<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_08_1522247</id>
	<title>Judge Rules IP Addresses Not "Personally Identifiable"</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247068320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>yuna49 writes <i>"Online Media Daily reports that a federal judge in Seattle has <a href="http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&amp;art\_aid=109242">held that IP addresses are not personal information</a>.  'In order for "personally identifiable information" to be personally identifiable, it must identify a person. But an IP address identifies a computer,' US District Court Judge Richard Jones said in a written decision.  Jones issued the ruling in the context of a class-action lawsuit brought by consumers against Microsoft stemming from an update that automatically installed new anti-piracy software. In that case, which dates back to 2006, consumers alleged that Microsoft violated its user agreement by collecting IP addresses in the course of the updates. This ruling flatly contradicts a <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/23/2350211&amp;tid=158">recent EU decision to the contrary</a>, as well as other cases in the US.  Its potential relevance to the RIAA suits should be obvious to anyone who reads Slashdot."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>yuna49 writes " Online Media Daily reports that a federal judge in Seattle has held that IP addresses are not personal information .
'In order for " personally identifiable information " to be personally identifiable , it must identify a person .
But an IP address identifies a computer, ' US District Court Judge Richard Jones said in a written decision .
Jones issued the ruling in the context of a class-action lawsuit brought by consumers against Microsoft stemming from an update that automatically installed new anti-piracy software .
In that case , which dates back to 2006 , consumers alleged that Microsoft violated its user agreement by collecting IP addresses in the course of the updates .
This ruling flatly contradicts a recent EU decision to the contrary , as well as other cases in the US .
Its potential relevance to the RIAA suits should be obvious to anyone who reads Slashdot .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yuna49 writes "Online Media Daily reports that a federal judge in Seattle has held that IP addresses are not personal information.
'In order for "personally identifiable information" to be personally identifiable, it must identify a person.
But an IP address identifies a computer,' US District Court Judge Richard Jones said in a written decision.
Jones issued the ruling in the context of a class-action lawsuit brought by consumers against Microsoft stemming from an update that automatically installed new anti-piracy software.
In that case, which dates back to 2006, consumers alleged that Microsoft violated its user agreement by collecting IP addresses in the course of the updates.
This ruling flatly contradicts a recent EU decision to the contrary, as well as other cases in the US.
Its potential relevance to the RIAA suits should be obvious to anyone who reads Slashdot.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28633559</id>
	<title>Re:Spartacus-1138</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247133060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am 192.168.0.1, and so is my wife!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am 192.168.0.1 , and so is my wife !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am 192.168.0.1, and so is my wife!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624667</id>
	<title>Re:The IP is a lot like a license plate</title>
	<author>RevMike</author>
	<datestamp>1247076600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If all they have is a picture of your<br>license plate, that doesn't prove you were<br>driving.  We should use this ruling as precedent<br>to get out of automated tickets when there is<br>no clear picture of your face.</p></div><p>In places where photo enforcement is used, the laws are generally adjusted to implicate the person who registers the vehicle, and the license plate does tie directly to the vehicle registration.  Your crime is not "running a red light", it is "allowing your vehicle to be used by some unknown person to run a red light".   If your car was stolen, you can defend yourself using the police report to that effect.  Otherwise you are SOL.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If all they have is a picture of yourlicense plate , that does n't prove you weredriving .
We should use this ruling as precedentto get out of automated tickets when there isno clear picture of your face.In places where photo enforcement is used , the laws are generally adjusted to implicate the person who registers the vehicle , and the license plate does tie directly to the vehicle registration .
Your crime is not " running a red light " , it is " allowing your vehicle to be used by some unknown person to run a red light " .
If your car was stolen , you can defend yourself using the police report to that effect .
Otherwise you are SOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If all they have is a picture of yourlicense plate, that doesn't prove you weredriving.
We should use this ruling as precedentto get out of automated tickets when there isno clear picture of your face.In places where photo enforcement is used, the laws are generally adjusted to implicate the person who registers the vehicle, and the license plate does tie directly to the vehicle registration.
Your crime is not "running a red light", it is "allowing your vehicle to be used by some unknown person to run a red light".
If your car was stolen, you can defend yourself using the police report to that effect.
Otherwise you are SOL.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623599</id>
	<title>In other words...</title>
	<author>tsnorquist</author>
	<datestamp>1247072760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Judge Jones sided with Microsoft (which most slashdotters hate), but sided with personal ambiguity - thus not being identified a "file sharer" by the MPAA/RIAA.</p><p>Sounds like a good ruling for the majority of internet users to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judge Jones sided with Microsoft ( which most slashdotters hate ) , but sided with personal ambiguity - thus not being identified a " file sharer " by the MPAA/RIAA.Sounds like a good ruling for the majority of internet users to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judge Jones sided with Microsoft (which most slashdotters hate), but sided with personal ambiguity - thus not being identified a "file sharer" by the MPAA/RIAA.Sounds like a good ruling for the majority of internet users to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628353</id>
	<title>Re:A question...</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1247047620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Could this decision be referenced to disqualify the IP as evidence when the MAFIAA goes after someone based on IP addresses they got from WhateverMediaSentryIsCalledNow?</p></div><p>Probably not.  If I remember correctly, civil cases do not establish precedents.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could this decision be referenced to disqualify the IP as evidence when the MAFIAA goes after someone based on IP addresses they got from WhateverMediaSentryIsCalledNow ? Probably not .
If I remember correctly , civil cases do not establish precedents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could this decision be referenced to disqualify the IP as evidence when the MAFIAA goes after someone based on IP addresses they got from WhateverMediaSentryIsCalledNow?Probably not.
If I remember correctly, civil cases do not establish precedents.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627057</id>
	<title>Re:Spartacus-1138</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247084820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am 127.0.0.1!</p><p>No, I am 127.0.0.1!</p><p>No, I am 127.0.0.1!</p><p>No, I am!</p><p>I am!</p><p> <b>I am<nobr> <wbr></nobr>::1</b> </p></div><p>Cried the nerd at the back, and incidentally, no one would talk to him.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am 127.0.0.1 ! No , I am 127.0.0.1 ! No , I am 127.0.0.1 ! No , I am ! I am !
I am : : 1 Cried the nerd at the back , and incidentally , no one would talk to him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am 127.0.0.1!No, I am 127.0.0.1!No, I am 127.0.0.1!No, I am!I am!
I am ::1 Cried the nerd at the back, and incidentally, no one would talk to him.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625723</id>
	<title>Hold on a minute...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1247080200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How am I going to read my own IPV6 address when I forget it when it's tattooed on my ass? Much better to tattoo it on the <a href="http://www.markbeast.com/" title="markbeast.com">forehead or the hand</a> [markbeast.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>How am I going to read my own IPV6 address when I forget it when it 's tattooed on my ass ?
Much better to tattoo it on the forehead or the hand [ markbeast.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How am I going to read my own IPV6 address when I forget it when it's tattooed on my ass?
Much better to tattoo it on the forehead or the hand [markbeast.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624801</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>dzfoo</author>
	<datestamp>1247077020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An IP address is tied to an account at the access provider, that account is tied to a specific person in the same way that license plates and phone numbers are.</p><p>The same way that you may receive a driving violation ticket on the mail from an automatic red-light camera system, and then must contest the fact that it wasn't really you driving; so the IP address can be used in the same way.</p><p>It is becaues of this why any reasonable person would consider it personally identifiable.  If it weren't, then it means that there is no correlation between the IP address and the account holder, which has other legal implications.</p><p>Actually, I don't think that may be such a bad thing.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An IP address is tied to an account at the access provider , that account is tied to a specific person in the same way that license plates and phone numbers are.The same way that you may receive a driving violation ticket on the mail from an automatic red-light camera system , and then must contest the fact that it was n't really you driving ; so the IP address can be used in the same way.It is becaues of this why any reasonable person would consider it personally identifiable .
If it were n't , then it means that there is no correlation between the IP address and the account holder , which has other legal implications.Actually , I do n't think that may be such a bad thing .
        -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An IP address is tied to an account at the access provider, that account is tied to a specific person in the same way that license plates and phone numbers are.The same way that you may receive a driving violation ticket on the mail from an automatic red-light camera system, and then must contest the fact that it wasn't really you driving; so the IP address can be used in the same way.It is becaues of this why any reasonable person would consider it personally identifiable.
If it weren't, then it means that there is no correlation between the IP address and the account holder, which has other legal implications.Actually, I don't think that may be such a bad thing.
        -dZ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623979</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>SydShamino</author>
	<datestamp>1247074200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Beyond that, you are aware that cars and the like can't be ticketed, right? If you run a red light and are caught on camera they have to be able to determine who is driving the car for it to be valid. Simply having the plate will not work.</p></div><p>Here in Texas, the owner of a car that goes through a toll booth receives a bill in the mail, and is required to pay it, regardless of who was driving the car.  I'm not sure if this has been tested with a stolen car, but I know it has been with a car that was sold but not yet transferred with the state.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Beyond that , you are aware that cars and the like ca n't be ticketed , right ?
If you run a red light and are caught on camera they have to be able to determine who is driving the car for it to be valid .
Simply having the plate will not work.Here in Texas , the owner of a car that goes through a toll booth receives a bill in the mail , and is required to pay it , regardless of who was driving the car .
I 'm not sure if this has been tested with a stolen car , but I know it has been with a car that was sold but not yet transferred with the state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beyond that, you are aware that cars and the like can't be ticketed, right?
If you run a red light and are caught on camera they have to be able to determine who is driving the car for it to be valid.
Simply having the plate will not work.Here in Texas, the owner of a car that goes through a toll booth receives a bill in the mail, and is required to pay it, regardless of who was driving the car.
I'm not sure if this has been tested with a stolen car, but I know it has been with a car that was sold but not yet transferred with the state.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625801</id>
	<title>Here's one reason why they can't be.</title>
	<author>CherniyVolk</author>
	<datestamp>1247080440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people reference car license plates and the such.  Perhaps, off the cuff reasoning suggesting that from experience from having to pay a photo-captured ticket from running a red light, that the license plate is 'personally identifiable'.  Technically, it's not the court saying that your license plate identifies you as the driver, but rather that the license plate identifies you as responsible for your car;  this is a big difference.  There is a law allowing traffic violations to only need personal identification in regards to the vehicle itself (as in, the license plate), and the penalty shall rest on who it's registered too.  This is why, covering your face while running a red light won't save you... and this is why it doesn't matter who drives your car through red lights downtown... and this is why, the person the vehicle is registered to is who will pay the fine.</p><p>At a minimum, 350 USD, at least in San Diego for getting photographed at a stop light, best make sure your pissed off girlfriend doesn't grab the keys to your car as she storms out.</p><p>The judge probably considered the fact that while a block of IP addresses can certainly be registered to a person, who is actually in control or representing any individual IP address may not be one in the same.  In fact, scratch the in control for a moment.  A spoofed connection attempt might not even be indicative of route, path or physical lines from which the connection originated;  with this in mind, it wouldn't even make sense to hold responsible the person registered to the IP address, as it's not even feasible to suggest they have control.  See, with the actual traffic violation, it's assumed you have the keys to your own car and that you willfully allowed the person who ran the red light to use your car; on the flip side, if your car was stolen and the suspect ran red lights with your stolen car, can you guess why you wouldn't have to pay a fine?  A network administrator has no reasonable level of control over his registered network in relative to other networks, not like a person who owns a car having a reasonable amount of control in the manner of physical keys and physical access to the vehicle.</p><p>The control we are talking about, in part is inherent to the fact the car is a physical item, which carries all the laws of physics with it (it can't be in the same place as another car, depending on precise measurement it can be shown to be unique to all other cars even if off an assembly line etc).  In regards to the Internet, it's just protocols, ambiguous electron patterns that are precise and exact every time.  192.168.1.1 becomes interpretations of bit patterns parsed from a set of standard fields... there is no way to isolate the message as universally unique, and having only been able to be received from any origin.</p><p>It's this inability to be unique, which obfuscates origin.  If something is unique, it's origin or position is a matter of accountability.  Tracing an internet connection really boils down to following what accounting is available for the physical electron flow.  The connection came in on this connection, which is connected to this phone line, which opened a circuit... at the end of that circuit is a device, that opened another circuit and at the end of that is another device... and so on.  It's the assumption that most connections, tasks, operations, hacks will need constant two-communications, so somewhere a reliable link can be found.  So we often put a lot of faith in the reported IP in the logs as being a "real" IP address.  But there are hacks, intrusion techniques that aren't two way, but simply one way... injections and such which need not phone home.  Kinda like dumping bait into the river and walking away, if your objective is simply to poison the fish, it's a perfectly reasonable approach.</p><p>The point is, there's no way to personally identify a person from an IP address.  And there's not enough inherent uniqueness or expected control to hold responsible whoever might be registered for an IP in some log file.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people reference car license plates and the such .
