bras for years, why can't I?<br> <br>We all need to pay a price for our privacy, and my price is my self esteem!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then I can wear a veil all day long .
Seriously , who would know I was a guy ?
Schoolgirls have stuffed bras for years , why ca n't I ?
We all need to pay a price for our privacy , and my price is my self esteem !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then I can wear a veil all day long.
Seriously, who would know I was a guy?
Schoolgirls have stuffed bras for years, why can't I?
We all need to pay a price for our privacy, and my price is my self esteem!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28430573</id>
	<title>Privacy in public?</title>
	<author>serutan</author>
	<datestamp>1245671220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"No one has the right to know who goes in and out my front door," agreed David Mowrer...</i></p><p>Wait a second. If anybody walking down the street can see who goes in and out Dave's front door, how is that private? Inside the door it's Dave's private world, but out in public it's, well... "public."</p><p>The difference I see between a surveillance camera and a person standing on the sidewalk is that when you see a person nearby it makes you consciously aware that you're in public, but when you are on a seemingly deserted street it feels sort of private. That sense of privacy is an illusion, but it is one we're accustomed to. A neon orange sign on every camera would solve that issue for me, but I don't know about the people who expect their right to privacy to extend into public places.</p><p>How can we ban outdoor surveillance cameras without banning other kinds of photography in public? We've discussed on Slashdot numerous times the rights of photographers to snap pictures of public buildings, copyrighted art and other things that are out in plain sight. Are we going to grant that freedom only to photographers who are physically present, and if so why?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" No one has the right to know who goes in and out my front door , " agreed David Mowrer...Wait a second .
If anybody walking down the street can see who goes in and out Dave 's front door , how is that private ?
Inside the door it 's Dave 's private world , but out in public it 's , well.. .
" public. " The difference I see between a surveillance camera and a person standing on the sidewalk is that when you see a person nearby it makes you consciously aware that you 're in public , but when you are on a seemingly deserted street it feels sort of private .
That sense of privacy is an illusion , but it is one we 're accustomed to .
A neon orange sign on every camera would solve that issue for me , but I do n't know about the people who expect their right to privacy to extend into public places.How can we ban outdoor surveillance cameras without banning other kinds of photography in public ?
We 've discussed on Slashdot numerous times the rights of photographers to snap pictures of public buildings , copyrighted art and other things that are out in plain sight .
Are we going to grant that freedom only to photographers who are physically present , and if so why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No one has the right to know who goes in and out my front door," agreed David Mowrer...Wait a second.
If anybody walking down the street can see who goes in and out Dave's front door, how is that private?
Inside the door it's Dave's private world, but out in public it's, well...
"public."The difference I see between a surveillance camera and a person standing on the sidewalk is that when you see a person nearby it makes you consciously aware that you're in public, but when you are on a seemingly deserted street it feels sort of private.
That sense of privacy is an illusion, but it is one we're accustomed to.
A neon orange sign on every camera would solve that issue for me, but I don't know about the people who expect their right to privacy to extend into public places.How can we ban outdoor surveillance cameras without banning other kinds of photography in public?
We've discussed on Slashdot numerous times the rights of photographers to snap pictures of public buildings, copyrighted art and other things that are out in plain sight.
Are we going to grant that freedom only to photographers who are physically present, and if so why?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429225</id>
	<title>Re:An example of cameras in our town</title>
	<author>Unknown Relic</author>
	<datestamp>1245666300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I don't advocate the approach they used to get the cameras in place, surely catching drunk drivers as they're leaving the pub isn't a bad thing?  Hell, given all the press on just how useless cameras are at preventing crime, it seems using them to catch drunk drivers is probably just about all they're actually good for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do n't advocate the approach they used to get the cameras in place , surely catching drunk drivers as they 're leaving the pub is n't a bad thing ?
Hell , given all the press on just how useless cameras are at preventing crime , it seems using them to catch drunk drivers is probably just about all they 're actually good for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I don't advocate the approach they used to get the cameras in place, surely catching drunk drivers as they're leaving the pub isn't a bad thing?
Hell, given all the press on just how useless cameras are at preventing crime, it seems using them to catch drunk drivers is probably just about all they're actually good for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426895</id>
	<title>Nobody expects . . . "The Lancaster Inquisition!"</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1245702060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'"</p></div><p>"Fear . . . and surprise!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" There 's nothing wrong with instilling fear , " he said .
' " " Fear .
. .
and surprise !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.
'""Fear .
. .
and surprise!
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28431893</id>
	<title>Re:I live in Lancaster too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245676140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>get off my lawn... church people are often the last ones to copmlain about local government policing...unless of course their particular cult is the subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>get off my lawn... church people are often the last ones to copmlain about local government policing...unless of course their particular cult is the subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>get off my lawn... church people are often the last ones to copmlain about local government policing...unless of course their particular cult is the subject.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427223</id>
	<title>If it really works, people hate it.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1245703020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The story of <a href="http://www.justin.tv/adamsblock" title="justin.tv">Adam's Block</a> [justin.tv] is instructive.  Someone set up two good high-resolution cameras looking out at a high-crime area in San Francisco's Tenderloin, and put them on the Web.  Viewers could comment in real time, and log interesting events for later interest.
</p><p>
The drug dealers were angry.  There were death threats.  <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/13/BA7Q14N5S6.DTL&amp;feed=rss.cnevius" title="sfgate.com">The camera owner finally had to take the cameras down and move.</a> [sfgate.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The story of Adam 's Block [ justin.tv ] is instructive .
Someone set up two good high-resolution cameras looking out at a high-crime area in San Francisco 's Tenderloin , and put them on the Web .
Viewers could comment in real time , and log interesting events for later interest .
The drug dealers were angry .
There were death threats .
The camera owner finally had to take the cameras down and move .
[ sfgate.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The story of Adam's Block [justin.tv] is instructive.
Someone set up two good high-resolution cameras looking out at a high-crime area in San Francisco's Tenderloin, and put them on the Web.
Viewers could comment in real time, and log interesting events for later interest.
The drug dealers were angry.
There were death threats.
The camera owner finally had to take the cameras down and move.
[sfgate.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427069</id>
	<title>"There's nothing wrong with instilling fear"</title>
	<author>rwalker429</author>
	<datestamp>1245702540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But....Jack Bauer...my other fictional moral compass says that "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."  I'm so confused!</htmltext>
<tokenext>But....Jack Bauer...my other fictional moral compass says that " Fear is the path to the dark side .
Fear leads to anger .
Anger leads to hate .
Hate leads to suffering .
" I 'm so confused !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But....Jack Bauer...my other fictional moral compass says that "Fear is the path to the dark side.
Fear leads to anger.
Anger leads to hate.
Hate leads to suffering.
"  I'm so confused!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428889</id>
	<title>"There's nothing wrong with instilling fear,"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245664980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure the people running Iran right now agree completely, and if they win the power struggle going on right now, they'll be putting a similar camera system of their own in every city in Iran to spot dissidents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the people running Iran right now agree completely , and if they win the power struggle going on right now , they 'll be putting a similar camera system of their own in every city in Iran to spot dissidents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the people running Iran right now agree completely, and if they win the power struggle going on right now, they'll be putting a similar camera system of their own in every city in Iran to spot dissidents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426619</id>
	<title>Re:Ahhh, Slashdot</title>
	<author>garcia</author>
	<datestamp>1245701040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We love the nanny state when it protects us from ourselves, but we don't want them watching.</i></p><p>I don't know about the rest of Slashdot (I haven't really seen that rhetoric but if you do, I won't argue) but I am certainly against all meddling. I hate the fact that the state that I live in has seat belt laws now, Blue Laws, and the fact that some intersections still have cameras on the street lights (red light cameras were declared unconstitutional in Minneapolis).</p><p>If a private business wants to have cameras which only view their own private/personal property, that's fine. As soon as it's opened up to a group outside of that private business or they are viewing public property then it's not acceptable. No, I don't believe in the whole "if you can be seen by a private citizen then it's the same thing." Once that citizen can play back an exact copy of the event in his/her head at a later time without any chance of fault, then I'll consider it the same damn thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We love the nanny state when it protects us from ourselves , but we do n't want them watching.I do n't know about the rest of Slashdot ( I have n't really seen that rhetoric but if you do , I wo n't argue ) but I am certainly against all meddling .