Perhaps , off the cuff reasoning suggesting that from experience from having to pay a photo-captured ticket from running a red light , that the license plate is 'personally identifiable' .
Technically , it 's not the court saying that your license plate identifies you as the driver , but rather that the license plate identifies you as responsible for your car ; this is a big difference .
There is a law allowing traffic violations to only need personal identification in regards to the vehicle itself ( as in , the license plate ) , and the penalty shall rest on who it 's registered too .
This is why , covering your face while running a red light wo n't save you... and this is why it does n't matter who drives your car through red lights downtown... and this is why , the person the vehicle is registered to is who will pay the fine.At a minimum , 350 USD , at least in San Diego for getting photographed at a stop light , best make sure your pissed off girlfriend does n't grab the keys to your car as she storms out.The judge probably considered the fact that while a block of IP addresses can certainly be registered to a person , who is actually in control or representing any individual IP address may not be one in the same .
In fact , scratch the in control for a moment .
A spoofed connection attempt might not even be indicative of route , path or physical lines from which the connection originated ; with this in mind , it would n't even make sense to hold responsible the person registered to the IP address , as it 's not even feasible to suggest they have control .
See , with the actual traffic violation , it 's assumed you have the keys to your own car and that you willfully allowed the person who ran the red light to use your car ; on the flip side , if your car was stolen and the suspect ran red lights with your stolen car , can you guess why you would n't have to pay a fine ?
A network administrator has no reasonable level of control over his registered network in relative to other networks , not like a person who owns a car having a reasonable amount of control in the manner of physical keys and physical access to the vehicle.The control we are talking about , in part is inherent to the fact the car is a physical item , which carries all the laws of physics with it ( it ca n't be in the same place as another car , depending on precise measurement it can be shown to be unique to all other cars even if off an assembly line etc ) .
In regards to the Internet , it 's just protocols , ambiguous electron patterns that are precise and exact every time .
192.168.1.1 becomes interpretations of bit patterns parsed from a set of standard fields... there is no way to isolate the message as universally unique , and having only been able to be received from any origin.It 's this inability to be unique , which obfuscates origin .
If something is unique , it 's origin or position is a matter of accountability .
Tracing an internet connection really boils down to following what accounting is available for the physical electron flow .
The connection came in on this connection , which is connected to this phone line , which opened a circuit... at the end of that circuit is a device , that opened another circuit and at the end of that is another device... and so on .
It 's the assumption that most connections , tasks , operations , hacks will need constant two-communications , so somewhere a reliable link can be found .
So we often put a lot of faith in the reported IP in the logs as being a " real " IP address .
But there are hacks , intrusion techniques that are n't two way , but simply one way... injections and such which need not phone home .
Kinda like dumping bait into the river and walking away , if your objective is simply to poison the fish , it 's a perfectly reasonable approach.The point is , there 's no way to personally identify a person from an IP address .
And there 's not enough inherent uniqueness or expected control to hold responsible whoever might be registered for an IP in some log file .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people reference car license plates and the such.
Perhaps, off the cuff reasoning suggesting that from experience from having to pay a photo-captured ticket from running a red light, that the license plate is 'personally identifiable'.
Technically, it's not the court saying that your license plate identifies you as the driver, but rather that the license plate identifies you as responsible for your car;  this is a big difference.
There is a law allowing traffic violations to only need personal identification in regards to the vehicle itself (as in, the license plate), and the penalty shall rest on who it's registered too.
This is why, covering your face while running a red light won't save you... and this is why it doesn't matter who drives your car through red lights downtown... and this is why, the person the vehicle is registered to is who will pay the fine.At a minimum, 350 USD, at least in San Diego for getting photographed at a stop light, best make sure your pissed off girlfriend doesn't grab the keys to your car as she storms out.The judge probably considered the fact that while a block of IP addresses can certainly be registered to a person, who is actually in control or representing any individual IP address may not be one in the same.
In fact, scratch the in control for a moment.
A spoofed connection attempt might not even be indicative of route, path or physical lines from which the connection originated;  with this in mind, it wouldn't even make sense to hold responsible the person registered to the IP address, as it's not even feasible to suggest they have control.
See, with the actual traffic violation, it's assumed you have the keys to your own car and that you willfully allowed the person who ran the red light to use your car; on the flip side, if your car was stolen and the suspect ran red lights with your stolen car, can you guess why you wouldn't have to pay a fine?
A network administrator has no reasonable level of control over his registered network in relative to other networks, not like a person who owns a car having a reasonable amount of control in the manner of physical keys and physical access to the vehicle.The control we are talking about, in part is inherent to the fact the car is a physical item, which carries all the laws of physics with it (it can't be in the same place as another car, depending on precise measurement it can be shown to be unique to all other cars even if off an assembly line etc).
In regards to the Internet, it's just protocols, ambiguous electron patterns that are precise and exact every time.
192.168.1.1 becomes interpretations of bit patterns parsed from a set of standard fields... there is no way to isolate the message as universally unique, and having only been able to be received from any origin.It's this inability to be unique, which obfuscates origin.
If something is unique, it's origin or position is a matter of accountability.
Tracing an internet connection really boils down to following what accounting is available for the physical electron flow.
The connection came in on this connection, which is connected to this phone line, which opened a circuit... at the end of that circuit is a device, that opened another circuit and at the end of that is another device... and so on.
It's the assumption that most connections, tasks, operations, hacks will need constant two-communications, so somewhere a reliable link can be found.
So we often put a lot of faith in the reported IP in the logs as being a "real" IP address.
But there are hacks, intrusion techniques that aren't two way, but simply one way... injections and such which need not phone home.
Kinda like dumping bait into the river and walking away, if your objective is simply to poison the fish, it's a perfectly reasonable approach.The point is, there's no way to personally identify a person from an IP address.
And there's not enough inherent uniqueness or expected control to hold responsible whoever might be registered for an IP in some log file.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628459</id>
	<title>Re:Personally Identifiable vs Address Portability</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247048040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Working in the telecom business and having had a bit to do with both phone numbers and Ip addresses, I would have to say that I consider number portability to be one of the worst possible ideas, for both phone and IP addresses. The reason is that the number is (or for phone was) used as part of the routing information. By grouping addresses with the same prefix together you reduce the complexity of the routing decisions to be made. eg if a (full international) phone number starts with 1, you route it to the United States, if it starts with 46 you route it to Germany and so on. Same applies with IP addresses, leading to nice simplifications like "if it is not in my local range, route it out the default route to my ISP". It also helps the customer to know who they can get cheaper calls to, eg numbers on the same network.</p><p>If you make numbers portable you break all that, and ultimately need some way to determine what the actual route is to a particular number. This would be similar to the way we need a DNS system to turn a domain name into an actual routable address. So now with phone systems (I'm thinking in particular of mobile number portability) you have to have a system that looks at the number dialed, then goes to a database and looks up whose network that number is actually in. Since multiple operators are involved, that naturally leads to situations where the information is out of synch and complicated problems ensue.</p><p>It would be even worse with IP, where allowing portability would eventually lead to a situation where the core routers might have to carry a host route for a large proportion of all the avaialble addresses. The only way I can see to actually make the IP numbers portable would be to introduce a new underlying addressing system that remained tied to the routing. Your IP address would then be looked up in a database analogous to DNS and the routing would be by the new address. Of course, next there would be a move to have those underlying addresses made portable.</p><p>Really, we need to distinguish between addresses which can be made portable and addresses which cannot. The street address of a house cannot readily be made portable, since it is intimately tied to the physical location, or if you like to look at it that way, the address contains routing information. A Post office box number is more readily portable, at least within the area served by that particular post office. You could also imagine the post office offering a unique identifier, which they could then look up in a table and deliver to anyway in the country, or even the world given some international coordination. But such an address may not contain any routing information.</p><p>Any politicians who want to make non portable addresses portable should of course be staked through the heart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Working in the telecom business and having had a bit to do with both phone numbers and Ip addresses , I would have to say that I consider number portability to be one of the worst possible ideas , for both phone and IP addresses .
The reason is that the number is ( or for phone was ) used as part of the routing information .
By grouping addresses with the same prefix together you reduce the complexity of the routing decisions to be made .
eg if a ( full international ) phone number starts with 1 , you route it to the United States , if it starts with 46 you route it to Germany and so on .
Same applies with IP addresses , leading to nice simplifications like " if it is not in my local range , route it out the default route to my ISP " .
It also helps the customer to know who they can get cheaper calls to , eg numbers on the same network.If you make numbers portable you break all that , and ultimately need some way to determine what the actual route is to a particular number .
This would be similar to the way we need a DNS system to turn a domain name into an actual routable address .
So now with phone systems ( I 'm thinking in particular of mobile number portability ) you have to have a system that looks at the number dialed , then goes to a database and looks up whose network that number is actually in .
Since multiple operators are involved , that naturally leads to situations where the information is out of synch and complicated problems ensue.It would be even worse with IP , where allowing portability would eventually lead to a situation where the core routers might have to carry a host route for a large proportion of all the avaialble addresses .
The only way I can see to actually make the IP numbers portable would be to introduce a new underlying addressing system that remained tied to the routing .
Your IP address would then be looked up in a database analogous to DNS and the routing would be by the new address .
Of course , next there would be a move to have those underlying addresses made portable.Really , we need to distinguish between addresses which can be made portable and addresses which can not .
The street address of a house can not readily be made portable , since it is intimately tied to the physical location , or if you like to look at it that way , the address contains routing information .
A Post office box number is more readily portable , at least within the area served by that particular post office .
You could also imagine the post office offering a unique identifier , which they could then look up in a table and deliver to anyway in the country , or even the world given some international coordination .
But such an address may not contain any routing information.Any politicians who want to make non portable addresses portable should of course be staked through the heart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Working in the telecom business and having had a bit to do with both phone numbers and Ip addresses, I would have to say that I consider number portability to be one of the worst possible ideas, for both phone and IP addresses.
The reason is that the number is (or for phone was) used as part of the routing information.
By grouping addresses with the same prefix together you reduce the complexity of the routing decisions to be made.
eg if a (full international) phone number starts with 1, you route it to the United States, if it starts with 46 you route it to Germany and so on.
Same applies with IP addresses, leading to nice simplifications like "if it is not in my local range, route it out the default route to my ISP".
It also helps the customer to know who they can get cheaper calls to, eg numbers on the same network.If you make numbers portable you break all that, and ultimately need some way to determine what the actual route is to a particular number.
This would be similar to the way we need a DNS system to turn a domain name into an actual routable address.
So now with phone systems (I'm thinking in particular of mobile number portability) you have to have a system that looks at the number dialed, then goes to a database and looks up whose network that number is actually in.
Since multiple operators are involved, that naturally leads to situations where the information is out of synch and complicated problems ensue.It would be even worse with IP, where allowing portability would eventually lead to a situation where the core routers might have to carry a host route for a large proportion of all the avaialble addresses.
The only way I can see to actually make the IP numbers portable would be to introduce a new underlying addressing system that remained tied to the routing.
Your IP address would then be looked up in a database analogous to DNS and the routing would be by the new address.
Of course, next there would be a move to have those underlying addresses made portable.Really, we need to distinguish between addresses which can be made portable and addresses which cannot.
The street address of a house cannot readily be made portable, since it is intimately tied to the physical location, or if you like to look at it that way, the address contains routing information.
A Post office box number is more readily portable, at least within the area served by that particular post office.
You could also imagine the post office offering a unique identifier, which they could then look up in a table and deliver to anyway in the country, or even the world given some international coordination.
But such an address may not contain any routing information.Any politicians who want to make non portable addresses portable should of course be staked through the heart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623711</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Hokie06</author>
	<datestamp>1247073240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That information by itself is not personally identifiably.  It needs to be tied together with other information in order to identify an individual.