I hate the fact that the state that I live in has seat belt laws now , Blue Laws , and the fact that some intersections still have cameras on the street lights ( red light cameras were declared unconstitutional in Minneapolis ) .If a private business wants to have cameras which only view their own private/personal property , that 's fine .
As soon as it 's opened up to a group outside of that private business or they are viewing public property then it 's not acceptable .
No , I do n't believe in the whole " if you can be seen by a private citizen then it 's the same thing .
" Once that citizen can play back an exact copy of the event in his/her head at a later time without any chance of fault , then I 'll consider it the same damn thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We love the nanny state when it protects us from ourselves, but we don't want them watching.I don't know about the rest of Slashdot (I haven't really seen that rhetoric but if you do, I won't argue) but I am certainly against all meddling.
I hate the fact that the state that I live in has seat belt laws now, Blue Laws, and the fact that some intersections still have cameras on the street lights (red light cameras were declared unconstitutional in Minneapolis).If a private business wants to have cameras which only view their own private/personal property, that's fine.
As soon as it's opened up to a group outside of that private business or they are viewing public property then it's not acceptable.
No, I don't believe in the whole "if you can be seen by a private citizen then it's the same thing.
" Once that citizen can play back an exact copy of the event in his/her head at a later time without any chance of fault, then I'll consider it the same damn thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427159</id>
	<title>This isn't so bad</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245702840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is not monitoring itself, it is <i>selective</i> monitoring. If these cameras make the video available over the 'net for anyone to see and record, than it cannot be used to persecute some people while protecting others. I also firmly believe that whenever a politician advocates the installation of monitoring cameras, the first camera installed should be aimed at their bedroom window and the video made freely available to everyone. If they don't have a problem with being treated that way themselves, then nobody else should either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is not monitoring itself , it is selective monitoring .
If these cameras make the video available over the 'net for anyone to see and record , than it can not be used to persecute some people while protecting others .
I also firmly believe that whenever a politician advocates the installation of monitoring cameras , the first camera installed should be aimed at their bedroom window and the video made freely available to everyone .
If they do n't have a problem with being treated that way themselves , then nobody else should either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is not monitoring itself, it is selective monitoring.
If these cameras make the video available over the 'net for anyone to see and record, than it cannot be used to persecute some people while protecting others.
I also firmly believe that whenever a politician advocates the installation of monitoring cameras, the first camera installed should be aimed at their bedroom window and the video made freely available to everyone.
If they don't have a problem with being treated that way themselves, then nobody else should either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429641</id>
	<title>I live in Lancaster too</title>
	<author>John in Lancaster</author>
	<datestamp>1245667680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The cameras are apparent to anyone who walks around the city. Each is marked with a prominent sign so they are not hidden. We have one installed near out church, I know of no one who has complained.

I serve meals to street people at our church. The biggest fear these folks have is of being mugged by one of the many gangs of young thugs. The cameras have given them some space of relative safety where they can walk or just hangout without the fear of being beaten up and robbed.

Personally I feel the cameras have made an improvement to the city and I wish that more were installed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cameras are apparent to anyone who walks around the city .
Each is marked with a prominent sign so they are not hidden .
We have one installed near out church , I know of no one who has complained .
I serve meals to street people at our church .
The biggest fear these folks have is of being mugged by one of the many gangs of young thugs .
The cameras have given them some space of relative safety where they can walk or just hangout without the fear of being beaten up and robbed .
Personally I feel the cameras have made an improvement to the city and I wish that more were installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cameras are apparent to anyone who walks around the city.
Each is marked with a prominent sign so they are not hidden.
We have one installed near out church, I know of no one who has complained.
I serve meals to street people at our church.
The biggest fear these folks have is of being mugged by one of the many gangs of young thugs.
The cameras have given them some space of relative safety where they can walk or just hangout without the fear of being beaten up and robbed.
Personally I feel the cameras have made an improvement to the city and I wish that more were installed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426815</id>
	<title>I LIVE in Lancaster and I didn't know!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245701760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I LIVE in Lancaster, and I had no idea!  They said 'the people didn't object' hell I didn't even KNOW!  This is such a horribly bad idea... I thought Britain was Orwellian with their surveillance camera system, but to have put this in place and for most ppl to not even KNOW about it.. that by definition is a police state!  Outsourcing it to some agency is monumentally wrong.  I think I need a pocket jammer system just to go to the public library...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I LIVE in Lancaster , and I had no idea !
They said 'the people did n't object ' hell I did n't even KNOW !
This is such a horribly bad idea... I thought Britain was Orwellian with their surveillance camera system , but to have put this in place and for most ppl to not even KNOW about it.. that by definition is a police state !
Outsourcing it to some agency is monumentally wrong .
I think I need a pocket jammer system just to go to the public library.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I LIVE in Lancaster, and I had no idea!
They said 'the people didn't object' hell I didn't even KNOW!
This is such a horribly bad idea... I thought Britain was Orwellian with their surveillance camera system, but to have put this in place and for most ppl to not even KNOW about it.. that by definition is a police state!
Outsourcing it to some agency is monumentally wrong.
I think I need a pocket jammer system just to go to the public library...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427651</id>
	<title>Re:What's up with Amish people and Cameras...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245704100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's the whole point, these cameras are being used to combat the wave of horse-and-buggy jackings and Amish drive-by shootings that have now reached epidemic proportions in Lancaster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the whole point , these cameras are being used to combat the wave of horse-and-buggy jackings and Amish drive-by shootings that have now reached epidemic proportions in Lancaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the whole point, these cameras are being used to combat the wave of horse-and-buggy jackings and Amish drive-by shootings that have now reached epidemic proportions in Lancaster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428631</id>
	<title>Re:Oblig. Ben Franklin quote</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1245664200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In both of the last two nieghborhoods I've lived in I've only locked the doors while on vacation.  Do we really need locks on our doors?</p><p><a href="http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/" title="disastercenter.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/</a> [disastercenter.com]</p><p>Looking up the crime statistics in the counties I've lived in, it would appear that maybe 1\% or less of the population participates in crimes worth monitoring.  For the most part people don't steal and don't assault people.  Yes there are some and occasionally a nut job kills a few people, but that is a few people out of 300,000,000.  Do we really need to alter our lives or society to protect against this insignificant amount deviance from the norm?</p><p>Seriously, the entire post 9-11 culture disgusts me.  Everyone started cowering in fear and giving up every ounce of self respect and freedom to keep themselves safe from another terrorist attack.  Yet every one of those same people probably gets in a car every day. Boggle...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In both of the last two nieghborhoods I 've lived in I 've only locked the doors while on vacation .
Do we really need locks on our doors ? http : //www.disastercenter.com/crime/ [ disastercenter.com ] Looking up the crime statistics in the counties I 've lived in , it would appear that maybe 1 \ % or less of the population participates in crimes worth monitoring .
For the most part people do n't steal and do n't assault people .
Yes there are some and occasionally a nut job kills a few people , but that is a few people out of 300,000,000 .
Do we really need to alter our lives or society to protect against this insignificant amount deviance from the norm ? Seriously , the entire post 9-11 culture disgusts me .
Everyone started cowering in fear and giving up every ounce of self respect and freedom to keep themselves safe from another terrorist attack .
Yet every one of those same people probably gets in a car every day .
Boggle.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In both of the last two nieghborhoods I've lived in I've only locked the doors while on vacation.
Do we really need locks on our doors?http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ [disastercenter.com]Looking up the crime statistics in the counties I've lived in, it would appear that maybe 1\% or less of the population participates in crimes worth monitoring.
For the most part people don't steal and don't assault people.
Yes there are some and occasionally a nut job kills a few people, but that is a few people out of 300,000,000.