<br> <br>
I can randomly write down license plates I see all day.  If I don't have access DMV records than I have no idea who is driving that car.
<br> <br>
I am not saying what MS did is right.  But an IP address in of itself can't identify a person.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That information by itself is not personally identifiably .
It needs to be tied together with other information in order to identify an individual .
I can randomly write down license plates I see all day .
If I do n't have access DMV records than I have no idea who is driving that car .
I am not saying what MS did is right .
But an IP address in of itself ca n't identify a person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That information by itself is not personally identifiably.
It needs to be tied together with other information in order to identify an individual.
I can randomly write down license plates I see all day.
If I don't have access DMV records than I have no idea who is driving that car.
I am not saying what MS did is right.
But an IP address in of itself can't identify a person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624241</id>
	<title>Re:Couldn't this be a potentially good thing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247075220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure the judge will backpedal fast enough to run Seattle's streetlights for a year the first time some guy gets hauled in on kiddie porn charges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the judge will backpedal fast enough to run Seattle 's streetlights for a year the first time some guy gets hauled in on kiddie porn charges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the judge will backpedal fast enough to run Seattle's streetlights for a year the first time some guy gets hauled in on kiddie porn charges.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626173</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1247081700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This isn't IPv6. Everyone can't be issued a permanent address when they sign up for an ISP.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Hmmm, does this mean that ISPs will charge more for static IPv6 addresses (though actually put out extra work to randomize the addresses of subscribers who don't pay), or that everyone will have a static address and they'll have to give up making people pay extra for them as they aren't a scarce resource anymore?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't IPv6 .
Everyone ca n't be issued a permanent address when they sign up for an ISP .
Hmmm , does this mean that ISPs will charge more for static IPv6 addresses ( though actually put out extra work to randomize the addresses of subscribers who do n't pay ) , or that everyone will have a static address and they 'll have to give up making people pay extra for them as they are n't a scarce resource anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't IPv6.
Everyone can't be issued a permanent address when they sign up for an ISP.
Hmmm, does this mean that ISPs will charge more for static IPv6 addresses (though actually put out extra work to randomize the addresses of subscribers who don't pay), or that everyone will have a static address and they'll have to give up making people pay extra for them as they aren't a scarce resource anymore?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623731</id>
	<title>Largely irrelevant to RIAA litigation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247073300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is true that an ip address identifies a computer or possibly, as another poster pointed out, a router behind which could be many computers, but that fact is largely irrelevant to file sharing litigation.  The plaintiffs in those cases do not have to have ironclad evidence that it was the defendant sitting at the computer sharing the files.  Instead, the plaintiffs merely have to show that it is more likely than not (aka preponderance of the evidence, 50\% + 1) that it was the defendant.</p><p>Thus, if the defendant lives at home and only rarely has guests that use his or her computer, it's very likely that a jury will accept that it is more likely than not that the defendant was the one who shared the files, not a guest or an unauthorized user of the wireless network, especially if the files are found on the defendant's hard drive.  More complex situations come closer to the line, of course, but in most cases it's fairly clear who the most likely culprit was.</p><p>But, even if the defendants live in an apartment with a communal computer or network shared equally by multiple long-term residents, all of whom use the same file-sharing user account, it is not necessarily up to the plaintiff to prove which specific defendant shared the files.  A long standing rule in tort law from the case <em>Summers v. Tice</em>, 33 Cal.2d 80 (1948) establishes that where the plaintiff can prove that multiple defendants were negligent, the burden shifts to the defendants to prove which one actually committed the injury.  It is quite possible that the file sharing case plaintiffs will be able to successfully argue that it is up to the various users of a computer to prove who actually shared the files or else they will all be jointly liable.  This is especially likely if it can be shown that all of the defendants were aware of the file sharing program and the infringing nature of the files.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is true that an ip address identifies a computer or possibly , as another poster pointed out , a router behind which could be many computers , but that fact is largely irrelevant to file sharing litigation .
The plaintiffs in those cases do not have to have ironclad evidence that it was the defendant sitting at the computer sharing the files .
Instead , the plaintiffs merely have to show that it is more likely than not ( aka preponderance of the evidence , 50 \ % + 1 ) that it was the defendant.Thus , if the defendant lives at home and only rarely has guests that use his or her computer , it 's very likely that a jury will accept that it is more likely than not that the defendant was the one who shared the files , not a guest or an unauthorized user of the wireless network , especially if the files are found on the defendant 's hard drive .
More complex situations come closer to the line , of course , but in most cases it 's fairly clear who the most likely culprit was.But , even if the defendants live in an apartment with a communal computer or network shared equally by multiple long-term residents , all of whom use the same file-sharing user account , it is not necessarily up to the plaintiff to prove which specific defendant shared the files .
A long standing rule in tort law from the case Summers v. Tice , 33 Cal.2d 80 ( 1948 ) establishes that where the plaintiff can prove that multiple defendants were negligent , the burden shifts to the defendants to prove which one actually committed the injury .
It is quite possible that the file sharing case plaintiffs will be able to successfully argue that it is up to the various users of a computer to prove who actually shared the files or else they will all be jointly liable .
This is especially likely if it can be shown that all of the defendants were aware of the file sharing program and the infringing nature of the files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is true that an ip address identifies a computer or possibly, as another poster pointed out, a router behind which could be many computers, but that fact is largely irrelevant to file sharing litigation.
The plaintiffs in those cases do not have to have ironclad evidence that it was the defendant sitting at the computer sharing the files.
Instead, the plaintiffs merely have to show that it is more likely than not (aka preponderance of the evidence, 50\% + 1) that it was the defendant.Thus, if the defendant lives at home and only rarely has guests that use his or her computer, it's very likely that a jury will accept that it is more likely than not that the defendant was the one who shared the files, not a guest or an unauthorized user of the wireless network, especially if the files are found on the defendant's hard drive.
More complex situations come closer to the line, of course, but in most cases it's fairly clear who the most likely culprit was.But, even if the defendants live in an apartment with a communal computer or network shared equally by multiple long-term residents, all of whom use the same file-sharing user account, it is not necessarily up to the plaintiff to prove which specific defendant shared the files.
A long standing rule in tort law from the case Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80 (1948) establishes that where the plaintiff can prove that multiple defendants were negligent, the burden shifts to the defendants to prove which one actually committed the injury.
It is quite possible that the file sharing case plaintiffs will be able to successfully argue that it is up to the various users of a computer to prove who actually shared the files or else they will all be jointly liable.
This is especially likely if it can be shown that all of the defendants were aware of the file sharing program and the infringing nature of the files.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623547</id>
	<title>and license plate numbers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would the judge be ok if his license plate number and house address get publicly posted? After all, it only identifies a car and a house, not a person!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would the judge be ok if his license plate number and house address get publicly posted ?
After all , it only identifies a car and a house , not a person !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would the judge be ok if his license plate number and house address get publicly posted?
After all, it only identifies a car and a house, not a person!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626479</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1247082660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fortunately, they never will be. You can set an arbitrary address or spoof a MAC or IPv6 address.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortunately , they never will be .
You can set an arbitrary address or spoof a MAC or IPv6 address .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fortunately, they never will be.
You can set an arbitrary address or spoof a MAC or IPv6 address.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626387</id>
	<title>Re:Spartacus-1138</title>
	<author>that IT girl</author>
	<datestamp>1247082360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, I am!</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I am !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I am!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624601</id>
	<title>Moot Point?</title>
	<author>iCharles</author>
	<datestamp>1247076300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get the whole notion, that the best you can hope for in relating an IP to a specific entity is, most narrowly, a computer, or, more broadly, a network. I wonder what the practical effect of the ruling will be?
<p>
If an IP is suspected of criminal activity, and it can be related to only a particular network/house, the case may not be a slam dunk. However, it may well be enough to create all sorts of joy for that network/house. It's probably enough probably cause for a warrant which will then find all computer attached to that network confiscated. If they can pin the behavior to a specific machine, then anyone who had access to that machine could be under suspicion.
</p><p>
If you run an open WiFi site, the net could be broadened to any computer the the radius of your signal--the neighbors will <i>love</i> you. Even though one can make the arguement that some random car with a laptop might have parked in front of your house, and you might carry the day in court, you'll still have a lot of hassle and legal fees.
</p><p>
(And that doesn't include anything that might shake out from what's on those computers (child porn, etc.), discovered as a consequence of the search. For that matter, how are charges filed for such a thing on a shared computer?)
</p><p>
I'm not sure the RIAA would be able to get such warrants/subpoena based solely on an IP address. While it will prevent them from simply creating suits based only on IP address, at the end of the day it's just one more hoop to jump through.
</p><p>
At the end of the day, that's my point: while it definitely raises the bar for legal action, I'm not sure it does much more than that in practice.
</p><p>
Note that I'm not a lawyer--this could be 100\% bunk (or more!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get the whole notion , that the best you can hope for in relating an IP to a specific entity is , most narrowly , a computer , or , more broadly , a network .
I wonder what the practical effect of the ruling will be ?
If an IP is suspected of criminal activity , and it can be related to only a particular network/house , the case may not be a slam dunk .
However , it may well be enough to create all sorts of joy for that network/house .
It 's probably enough probably cause for a warrant which will then find all computer attached to that network confiscated .
If they can pin the behavior to a specific machine , then anyone who had access to that machine could be under suspicion .
If you run an open WiFi site , the net could be broadened to any computer the the radius of your signal--the neighbors will love you .
Even though one can make the arguement that some random car with a laptop might have parked in front of your house , and you might carry the day in court , you 'll still have a lot of hassle and legal fees .
( And that does n't include anything that might shake out from what 's on those computers ( child porn , etc .
) , discovered as a consequence of the search .
For that matter , how are charges filed for such a thing on a shared computer ?
) I 'm not sure the RIAA would be able to get such warrants/subpoena based solely on an IP address .
While it will prevent them from simply creating suits based only on IP address , at the end of the day it 's just one more hoop to jump through .
At the end of the day , that 's my point : while it definitely raises the bar for legal action , I 'm not sure it does much more than that in practice .
Note that I 'm not a lawyer--this could be 100 \ % bunk ( or more !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get the whole notion, that the best you can hope for in relating an IP to a specific entity is, most narrowly, a computer, or, more broadly, a network.
I wonder what the practical effect of the ruling will be?
If an IP is suspected of criminal activity, and it can be related to only a particular network/house, the case may not be a slam dunk.
However, it may well be enough to create all sorts of joy for that network/house.
It's probably enough probably cause for a warrant which will then find all computer attached to that network confiscated.
If they can pin the behavior to a specific machine, then anyone who had access to that machine could be under suspicion.
If you run an open WiFi site, the net could be broadened to any computer the the radius of your signal--the neighbors will love you.
Even though one can make the arguement that some random car with a laptop might have parked in front of your house, and you might carry the day in court, you'll still have a lot of hassle and legal fees.
(And that doesn't include anything that might shake out from what's on those computers (child porn, etc.
), discovered as a consequence of the search.
For that matter, how are charges filed for such a thing on a shared computer?
)

I'm not sure the RIAA would be able to get such warrants/subpoena based solely on an IP address.
While it will prevent them from simply creating suits based only on IP address, at the end of the day it's just one more hoop to jump through.
At the end of the day, that's my point: while it definitely raises the bar for legal action, I'm not sure it does much more than that in practice.
Note that I'm not a lawyer--this could be 100\% bunk (or more!
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624093</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>fredklein</author>
	<datestamp>1247074680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I suppose addresses and license plates aren't personal either, they just identify cars and houses, it's not as though those things usually contain the same people.</i></p><p>I have 6 people living at my address. Which one do you want?</p><p>If I had a car, at least 3 of those 6 people could be driving it. Which one do you want?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose addresses and license plates are n't personal either , they just identify cars and houses , it 's not as though those things usually contain the same people.I have 6 people living at my address .
Which one do you want ? If I had a car , at least 3 of those 6 people could be driving it .
Which one do you want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose addresses and license plates aren't personal either, they just identify cars and houses, it's not as though those things usually contain the same people.I have 6 people living at my address.
Which one do you want?If I had a car, at least 3 of those 6 people could be driving it.