Do we really need to alter our lives or society to protect against this insignificant amount deviance from the norm?Seriously, the entire post 9-11 culture disgusts me.
Everyone started cowering in fear and giving up every ounce of self respect and freedom to keep themselves safe from another terrorist attack.
Yet every one of those same people probably gets in a car every day.
Boggle...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427441</id>
	<title>Re:Ahhh, Slashdot</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245703560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I too was against seatbelt laws, but after being busted and attending a seatbelt education class, I have modified my position. If you are alone in your car, then you should have every right to endanger yourselves. However, if there are any other people in your car, then you may become a projectile that can harm the other occupants of the vehicle in a collision. Therefore, you should be required to be belted to avoid the possibility of hurting others.<br> <br>
As far as the "no expectation of privacy in a public place" argument, I would say it is now, "If a passerby with a cell phone could have recorded the same video, then it is the same thing." One should never assume their actions outside of their own home are private. The addition of a few cameras doesn't change that principle. That being said, the video from public cameras should be available for everyone's use; they should not be able to suppress video of official wrongdoing while using other video to prosecute less powerful civilians. I also believe all interactions between police and civilians should be recorded, because an unbiased recording of events protects the police and the civilians equally. Granted, police would quickly learn how to do things "off camera", but if both the police and the suspect are recording, then it becomes much more difficult to hide wrongdoing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I too was against seatbelt laws , but after being busted and attending a seatbelt education class , I have modified my position .
If you are alone in your car , then you should have every right to endanger yourselves .
However , if there are any other people in your car , then you may become a projectile that can harm the other occupants of the vehicle in a collision .
Therefore , you should be required to be belted to avoid the possibility of hurting others .
As far as the " no expectation of privacy in a public place " argument , I would say it is now , " If a passerby with a cell phone could have recorded the same video , then it is the same thing .
" One should never assume their actions outside of their own home are private .
The addition of a few cameras does n't change that principle .
That being said , the video from public cameras should be available for everyone 's use ; they should not be able to suppress video of official wrongdoing while using other video to prosecute less powerful civilians .
I also believe all interactions between police and civilians should be recorded , because an unbiased recording of events protects the police and the civilians equally .
Granted , police would quickly learn how to do things " off camera " , but if both the police and the suspect are recording , then it becomes much more difficult to hide wrongdoing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too was against seatbelt laws, but after being busted and attending a seatbelt education class, I have modified my position.
If you are alone in your car, then you should have every right to endanger yourselves.
However, if there are any other people in your car, then you may become a projectile that can harm the other occupants of the vehicle in a collision.
Therefore, you should be required to be belted to avoid the possibility of hurting others.
As far as the "no expectation of privacy in a public place" argument, I would say it is now, "If a passerby with a cell phone could have recorded the same video, then it is the same thing.
" One should never assume their actions outside of their own home are private.
The addition of a few cameras doesn't change that principle.
That being said, the video from public cameras should be available for everyone's use; they should not be able to suppress video of official wrongdoing while using other video to prosecute less powerful civilians.
I also believe all interactions between police and civilians should be recorded, because an unbiased recording of events protects the police and the civilians equally.
Granted, police would quickly learn how to do things "off camera", but if both the police and the suspect are recording, then it becomes much more difficult to hide wrongdoing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426619</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28432787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28437897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28431559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28430481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28443013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28434181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28434025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28431833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28433917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28432857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28445821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28431101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28430253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28431893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28432179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28434535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28433447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28431211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28433177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28431467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28434511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1846250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28476245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28445821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427731
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28431893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426619
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427441
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28431559
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28434535
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28431467
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427333
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426995
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427241
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427453
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428379
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428269
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28432179
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428231
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28437897
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28433177
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28430253
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28476245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427543
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28430481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28434511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28434181
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427363
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28431833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427357
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28432787
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28431211
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28434025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28431101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28433917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28443013
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427795
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427223
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427397
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429023
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28432857
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428309
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28427379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28429191
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428347
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28428251
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426849
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28437953
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1846250.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28426847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1846250.28433447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