Which one do you want?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624013</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247074380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so now when the riaa comes knocking at your door saying they have proof of your infringement identifying an ip as yours offer to allow them to take the computer into court and fine it.  this defense may encounter problems if you bank online because that computer has access to that account and can withdraw funds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so now when the riaa comes knocking at your door saying they have proof of your infringement identifying an ip as yours offer to allow them to take the computer into court and fine it .
this defense may encounter problems if you bank online because that computer has access to that account and can withdraw funds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so now when the riaa comes knocking at your door saying they have proof of your infringement identifying an ip as yours offer to allow them to take the computer into court and fine it.
this defense may encounter problems if you bank online because that computer has access to that account and can withdraw funds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628133</id>
	<title>Horrid analogy</title>
	<author>baerm</author>
	<datestamp>1247046540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>rant<br>Let me first say, Fuck!, do I hate slashdot at this point.  Can they make it harder to load or comment on this site than they do.  Let's wait for ever for the scripting crap to load, let's watch firefox spin and do all kind of weird shit before being able to do anything, and don't consider for even a minute looking at it on your phone's web browser, I think last time I did flames started to shoot and out and I had to dowse it with my coffee.  Really?, floating window!?, I really really don't need slashdot's clippy around, thank you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/rant<br><br>Sorry , back to your normal station, this is a horrible analogy<br><br>Home address, you either are moving around a lot and the address is a poor indicator of I.D. or you,<br>Rent: and have been credit checked, pay monthly, and tend to live at a location for years at a time. Extremely connected to you<br>Buy, you have a mortgage, even more connected to you.<br><br>Car, you purchased a car, probably have a loan,  the car is registered with the state based on your I.D, car's Vin# , licence #, etc...  If you live in a state with regular car examinations (i.e. smog checks here), this info is also periodically checked.  Extremely connected to you.<br><br>IP address, if I have a static address, it is connected to me in some way.  See wireless networks and NAT however for how I may be only remotely and unknowingly connected personally to whatever is going on.  More often though, these are dynamic and again you may have wireless and NAT.  Or I pop into a coffee shop and what address did I just get?, or I use a different network card in my notebook, or wait...  I just changed the MAC address on one of the cards or.... you get the idea.  As other's have mentioned, IP's only really reference a network node for a certain period of time.  This could be very identifiable: static IP to a DNS'd address that's consistent for years or it could be almost completely anonymous: some various network card with a handset MAC at a coffee shop.<br><br>If you want an analogy, how about your current location?  If you're at home, it might be good indicator of who you are (although it could be anyone who lives with you or is visiting), If you're some place crowded or that you've never been to before, it's a horrible indicator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>rantLet me first say , Fuck ! , do I hate slashdot at this point .
Can they make it harder to load or comment on this site than they do .
Let 's wait for ever for the scripting crap to load , let 's watch firefox spin and do all kind of weird shit before being able to do anything , and do n't consider for even a minute looking at it on your phone 's web browser , I think last time I did flames started to shoot and out and I had to dowse it with my coffee .
Really ? , floating window !
? , I really really do n't need slashdot 's clippy around , thank you /rantSorry , back to your normal station , this is a horrible analogyHome address , you either are moving around a lot and the address is a poor indicator of I.D .
or you,Rent : and have been credit checked , pay monthly , and tend to live at a location for years at a time .
Extremely connected to youBuy , you have a mortgage , even more connected to you.Car , you purchased a car , probably have a loan , the car is registered with the state based on your I.D , car 's Vin # , licence # , etc... If you live in a state with regular car examinations ( i.e .
smog checks here ) , this info is also periodically checked .
Extremely connected to you.IP address , if I have a static address , it is connected to me in some way .
See wireless networks and NAT however for how I may be only remotely and unknowingly connected personally to whatever is going on .
More often though , these are dynamic and again you may have wireless and NAT .
Or I pop into a coffee shop and what address did I just get ? , or I use a different network card in my notebook , or wait... I just changed the MAC address on one of the cards or.... you get the idea .
As other 's have mentioned , IP 's only really reference a network node for a certain period of time .
This could be very identifiable : static IP to a DNS 'd address that 's consistent for years or it could be almost completely anonymous : some various network card with a handset MAC at a coffee shop.If you want an analogy , how about your current location ?
If you 're at home , it might be good indicator of who you are ( although it could be anyone who lives with you or is visiting ) , If you 're some place crowded or that you 've never been to before , it 's a horrible indicator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rantLet me first say, Fuck!, do I hate slashdot at this point.
Can they make it harder to load or comment on this site than they do.
Let's wait for ever for the scripting crap to load, let's watch firefox spin and do all kind of weird shit before being able to do anything, and don't consider for even a minute looking at it on your phone's web browser, I think last time I did flames started to shoot and out and I had to dowse it with my coffee.
Really?, floating window!
?, I really really don't need slashdot's clippy around, thank you /rantSorry , back to your normal station, this is a horrible analogyHome address, you either are moving around a lot and the address is a poor indicator of I.D.
or you,Rent: and have been credit checked, pay monthly, and tend to live at a location for years at a time.
Extremely connected to youBuy, you have a mortgage, even more connected to you.Car, you purchased a car, probably have a loan,  the car is registered with the state based on your I.D, car's Vin# , licence #, etc...  If you live in a state with regular car examinations (i.e.
smog checks here), this info is also periodically checked.
Extremely connected to you.IP address, if I have a static address, it is connected to me in some way.
See wireless networks and NAT however for how I may be only remotely and unknowingly connected personally to whatever is going on.
More often though, these are dynamic and again you may have wireless and NAT.
Or I pop into a coffee shop and what address did I just get?, or I use a different network card in my notebook, or wait...  I just changed the MAC address on one of the cards or.... you get the idea.
As other's have mentioned, IP's only really reference a network node for a certain period of time.
This could be very identifiable: static IP to a DNS'd address that's consistent for years or it could be almost completely anonymous: some various network card with a handset MAC at a coffee shop.If you want an analogy, how about your current location?
If you're at home, it might be good indicator of who you are (although it could be anyone who lives with you or is visiting), If you're some place crowded or that you've never been to before, it's a horrible indicator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624375</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>NervousNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1247075580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, well my IP address is 127.0.0.1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , well my IP address is 127.0.0.1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, well my IP address is 127.0.0.1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623779</id>
	<title>Is this really a bad thing?</title>
	<author>Millennium</author>
	<datestamp>1247073480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think about it: according to this judge, an IP address identifies a computer (as others have pointed out, "network endpoint" would be a more correct term), <em>not</em> the person behind it. Although this makes it easier for the **AA to collect IP-address information, it also makes such information a lot less useful, because by itself it leaves a hole big enough to establish reasonable doubt. The IP address can establish what computer was used, but it does not prove that the defendant was the one operating the computer in that capacity. Especially in an age of botnets and malware, there's a lot of doubt here unless you can establish a stronger link, and the IP address won't help you on that score.</p><p>That leaves open the question: does this <em>really</em> strengthen the **AA, or does it actually hamstring their tactics? This may remain to be seen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about it : according to this judge , an IP address identifies a computer ( as others have pointed out , " network endpoint " would be a more correct term ) , not the person behind it .
Although this makes it easier for the * * AA to collect IP-address information , it also makes such information a lot less useful , because by itself it leaves a hole big enough to establish reasonable doubt .
The IP address can establish what computer was used , but it does not prove that the defendant was the one operating the computer in that capacity .
Especially in an age of botnets and malware , there 's a lot of doubt here unless you can establish a stronger link , and the IP address wo n't help you on that score.That leaves open the question : does this really strengthen the * * AA , or does it actually hamstring their tactics ?
This may remain to be seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about it: according to this judge, an IP address identifies a computer (as others have pointed out, "network endpoint" would be a more correct term), not the person behind it.
Although this makes it easier for the **AA to collect IP-address information, it also makes such information a lot less useful, because by itself it leaves a hole big enough to establish reasonable doubt.
The IP address can establish what computer was used, but it does not prove that the defendant was the one operating the computer in that capacity.
Especially in an age of botnets and malware, there's a lot of doubt here unless you can establish a stronger link, and the IP address won't help you on that score.That leaves open the question: does this really strengthen the **AA, or does it actually hamstring their tactics?
This may remain to be seen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623637</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1247072880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So license plates and addresses frequently change, often without the consent or even knowledge of the user? There are services which allow you to randomize your car's license plate every time you take a drive? Apartment buildings frequently change the numbers of the apartments inside them?<br>

IP addresses are much less fixed than anything that represents a physical object.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So license plates and addresses frequently change , often without the consent or even knowledge of the user ?
There are services which allow you to randomize your car 's license plate every time you take a drive ?
Apartment buildings frequently change the numbers of the apartments inside them ?
IP addresses are much less fixed than anything that represents a physical object .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So license plates and addresses frequently change, often without the consent or even knowledge of the user?
There are services which allow you to randomize your car's license plate every time you take a drive?
Apartment buildings frequently change the numbers of the apartments inside them?
IP addresses are much less fixed than anything that represents a physical object.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626659</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247083320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However, the IP addresses are tied to a user during the time of the lease. This makes it pretty easy to identify what user (or home network) did what during a certain time using the IP addresses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , the IP addresses are tied to a user during the time of the lease .
This makes it pretty easy to identify what user ( or home network ) did what during a certain time using the IP addresses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, the IP addresses are tied to a user during the time of the lease.
This makes it pretty easy to identify what user (or home network) did what during a certain time using the IP addresses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623923</id>
	<title>Couldn't this be a potentially good thing?</title>
	<author>billlava</author>
	<datestamp>1247073960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the court ruled that IP addresses aren't personally identifiable, then couldn't some crafty lawyer argue that it can't be used to personally identify any defendant?  I can hear the courtroom defenses now...

"I didn't download and share 10 million hours of music, your honor.  The computer located at 10.187.13.37 did."</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the court ruled that IP addresses are n't personally identifiable , then could n't some crafty lawyer argue that it ca n't be used to personally identify any defendant ?
I can hear the courtroom defenses now.. . " I did n't download and share 10 million hours of music , your honor .
The computer located at 10.187.13.37 did .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the court ruled that IP addresses aren't personally identifiable, then couldn't some crafty lawyer argue that it can't be used to personally identify any defendant?
I can hear the courtroom defenses now...

"I didn't download and share 10 million hours of music, your honor.
The computer located at 10.187.13.37 did.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28659149</id>
	<title>Static IP range</title>
	<author>1110110001</author>
	<datestamp>1247318700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I could a range of 6 IPs and all you need to get my real name, then, yes, my IP address is peronally identifiable. You say that's not always the case and you don't know when it is? So you better not track any IP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I could a range of 6 IPs and all you need to get my real name , then , yes , my IP address is peronally identifiable .
You say that 's not always the case and you do n't know when it is ?
So you better not track any IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I could a range of 6 IPs and all you need to get my real name, then, yes, my IP address is peronally identifiable.
You say that's not always the case and you don't know when it is?
So you better not track any IP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624385</id>
	<title>Re:A question...</title>
	<author>GigG</author>
	<datestamp>1247075580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It could be referenced then the the RIAA would just then then make some move to find out everyone that had access to the IP address in question and go after all of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It could be referenced then the the RIAA would just then then make some move to find out everyone that had access to the IP address in question and go after all of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could be referenced then the the RIAA would just then then make some move to find out everyone that had access to the IP address in question and go after all of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624875</id>
	<title>IP/ESSN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if my IP address isn't personally identifiable does that make my ESSN number on my cell phone also not personally identifiable?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if my IP address is n't personally identifiable does that make my ESSN number on my cell phone also not personally identifiable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if my IP address isn't personally identifiable does that make my ESSN number on my cell phone also not personally identifiable?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624715</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>Shadowland</author>
	<datestamp>1247076720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; IPv6 addresses should be like MAC addresses for people.
&gt; Issued at birth, and tattooed onto your ass.

Wouldn't that make them IPv666 addresses?  IP address of the Beast.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; IPv6 addresses should be like MAC addresses for people .
&gt; Issued at birth , and tattooed onto your ass .
Would n't that make them IPv666 addresses ?
IP address of the Beast .
: ^ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; IPv6 addresses should be like MAC addresses for people.
&gt; Issued at birth, and tattooed onto your ass.
Wouldn't that make them IPv666 addresses?
IP address of the Beast.
:^)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623707</id>
	<title>How is this significant to RIAA cases?</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1247073180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But an IP address identifies a computer</p></div></blockquote><p>Or multiple computers/internet nodes, more accurately.</p><p>The significance of this to RIAA cases is nil.<br>When your ISP fingers you, you've been fingered.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But an IP address identifies a computerOr multiple computers/internet nodes , more accurately.The significance of this to RIAA cases is nil.When your ISP fingers you , you 've been fingered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But an IP address identifies a computerOr multiple computers/internet nodes, more accurately.The significance of this to RIAA cases is nil.When your ISP fingers you, you've been fingered.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28630797</id>
	<title>Re:Relates to all online activities</title>
	<author>Macgrrl</author>
	<datestamp>1247061420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It certainly increases the burden of proof, which is not entirely a bad thing.</p><p>In most of the examples you have given, the 'authorities' as targeting a specific individual, they probably have multiple transactions over an extended period of time which they are attempting to tie to a specific user. They may have additional information in the form of user account logins to include in the evidence of identity.</p><p>In the case of the RIAA/MPAA they are generally scatter shot cases against multiple users based on a few or single alleged events. This would require them to generate greater depth to their case evidence and most likely changing thier tactics - because scatter shot only works with a low overhead. It might even force them to target high volume transgressors who are attempting to profit from filesharing rather than people who don't realise that torrents upload as well as download and they are distributing whether they meant to or not when they tried to get a free copy of the latest Britney release.</p><p>The RIAA/MPAA have a legitimate role in attempting to combat commercial copyright infringement. It's highly unlikely that they will do their corporate masters any favours in pursuing their customer base for trivial infractions. As an extreme example, it's unlikely the Jammie Thomas will have any money left to spend on music if the 1.9m verdict stands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It certainly increases the burden of proof , which is not entirely a bad thing.In most of the examples you have given , the 'authorities ' as targeting a specific individual , they probably have multiple transactions over an extended period of time which they are attempting to tie to a specific user .
They may have additional information in the form of user account logins to include in the evidence of identity.In the case of the RIAA/MPAA they are generally scatter shot cases against multiple users based on a few or single alleged events .
This would require them to generate greater depth to their case evidence and most likely changing thier tactics - because scatter shot only works with a low overhead .
It might even force them to target high volume transgressors who are attempting to profit from filesharing rather than people who do n't realise that torrents upload as well as download and they are distributing whether they meant to or not when they tried to get a free copy of the latest Britney release.The RIAA/MPAA have a legitimate role in attempting to combat commercial copyright infringement .
It 's highly unlikely that they will do their corporate masters any favours in pursuing their customer base for trivial infractions .
As an extreme example , it 's unlikely the Jammie Thomas will have any money left to spend on music if the 1.9m verdict stands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It certainly increases the burden of proof, which is not entirely a bad thing.In most of the examples you have given, the 'authorities' as targeting a specific individual, they probably have multiple transactions over an extended period of time which they are attempting to tie to a specific user.
They may have additional information in the form of user account logins to include in the evidence of identity.In the case of the RIAA/MPAA they are generally scatter shot cases against multiple users based on a few or single alleged events.
This would require them to generate greater depth to their case evidence and most likely changing thier tactics - because scatter shot only works with a low overhead.
It might even force them to target high volume transgressors who are attempting to profit from filesharing rather than people who don't realise that torrents upload as well as download and they are distributing whether they meant to or not when they tried to get a free copy of the latest Britney release.The RIAA/MPAA have a legitimate role in attempting to combat commercial copyright infringement.
It's highly unlikely that they will do their corporate masters any favours in pursuing their customer base for trivial infractions.
As an extreme example, it's unlikely the Jammie Thomas will have any money left to spend on music if the 1.9m verdict stands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623429</id>
	<title>Fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is fine as long as they take that statement to its logical conclusion. If IP addresses cannot be used to identify people then just an IP address is insufficient to bring charges against anyone, IP addresses would in effect be useless to the mobsters of collection agents and they have no need or right to subpoena them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is fine as long as they take that statement to its logical conclusion .
If IP addresses can not be used to identify people then just an IP address is insufficient to bring charges against anyone , IP addresses would in effect be useless to the mobsters of collection agents and they have no need or right to subpoena them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is fine as long as they take that statement to its logical conclusion.
If IP addresses cannot be used to identify people then just an IP address is insufficient to bring charges against anyone, IP addresses would in effect be useless to the mobsters of collection agents and they have no need or right to subpoena them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623957</id>
	<title>Re:Spartacus-1138</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1247074080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>I am 192.168.0.1</em> </p><p>That's the IP of my gateway.  I am the keymaster are you the gatekeeper?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am 192.168.0.1 That 's the IP of my gateway .
I am the keymaster are you the gatekeeper ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I am 192.168.0.1 That's the IP of my gateway.
I am the keymaster are you the gatekeeper?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624227</id>
	<title>Re:The IP is a lot like a license plate</title>
	<author>\_avs\_007</author>
	<datestamp>1247075160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You didn't need this ruling to do that, people have been fighting these tickets for years. (At least on the west coast). Reason being, the driving statutes (for speeding anyways) are explicit as saying it is the "driver" that is guilty of speeding. License Plate does not identify driver...

The problem is, that most people don't know this distinction and just pay the fine... A CHP officer even told me this when I went with a friend to court a long time ago...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You did n't need this ruling to do that , people have been fighting these tickets for years .
( At least on the west coast ) .
Reason being , the driving statutes ( for speeding anyways ) are explicit as saying it is the " driver " that is guilty of speeding .
License Plate does not identify driver.. . The problem is , that most people do n't know this distinction and just pay the fine... A CHP officer even told me this when I went with a friend to court a long time ago.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn't need this ruling to do that, people have been fighting these tickets for years.
(At least on the west coast).
Reason being, the driving statutes (for speeding anyways) are explicit as saying it is the "driver" that is guilty of speeding.
License Plate does not identify driver...

The problem is, that most people don't know this distinction and just pay the fine... A CHP officer even told me this when I went with a friend to court a long time ago...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28630897</id>
	<title>Re:Legal code for this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247062080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now procedural<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>char *getRuling(char *individual, char *evilCorporation)<br>{<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; if (individualStatus == SUING)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; return "IP addresss is not personal identification";<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; else if (corporationStatus == SUING)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; return "IP address is personal information";<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; else<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; return "Please submit amount available to donate my election campaign";<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>}<br>}</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now procedural : - ) char * getRuling ( char * individual , char * evilCorporation ) {         if ( individualStatus = = SUING )         {                 return " IP addresss is not personal identification " ;         }         else if ( corporationStatus = = SUING )         {                 return " IP address is personal information " ;         }         else         {                 return " Please submit amount available to donate my election campaign " ;         } } }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now procedural :-)char *getRuling(char *individual, char *evilCorporation){
        if (individualStatus == SUING)
        {
                return "IP addresss is not personal identification";
        }
        else if (corporationStatus == SUING)
        {
                return "IP address is personal information";
        }
        else
        {
                return "Please submit amount available to donate my election campaign";
        }}}</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625365</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>davester666</author>
	<datestamp>1247078940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the RIAA already want that IPv6 address on an RFID chip implanted into your ass.</p><p>They don't want to have to keep making you whip down your pants every 5 minutes to check your number...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the RIAA already want that IPv6 address on an RFID chip implanted into your ass.They do n't want to have to keep making you whip down your pants every 5 minutes to check your number.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the RIAA already want that IPv6 address on an RFID chip implanted into your ass.They don't want to have to keep making you whip down your pants every 5 minutes to check your number...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623879</id>
	<title>Re:A question...</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1247073780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems like it should be a viable argument, but I doubt it will be accepted.  From the news I read, it seems like somehow the judicial branch is as anti-consumer as the other branches of government.
</p><p>The thing is, I think they have this totally backward.  They allow IPs as evidence of who was committing copyright infringement, but disallow the argument that IP collection is an invasion of privacy.  However, an IP address is personally identifiable of the person who is paying for Internet service*** and not of the person who is originating the traffic.  Therefore, in collecting IP addresses you are generally invading the privacy of the person paying for service (by monitoring the use that he's paying for).  On the other hand, the link between the traffic over a connection and the person paying for it should be considered circumstantial at best.
</p><p>If I own a plot of land and a dead body is found on that land, does it naturally follow that I'm the murderer?  No.  On the other hand, if Microsoft keeps surveillance on that plot of land, isn't that still an invasion of my privacy?
</p><p>*** The summary has it wrong, and IP addresses do not identify a computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like it should be a viable argument , but I doubt it will be accepted .
From the news I read , it seems like somehow the judicial branch is as anti-consumer as the other branches of government .
The thing is , I think they have this totally backward .
They allow IPs as evidence of who was committing copyright infringement , but disallow the argument that IP collection is an invasion of privacy .
However , an IP address is personally identifiable of the person who is paying for Internet service * * * and not of the person who is originating the traffic .
Therefore , in collecting IP addresses you are generally invading the privacy of the person paying for service ( by monitoring the use that he 's paying for ) .
On the other hand , the link between the traffic over a connection and the person paying for it should be considered circumstantial at best .
If I own a plot of land and a dead body is found on that land , does it naturally follow that I 'm the murderer ?
No. On the other hand , if Microsoft keeps surveillance on that plot of land , is n't that still an invasion of my privacy ?
* * * The summary has it wrong , and IP addresses do not identify a computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like it should be a viable argument, but I doubt it will be accepted.
From the news I read, it seems like somehow the judicial branch is as anti-consumer as the other branches of government.
The thing is, I think they have this totally backward.
They allow IPs as evidence of who was committing copyright infringement, but disallow the argument that IP collection is an invasion of privacy.
However, an IP address is personally identifiable of the person who is paying for Internet service*** and not of the person who is originating the traffic.
Therefore, in collecting IP addresses you are generally invading the privacy of the person paying for service (by monitoring the use that he's paying for).
On the other hand, the link between the traffic over a connection and the person paying for it should be considered circumstantial at best.
If I own a plot of land and a dead body is found on that land, does it naturally follow that I'm the murderer?
No.  On the other hand, if Microsoft keeps surveillance on that plot of land, isn't that still an invasion of my privacy?
*** The summary has it wrong, and IP addresses do not identify a computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626423</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247082540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Af'ingMEN!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Af'ingMEN !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Af'ingMEN!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623861</id>
	<title>The IP is a lot like a license plate</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1247073660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If all they have is a picture of your
license plate, that doesn't prove you were
driving.  We should use this ruling as precedent
to get out of automated tickets when there is
no clear picture of your face.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If all they have is a picture of your license plate , that does n't prove you were driving .
We should use this ruling as precedent to get out of automated tickets when there is no clear picture of your face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If all they have is a picture of your
license plate, that doesn't prove you were
driving.
We should use this ruling as precedent
to get out of automated tickets when there is
no clear picture of your face.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625987</id>
	<title>At best..</title>
	<author>TemporalBeing</author>
	<datestamp>1247081100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At best an IP address identifies a computer; and as other have said that single computer could be (i) a router, behind which there are other computers, (ii) a single computer with one OS, (iii) a single computer with multiple OS's (e.g. virtual machines), or more. Additionally, there is not necessarily a 1:1 ratio of computers to humans where the computer resides; thus, even if you can identify the computer you cannot necessarily identify the person behind it, even if you use a login - someone else could login as you and do stuff and you wouldn't know it.
<br> <br>
So it's kind of somewhere between what RIAA wants and what the judge ruled here. RIAA wants it to identify a specific individual - not gonna happen - but it does identify more than the judge ruled. So privacy still needs to be held and IP addresses should still be considered private information, though not personally identifiable information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At best an IP address identifies a computer ; and as other have said that single computer could be ( i ) a router , behind which there are other computers , ( ii ) a single computer with one OS , ( iii ) a single computer with multiple OS 's ( e.g .
virtual machines ) , or more .
Additionally , there is not necessarily a 1 : 1 ratio of computers to humans where the computer resides ; thus , even if you can identify the computer you can not necessarily identify the person behind it , even if you use a login - someone else could login as you and do stuff and you would n't know it .
So it 's kind of somewhere between what RIAA wants and what the judge ruled here .
RIAA wants it to identify a specific individual - not gon na happen - but it does identify more than the judge ruled .
So privacy still needs to be held and IP addresses should still be considered private information , though not personally identifiable information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At best an IP address identifies a computer; and as other have said that single computer could be (i) a router, behind which there are other computers, (ii) a single computer with one OS, (iii) a single computer with multiple OS's (e.g.
virtual machines), or more.
Additionally, there is not necessarily a 1:1 ratio of computers to humans where the computer resides; thus, even if you can identify the computer you cannot necessarily identify the person behind it, even if you use a login - someone else could login as you and do stuff and you wouldn't know it.
So it's kind of somewhere between what RIAA wants and what the judge ruled here.
RIAA wants it to identify a specific individual - not gonna happen - but it does identify more than the judge ruled.
So privacy still needs to be held and IP addresses should still be considered private information, though not personally identifiable information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623571</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel as though your tone is completely sarcastic, but perhaps it isn't.  However, yes indeed your license plate and address are not personal information with an implicit right to privacy.  They are public records.  I can go to the DMV and look up your license plate to get owner information, and I can go to your local municipality and get owner information about your address.  Do you get where this is going?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel as though your tone is completely sarcastic , but perhaps it is n't .
However , yes indeed your license plate and address are not personal information with an implicit right to privacy .
They are public records .
I can go to the DMV and look up your license plate to get owner information , and I can go to your local municipality and get owner information about your address .
Do you get where this is going ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel as though your tone is completely sarcastic, but perhaps it isn't.
However, yes indeed your license plate and address are not personal information with an implicit right to privacy.
They are public records.
I can go to the DMV and look up your license plate to get owner information, and I can go to your local municipality and get owner information about your address.
Do you get where this is going?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625273</id>
	<title>Uhh, why do they get to "rule" on this?</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1247078580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did it bother no one else that a judge has taken it upon himself to rule something as true that is a provable fact?</p><p>What would we have done if he ruled that it does personally identify a person?</p><p>Why was a ruling even needed when this is utterly provable?</p><p>Is a judge next going to rule that gravity pulls thing towards earth?  I'll admit that one seems a bit absurd, but is actually harder to prove than the fact that an IP address does not reliably identify a person. So why does the more easily proven fact get a ruling?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did it bother no one else that a judge has taken it upon himself to rule something as true that is a provable fact ? What would we have done if he ruled that it does personally identify a person ? Why was a ruling even needed when this is utterly provable ? Is a judge next going to rule that gravity pulls thing towards earth ?
I 'll admit that one seems a bit absurd , but is actually harder to prove than the fact that an IP address does not reliably identify a person .
So why does the more easily proven fact get a ruling ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did it bother no one else that a judge has taken it upon himself to rule something as true that is a provable fact?What would we have done if he ruled that it does personally identify a person?Why was a ruling even needed when this is utterly provable?Is a judge next going to rule that gravity pulls thing towards earth?
I'll admit that one seems a bit absurd, but is actually harder to prove than the fact that an IP address does not reliably identify a person.
So why does the more easily proven fact get a ruling?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624585</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247076300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hahahah, yea, thats great logic, thats why drug dealers always get off when they bust a drug house.</p><p>They take the house to jail, but leave the people that live there in the now empty lot.</p><p>Most of the time, an IP will narrow the list of possible people to the point that with very little extra outside information it becomes clear who was using the IP at that time.</p><p>What I want to know is why everyone is in such a big hurry to pretend an IP isn't useful for figuring out who is doing something.</p><p>Admins have been using them for this for years, the only people I see whining about it are people who are afraid of getting caught doing something they don't want others to know about.  Stop doing shit you don't want people to know about in public, I.E. on the internet and you'll not have to be so retarded about IPs any more.</p><p>The warrent argument is so tired and fucking retarded.  'You can't tie these two things together without a warrent!?$!@$?!@\%!@#^\%!@\%'  Get the fuck over yourself.  My mind is going to tie them together without a judge telling me its okay, then I'm going to go to a judge and explain why, using clear logic, the IP used is coming from someone in your house so we can make a pretty safe assumption that we'll get more evidence inside, and he's going to say 'you know what, you are right, here you go'.</p><p>You people and your retarded logic don't get that regardless of how hard you try to come up with some legal way to get around the fact that you're breaking the law, the rest of us who created the laws aren't going to let you get by with it.</p><p>Civilization is more important to me than your bullshit rants about your privacy.  I don't give a flying fuck about your privacy, I care about mine.  My privacy doesn't require my IP to be hidden or not accepted as evidence.  My privacy is real privacy because I'm not doing shit in public/on a public network and then trying to make sure no one can figure it out.</p><p>Your ignorance and subconscious need for voyeurism  and attention is why you won't ever have privacy, there is nothing else to blame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hahahah , yea , thats great logic , thats why drug dealers always get off when they bust a drug house.They take the house to jail , but leave the people that live there in the now empty lot.Most of the time , an IP will narrow the list of possible people to the point that with very little extra outside information it becomes clear who was using the IP at that time.What I want to know is why everyone is in such a big hurry to pretend an IP is n't useful for figuring out who is doing something.Admins have been using them for this for years , the only people I see whining about it are people who are afraid of getting caught doing something they do n't want others to know about .
Stop doing shit you do n't want people to know about in public , I.E .
on the internet and you 'll not have to be so retarded about IPs any more.The warrent argument is so tired and fucking retarded .
'You ca n't tie these two things together without a warrent ! ? $ ! @ $ ? ! @ \ % ! @ # ^ \ % !
@ \ % ' Get the fuck over yourself .
My mind is going to tie them together without a judge telling me its okay , then I 'm going to go to a judge and explain why , using clear logic , the IP used is coming from someone in your house so we can make a pretty safe assumption that we 'll get more evidence inside , and he 's going to say 'you know what , you are right , here you go'.You people and your retarded logic do n't get that regardless of how hard you try to come up with some legal way to get around the fact that you 're breaking the law , the rest of us who created the laws are n't going to let you get by with it.Civilization is more important to me than your bullshit rants about your privacy .
I do n't give a flying fuck about your privacy , I care about mine .
My privacy does n't require my IP to be hidden or not accepted as evidence .
My privacy is real privacy because I 'm not doing shit in public/on a public network and then trying to make sure no one can figure it out.Your ignorance and subconscious need for voyeurism and attention is why you wo n't ever have privacy , there is nothing else to blame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hahahah, yea, thats great logic, thats why drug dealers always get off when they bust a drug house.They take the house to jail, but leave the people that live there in the now empty lot.Most of the time, an IP will narrow the list of possible people to the point that with very little extra outside information it becomes clear who was using the IP at that time.What I want to know is why everyone is in such a big hurry to pretend an IP isn't useful for figuring out who is doing something.Admins have been using them for this for years, the only people I see whining about it are people who are afraid of getting caught doing something they don't want others to know about.
Stop doing shit you don't want people to know about in public, I.E.
on the internet and you'll not have to be so retarded about IPs any more.The warrent argument is so tired and fucking retarded.
'You can't tie these two things together without a warrent!?$!@$?!@\%!@#^\%!
@\%'  Get the fuck over yourself.
My mind is going to tie them together without a judge telling me its okay, then I'm going to go to a judge and explain why, using clear logic, the IP used is coming from someone in your house so we can make a pretty safe assumption that we'll get more evidence inside, and he's going to say 'you know what, you are right, here you go'.You people and your retarded logic don't get that regardless of how hard you try to come up with some legal way to get around the fact that you're breaking the law, the rest of us who created the laws aren't going to let you get by with it.Civilization is more important to me than your bullshit rants about your privacy.
I don't give a flying fuck about your privacy, I care about mine.
My privacy doesn't require my IP to be hidden or not accepted as evidence.
My privacy is real privacy because I'm not doing shit in public/on a public network and then trying to make sure no one can figure it out.Your ignorance and subconscious need for voyeurism  and attention is why you won't ever have privacy, there is nothing else to blame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623805</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>0racle</author>
	<datestamp>1247073540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I purchased a static IP, it is as unique and identifies me as much as my address and my license plate identify myself or my wife. ISP records can also correlate IP's to customers again identifying you as closely as your address identifies you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I purchased a static IP , it is as unique and identifies me as much as my address and my license plate identify myself or my wife .
ISP records can also correlate IP 's to customers again identifying you as closely as your address identifies you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I purchased a static IP, it is as unique and identifies me as much as my address and my license plate identify myself or my wife.
ISP records can also correlate IP's to customers again identifying you as closely as your address identifies you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623595</id>
	<title>Am I the only one?</title>
	<author>DarrenBaker</author>
	<datestamp>1247072700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems logical to me. An IP address no more identifies a person than a house address identifies one. It's tying those two together for investigative purposes that should be illegal without a warrant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems logical to me .
An IP address no more identifies a person than a house address identifies one .
It 's tying those two together for investigative purposes that should be illegal without a warrant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems logical to me.
An IP address no more identifies a person than a house address identifies one.
It's tying those two together for investigative purposes that should be illegal without a warrant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623687</id>
	<title>actually...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247073120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the IP does not even identify a computer, as those of us with portable network cards can attest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the IP does not even identify a computer , as those of us with portable network cards can attest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the IP does not even identify a computer, as those of us with portable network cards can attest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28635911</id>
	<title>Re:I'm confused...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247151840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lock on your sliding glass patio door is broken (you think it works, never checked it).  Your neighbor's kid sees you leave for work.  He comes in through your sliding glass door, uses your computer for several hours, then leaves, erasing history and cookies.  You use the computer an hour a day.  HE is the primary user, not you, and you don't even know it.  How does your IP tell anybody WHO was the user?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lock on your sliding glass patio door is broken ( you think it works , never checked it ) .
Your neighbor 's kid sees you leave for work .
He comes in through your sliding glass door , uses your computer for several hours , then leaves , erasing history and cookies .
You use the computer an hour a day .
HE is the primary user , not you , and you do n't even know it .
How does your IP tell anybody WHO was the user ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lock on your sliding glass patio door is broken (you think it works, never checked it).
Your neighbor's kid sees you leave for work.
He comes in through your sliding glass door, uses your computer for several hours, then leaves, erasing history and cookies.
You use the computer an hour a day.
HE is the primary user, not you, and you don't even know it.
How does your IP tell anybody WHO was the user?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28629101</id>
	<title>Re:Spartacus-1138</title>
	<author>devnulljapan</author>
	<datestamp>1247051220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am not a number I am a <a href="http://www.freenetproject.org/" title="freenetproject.org" rel="nofollow">free net!</a> [freenetproject.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not a number I am a free net !
[ freenetproject.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not a number I am a free net!
[freenetproject.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623523</id>
	<title>my  massive penis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>suck it linux users</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>suck it linux users</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suck it linux users</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627237</id>
	<title>Re:Largely irrelevant to RIAA litigation</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1247085480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Your honor, I have a generic wireless router, with an after market 7w anteanna, and an effective range of nearly 1/4 mile.  It's set to broadcast it's SSID and allow guest access.  No, i don't have a lot of guests, i just bring different machines home from work occasionally, and I hate having to type in the password.  besides, those passwords can be cracked in under a minute by anyone who wants to, does a google search, and downloads some free software, so why bother right?  The wireless covers about 300 houses in area, and ANYONE, even someone simply parked in the area, could have made those downloads.  Is it illegal to have my wifi open like that?  no.  OK, thanks, i rest my own case."</p><p>Since it's not against the law to have open wifi, there's no case for negligence...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Your honor , I have a generic wireless router , with an after market 7w anteanna , and an effective range of nearly 1/4 mile .
It 's set to broadcast it 's SSID and allow guest access .
No , i do n't have a lot of guests , i just bring different machines home from work occasionally , and I hate having to type in the password .
besides , those passwords can be cracked in under a minute by anyone who wants to , does a google search , and downloads some free software , so why bother right ?
The wireless covers about 300 houses in area , and ANYONE , even someone simply parked in the area , could have made those downloads .
Is it illegal to have my wifi open like that ?
no. OK , thanks , i rest my own case .
" Since it 's not against the law to have open wifi , there 's no case for negligence.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Your honor, I have a generic wireless router, with an after market 7w anteanna, and an effective range of nearly 1/4 mile.
It's set to broadcast it's SSID and allow guest access.
No, i don't have a lot of guests, i just bring different machines home from work occasionally, and I hate having to type in the password.
besides, those passwords can be cracked in under a minute by anyone who wants to, does a google search, and downloads some free software, so why bother right?
The wireless covers about 300 houses in area, and ANYONE, even someone simply parked in the area, could have made those downloads.
Is it illegal to have my wifi open like that?
no.  OK, thanks, i rest my own case.
"Since it's not against the law to have open wifi, there's no case for negligence...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623721</id>
	<title>Relates to all online activities</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1247073240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this holds up (meaning not overturned) this can hold up in other cases (not all good) such as:<br>
1) RIAA/MPAA sueing people they tracked via IP numbers<br>
2) Pedophiles tracked via IP numbers<br>
3) Online harassment cases tracked via IP numbers (e.g. the mom who harassed some girl until the girl committed suicide)<br>
4) Spammers who are tracked via IP numbers
<br> <br>

There are other cases this would effect but basically anything where they link someone via an IP number would be invalidated.  I agree with the judge that an IP is not personally identifiable information (my g/f uses my laptop more then i do...which uses my home network...if she does something illegal it does not mean *I* did it or am remotely responsible for what she did.)  It's a tricky situation so hopefully the judge wrote a thoughtful brief.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this holds up ( meaning not overturned ) this can hold up in other cases ( not all good ) such as : 1 ) RIAA/MPAA sueing people they tracked via IP numbers 2 ) Pedophiles tracked via IP numbers 3 ) Online harassment cases tracked via IP numbers ( e.g .
the mom who harassed some girl until the girl committed suicide ) 4 ) Spammers who are tracked via IP numbers There are other cases this would effect but basically anything where they link someone via an IP number would be invalidated .
I agree with the judge that an IP is not personally identifiable information ( my g/f uses my laptop more then i do...which uses my home network...if she does something illegal it does not mean * I * did it or am remotely responsible for what she did .
) It 's a tricky situation so hopefully the judge wrote a thoughtful brief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this holds up (meaning not overturned) this can hold up in other cases (not all good) such as:
1) RIAA/MPAA sueing people they tracked via IP numbers
2) Pedophiles tracked via IP numbers
3) Online harassment cases tracked via IP numbers (e.g.
the mom who harassed some girl until the girl committed suicide)
4) Spammers who are tracked via IP numbers
 

There are other cases this would effect but basically anything where they link someone via an IP number would be invalidated.
I agree with the judge that an IP is not personally identifiable information (my g/f uses my laptop more then i do...which uses my home network...if she does something illegal it does not mean *I* did it or am remotely responsible for what she did.
)  It's a tricky situation so hopefully the judge wrote a thoughtful brief.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623915</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>khellendros1984</author>
	<datestamp>1247073900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are terms in the card usage agreement that you'll be the only one using it. When you use the card in person, many employees will require photo ID before they swipe the card. Of course that doesn't always happen, and that's why it's so easy to report a missing card and have the spurious charges reversed if it gets stolen. The case with a computer system is more complex, though. A single IP address can even have multiple networks underneath it. It's not even necessarily a single network behind an IP address. My point is that you're far more likely to take exception to someone trying to borrow your credit card than you are if someone wants to use your computer or connect to your router. The credit card, in general, is much more attached to a single person than an internet address is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are terms in the card usage agreement that you 'll be the only one using it .
When you use the card in person , many employees will require photo ID before they swipe the card .
Of course that does n't always happen , and that 's why it 's so easy to report a missing card and have the spurious charges reversed if it gets stolen .
The case with a computer system is more complex , though .
A single IP address can even have multiple networks underneath it .
It 's not even necessarily a single network behind an IP address .
My point is that you 're far more likely to take exception to someone trying to borrow your credit card than you are if someone wants to use your computer or connect to your router .
The credit card , in general , is much more attached to a single person than an internet address is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are terms in the card usage agreement that you'll be the only one using it.
When you use the card in person, many employees will require photo ID before they swipe the card.
Of course that doesn't always happen, and that's why it's so easy to report a missing card and have the spurious charges reversed if it gets stolen.
The case with a computer system is more complex, though.
A single IP address can even have multiple networks underneath it.
It's not even necessarily a single network behind an IP address.
My point is that you're far more likely to take exception to someone trying to borrow your credit card than you are if someone wants to use your computer or connect to your router.
The credit card, in general, is much more attached to a single person than an internet address is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28638947</id>
	<title>Re:Couldn't this be a potentially good thing?</title>
	<author>matt20102</author>
	<datestamp>1247163960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On cross examination, however, I later recanted and said that it was the one and only computer @168.0.0.1.  Or maybe it was the computer at 127.0.0.1...</htmltext>
<tokenext>On cross examination , however , I later recanted and said that it was the one and only computer @ 168.0.0.1 .
Or maybe it was the computer at 127.0.0.1.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On cross examination, however, I later recanted and said that it was the one and only computer @168.0.0.1.
Or maybe it was the computer at 127.0.0.1...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623467</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so does this mean credit cards are not Personally Identifiable? Since they are linked to an account number and not a person? Yes it has your name plastered all over it like your computer but as far as the credit card company is concerned that little piece of plastic just identifies an account not a person.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so does this mean credit cards are not Personally Identifiable ?
Since they are linked to an account number and not a person ?
Yes it has your name plastered all over it like your computer but as far as the credit card company is concerned that little piece of plastic just identifies an account not a person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so does this mean credit cards are not Personally Identifiable?
Since they are linked to an account number and not a person?
Yes it has your name plastered all over it like your computer but as far as the credit card company is concerned that little piece of plastic just identifies an account not a person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624185</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1247074980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This post is not true for the following reasons:<br>1)  Your car/license pops up on speed camera.  The registered owner, the person responsible for the car, will receive a ticket in the mail.  That person is being charged w/ the crime.  You are also asked that if you were not the driver of the car you are responsible for, that you identify the person who was at that date/time.  This is real.  What you said about how you can't get ticketed is simply false.  In 2004, my company, who had rented a car to me, had been passed a traffic-camera ticket from the registered owners (the rental agency), they in turn passed it on to me... And guess what, I was driving the car at the time and the exchange of information as to who was actually operating the vehicle at the time was apparent.  GUILTY.  (The ticket was like $120)</p><p>2)  Its not like you're randomly assigned an IP.  IP addresses have specific ranges that apply for different regions/ISPs/etc.  So that narrows it down from 'random' to some much more likely probability since you're connecting to the same ISP with the same range of IPs to hand out.  Secondly, and I would *hope* this is how it works in law, it isn't as simple as having had that IP "...at one point in time..." but rather that you had it at *THAT* point in time.  It would not really hold logical weight, in court, to charge a previous owner of a car who had sold it in 2001, for a speeding infraction that happened in 2008 simply because he had had the license/registration at one point in time.</p><p>Anyway... Your post is not 5-Insightful, but rather 2 or 1 - misleading and wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This post is not true for the following reasons : 1 ) Your car/license pops up on speed camera .
The registered owner , the person responsible for the car , will receive a ticket in the mail .
That person is being charged w/ the crime .
You are also asked that if you were not the driver of the car you are responsible for , that you identify the person who was at that date/time .
This is real .
What you said about how you ca n't get ticketed is simply false .
In 2004 , my company , who had rented a car to me , had been passed a traffic-camera ticket from the registered owners ( the rental agency ) , they in turn passed it on to me... And guess what , I was driving the car at the time and the exchange of information as to who was actually operating the vehicle at the time was apparent .
GUILTY. ( The ticket was like $ 120 ) 2 ) Its not like you 're randomly assigned an IP .
IP addresses have specific ranges that apply for different regions/ISPs/etc .
So that narrows it down from 'random ' to some much more likely probability since you 're connecting to the same ISP with the same range of IPs to hand out .
Secondly , and I would * hope * this is how it works in law , it is n't as simple as having had that IP " ...at one point in time... " but rather that you had it at * THAT * point in time .
It would not really hold logical weight , in court , to charge a previous owner of a car who had sold it in 2001 , for a speeding infraction that happened in 2008 simply because he had had the license/registration at one point in time.Anyway... Your post is not 5-Insightful , but rather 2 or 1 - misleading and wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post is not true for the following reasons:1)  Your car/license pops up on speed camera.
The registered owner, the person responsible for the car, will receive a ticket in the mail.
That person is being charged w/ the crime.
You are also asked that if you were not the driver of the car you are responsible for, that you identify the person who was at that date/time.
This is real.
What you said about how you can't get ticketed is simply false.
In 2004, my company, who had rented a car to me, had been passed a traffic-camera ticket from the registered owners (the rental agency), they in turn passed it on to me... And guess what, I was driving the car at the time and the exchange of information as to who was actually operating the vehicle at the time was apparent.
GUILTY.  (The ticket was like $120)2)  Its not like you're randomly assigned an IP.
IP addresses have specific ranges that apply for different regions/ISPs/etc.
So that narrows it down from 'random' to some much more likely probability since you're connecting to the same ISP with the same range of IPs to hand out.
Secondly, and I would *hope* this is how it works in law, it isn't as simple as having had that IP "...at one point in time..." but rather that you had it at *THAT* point in time.
It would not really hold logical weight, in court, to charge a previous owner of a car who had sold it in 2001, for a speeding infraction that happened in 2008 simply because he had had the license/registration at one point in time.Anyway... Your post is not 5-Insightful, but rather 2 or 1 - misleading and wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627771</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247044800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I want to know is why everyone is in such a big hurry to pretend an IP isn't useful for figuring out who is doing something.</p></div><p>It is. That's the whole point. However, it's also extremely prone to failure.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The warrent argument is so tired and fucking retarded. 'You can't tie these two things together without a warrent!?$!@$?!@\%!@#^\%!@\%' Get the fuck over yourself. My mind is going to tie them together without a judge telling me its okay, then I'm going to go to a judge and explain why, using clear logic, the IP used is coming from someone in your house so we can make a pretty safe assumption that we'll get more evidence inside, and he's going to say 'you know what, you are right, here you go'.</p></div><p>Two things? You have only one: an IP. To find out who was assigned the IP, you have to go through the DHCP logs kept by the ISP, and that <em>should</em> require going to court and getting a judge to issue a subpoena. <em>Then</em> you know whose house it came from.</p><p>At that point, I'll probably show you my wireless router and tell you to piss off, because anybody could have been using my connection.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I want to know is why everyone is in such a big hurry to pretend an IP is n't useful for figuring out who is doing something.It is .
That 's the whole point .
However , it 's also extremely prone to failure.The warrent argument is so tired and fucking retarded .
'You ca n't tie these two things together without a warrent ! ? $ ! @ $ ? ! @ \ % ! @ # ^ \ % !
@ \ % ' Get the fuck over yourself .
My mind is going to tie them together without a judge telling me its okay , then I 'm going to go to a judge and explain why , using clear logic , the IP used is coming from someone in your house so we can make a pretty safe assumption that we 'll get more evidence inside , and he 's going to say 'you know what , you are right , here you go'.Two things ?
You have only one : an IP .
To find out who was assigned the IP , you have to go through the DHCP logs kept by the ISP , and that should require going to court and getting a judge to issue a subpoena .
Then you know whose house it came from.At that point , I 'll probably show you my wireless router and tell you to piss off , because anybody could have been using my connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I want to know is why everyone is in such a big hurry to pretend an IP isn't useful for figuring out who is doing something.It is.
That's the whole point.
However, it's also extremely prone to failure.The warrent argument is so tired and fucking retarded.
'You can't tie these two things together without a warrent!?$!@$?!@\%!@#^\%!
@\%' Get the fuck over yourself.
My mind is going to tie them together without a judge telling me its okay, then I'm going to go to a judge and explain why, using clear logic, the IP used is coming from someone in your house so we can make a pretty safe assumption that we'll get more evidence inside, and he's going to say 'you know what, you are right, here you go'.Two things?
You have only one: an IP.
To find out who was assigned the IP, you have to go through the DHCP logs kept by the ISP, and that should require going to court and getting a judge to issue a subpoena.
Then you know whose house it came from.At that point, I'll probably show you my wireless router and tell you to piss off, because anybody could have been using my connection.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625931</id>
	<title>Re:The IP is a lot like a license plate</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1247080980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We should use this ruling as precedent to get out of automated tickets when there is no clear picture of your face.</p></div><p>I don't know where you live, but I assumed that was already the case.  It's true where I live, if they don't have a picture of you driving, or if the picture is of someone else, you don't have to pay.</p><p>You're telling me there are places where that's not true?  Hell, I have 3 outstanding tickets where it <i>does</i> show my face, but I still won't pay because no one ever served me the papers.  About half the people in my state who receive photo tickets decide not to pay them, in fact.  They used to serve each complaint but apparently stopped doing that at some point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should use this ruling as precedent to get out of automated tickets when there is no clear picture of your face.I do n't know where you live , but I assumed that was already the case .
It 's true where I live , if they do n't have a picture of you driving , or if the picture is of someone else , you do n't have to pay.You 're telling me there are places where that 's not true ?
Hell , I have 3 outstanding tickets where it does show my face , but I still wo n't pay because no one ever served me the papers .
About half the people in my state who receive photo tickets decide not to pay them , in fact .
They used to serve each complaint but apparently stopped doing that at some point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should use this ruling as precedent to get out of automated tickets when there is no clear picture of your face.I don't know where you live, but I assumed that was already the case.
It's true where I live, if they don't have a picture of you driving, or if the picture is of someone else, you don't have to pay.You're telling me there are places where that's not true?
Hell, I have 3 outstanding tickets where it does show my face, but I still won't pay because no one ever served me the papers.
About half the people in my state who receive photo tickets decide not to pay them, in fact.
They used to serve each complaint but apparently stopped doing that at some point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625607</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>nagnamer</author>
	<datestamp>1247079720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IPv6 addresses should be like MAC addresses for people.
Issued at birth, and tattooed onto your ass.</p></div><p>And then [insert company name] will create a security suite that you can shove up your butt, too</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 addresses should be like MAC addresses for people .
Issued at birth , and tattooed onto your ass.And then [ insert company name ] will create a security suite that you can shove up your butt , too</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv6 addresses should be like MAC addresses for people.
Issued at birth, and tattooed onto your ass.And then [insert company name] will create a security suite that you can shove up your butt, too
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28635175</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247148240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A license plate, street address and phone number are both unique and tied to a specific person" I call bullshit on this one<br>1) I have a family. My street address covers 6 individuals. Care to have a shot which one the letter addressed to just the 'uniquely identifying' street address is for?<br>2) My land-line phone is also used by the same six individuals. Any one of the six can both send and receive calls on it. Exactly how unique is that?<br>3) We have a family car.  Four of the abovementioned six are at liberty to drive it when available. Exactly how is the licence plate going to uniquely identify the driver?<br>I suggest you spend some time in the real world...</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A license plate , street address and phone number are both unique and tied to a specific person " I call bullshit on this one1 ) I have a family .
My street address covers 6 individuals .
Care to have a shot which one the letter addressed to just the 'uniquely identifying ' street address is for ? 2 ) My land-line phone is also used by the same six individuals .
Any one of the six can both send and receive calls on it .
Exactly how unique is that ? 3 ) We have a family car .
Four of the abovementioned six are at liberty to drive it when available .
Exactly how is the licence plate going to uniquely identify the driver ? I suggest you spend some time in the real world.. .  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A license plate, street address and phone number are both unique and tied to a specific person" I call bullshit on this one1) I have a family.
My street address covers 6 individuals.
Care to have a shot which one the letter addressed to just the 'uniquely identifying' street address is for?2) My land-line phone is also used by the same six individuals.
Any one of the six can both send and receive calls on it.
Exactly how unique is that?3) We have a family car.
Four of the abovementioned six are at liberty to drive it when available.
Exactly how is the licence plate going to uniquely identify the driver?I suggest you spend some time in the real world...
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624023</id>
	<title>Re:Spartacus-1138</title>
	<author>JohnnyGTO</author>
	<datestamp>1247074380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK I'll play, I'm 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK I 'll play , I 'm 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK I'll play, I'm 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623553</id>
	<title>Re:Another question...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you read the summery?</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Its potential relevance to the RIAA suits should be obvious to anyone who reads Slashdot.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you read the summery ?
  Its potential relevance to the RIAA suits should be obvious to anyone who reads Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you read the summery?
  Its potential relevance to the RIAA suits should be obvious to anyone who reads Slashdot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625049</id>
	<title>What about license plates?</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1247077800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They only identofy the "car" right?  And not the person?  Let's say we get the judge's car's license plate information and see if he doesn't feel that identifies him too personally or not?</p><p>I think the parallel is close enough to accurate to be effective in this case.  Identify a person's possession and you identify the person as well in the process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They only identofy the " car " right ?
And not the person ?
Let 's say we get the judge 's car 's license plate information and see if he does n't feel that identifies him too personally or not ? I think the parallel is close enough to accurate to be effective in this case .
Identify a person 's possession and you identify the person as well in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They only identofy the "car" right?
And not the person?
Let's say we get the judge's car's license plate information and see if he doesn't feel that identifies him too personally or not?I think the parallel is close enough to accurate to be effective in this case.
Identify a person's possession and you identify the person as well in the process.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627209</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247085420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IPv6 addresses should be like MAC addresses for people.<br>Issued at birth, and tattooed onto your ass.</p><p>Actually I hope the RIAA aren't reading this. It will give them ideas.</p></div><p>Brainless Tech: 1050:0000:0000:0000:0005:0600:300c:326b?<br>You: Yes?<br>Brainless Tech:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:shoves plug up your ass: Have a nice day!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 addresses should be like MAC addresses for people.Issued at birth , and tattooed onto your ass.Actually I hope the RIAA are n't reading this .
It will give them ideas.Brainless Tech : 1050 : 0000 : 0000 : 0000 : 0005 : 0600 : 300c : 326b ? You : Yes ? Brainless Tech : : shoves plug up your ass : Have a nice day !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv6 addresses should be like MAC addresses for people.Issued at birth, and tattooed onto your ass.Actually I hope the RIAA aren't reading this.
It will give them ideas.Brainless Tech: 1050:0000:0000:0000:0005:0600:300c:326b?You: Yes?Brainless Tech: :shoves plug up your ass: Have a nice day!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624655</id>
	<title>Re:A question...</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1247076540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately it probably won't help, because the judge made an error in his judgement. He said that an IP address identifies a computer, and since a computer has an owner who can (to some extent) be held liable for what is done with it then civil cases will continue.</p><p>An IP address only identifies a modem or router. Beyond that, there could be any number of computers, especially if wireless access is possible.</p><p>The issue for how liable you are for things done with your PC is a bit of a grey area too. If it becomes part of a botnet, are you responsible? What if you installed anti virus software but it didn't protect you? If someone hacks your wifi and downloads something they shouldn't, is it your fault for not using WPA or picking a better password? People here in the UK have got off child porn charges because their computers had trojans on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately it probably wo n't help , because the judge made an error in his judgement .
He said that an IP address identifies a computer , and since a computer has an owner who can ( to some extent ) be held liable for what is done with it then civil cases will continue.An IP address only identifies a modem or router .
Beyond that , there could be any number of computers , especially if wireless access is possible.The issue for how liable you are for things done with your PC is a bit of a grey area too .
If it becomes part of a botnet , are you responsible ?
What if you installed anti virus software but it did n't protect you ?
If someone hacks your wifi and downloads something they should n't , is it your fault for not using WPA or picking a better password ?
People here in the UK have got off child porn charges because their computers had trojans on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately it probably won't help, because the judge made an error in his judgement.
He said that an IP address identifies a computer, and since a computer has an owner who can (to some extent) be held liable for what is done with it then civil cases will continue.An IP address only identifies a modem or router.
Beyond that, there could be any number of computers, especially if wireless access is possible.The issue for how liable you are for things done with your PC is a bit of a grey area too.
If it becomes part of a botnet, are you responsible?
What if you installed anti virus software but it didn't protect you?
If someone hacks your wifi and downloads something they shouldn't, is it your fault for not using WPA or picking a better password?
People here in the UK have got off child porn charges because their computers had trojans on them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1247072460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IPv6 addresses should be like MAC addresses for people.<br>Issued at birth, and tattooed onto your ass.</p><p>Actually I hope the RIAA aren't reading this. It will give them ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 addresses should be like MAC addresses for people.Issued at birth , and tattooed onto your ass.Actually I hope the RIAA are n't reading this .
It will give them ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv6 addresses should be like MAC addresses for people.Issued at birth, and tattooed onto your ass.Actually I hope the RIAA aren't reading this.
It will give them ideas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626269</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247082060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, but when someone uses your care you're expected to know about it. Not so with a computer. Lets say you have a family desktop, anyone can use it. You, your wife, your kids, your uncle who came over to visit last week, your kids friends, your mom, your dad, your grandparents, your kid's friend who stopped by, and so on. With a car, they're going to ask first. Sure your wife/kid don't need permission, but anyone else would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , but when someone uses your care you 're expected to know about it .
Not so with a computer .
Lets say you have a family desktop , anyone can use it .
You , your wife , your kids , your uncle who came over to visit last week , your kids friends , your mom , your dad , your grandparents , your kid 's friend who stopped by , and so on .
With a car , they 're going to ask first .
Sure your wife/kid do n't need permission , but anyone else would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, but when someone uses your care you're expected to know about it.
Not so with a computer.
Lets say you have a family desktop, anyone can use it.
You, your wife, your kids, your uncle who came over to visit last week, your kids friends, your mom, your dad, your grandparents, your kid's friend who stopped by, and so on.
With a car, they're going to ask first.
Sure your wife/kid don't need permission, but anyone else would.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628355</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247047620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I can go to the DMV and look up your license plate to get owner information"</p><p>I believe that you are quite mistaken about looking up personal data, based on a license plate.  Maybe that is possible where you live, but it is NOT possible in most states.  You must have access to DMV computers to get that info, meaning, you are a cop, or a court officer, or a DMV employee.  Joe Blow can't get that info, because he may be a stalker or predator going after some pretty girl he saw at a red light.</p><p>Personally identifiable info can only be had by a private individual or business WITH A WARRANT.  The problem is, RIAA and company never gets a warrant, nor are they entitled to get warrants.  None of the information in the possession of the ISP should be handed over to these bogus enforcement agencies.  NONE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I can go to the DMV and look up your license plate to get owner information " I believe that you are quite mistaken about looking up personal data , based on a license plate .
Maybe that is possible where you live , but it is NOT possible in most states .
You must have access to DMV computers to get that info , meaning , you are a cop , or a court officer , or a DMV employee .
Joe Blow ca n't get that info , because he may be a stalker or predator going after some pretty girl he saw at a red light.Personally identifiable info can only be had by a private individual or business WITH A WARRANT .
The problem is , RIAA and company never gets a warrant , nor are they entitled to get warrants .
None of the information in the possession of the ISP should be handed over to these bogus enforcement agencies .
NONE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I can go to the DMV and look up your license plate to get owner information"I believe that you are quite mistaken about looking up personal data, based on a license plate.
Maybe that is possible where you live, but it is NOT possible in most states.
You must have access to DMV computers to get that info, meaning, you are a cop, or a court officer, or a DMV employee.
Joe Blow can't get that info, because he may be a stalker or predator going after some pretty girl he saw at a red light.Personally identifiable info can only be had by a private individual or business WITH A WARRANT.
The problem is, RIAA and company never gets a warrant, nor are they entitled to get warrants.
None of the information in the possession of the ISP should be handed over to these bogus enforcement agencies.
NONE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626145</id>
	<title>It takes more than an IP address to make a case</title>
	<author>rvel</author>
	<datestamp>1247081640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will have no effect on RIAA cases.

I believe the RIAA investigators use an IP address to identify an alleged lawbreaker, then grabs their hard drives and looks for evidence of file sharing, illegal downloads, etc. You cannot simply convict someone for illegal online activity simply because they have the same IP address as an alleged abuser.

In this context, an IP address <i>is</i> like a license plate.  Example: someone is involved in a hit-and-run. The cops track the license plate to your house and checks your car for damage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will have no effect on RIAA cases .
I believe the RIAA investigators use an IP address to identify an alleged lawbreaker , then grabs their hard drives and looks for evidence of file sharing , illegal downloads , etc .
You can not simply convict someone for illegal online activity simply because they have the same IP address as an alleged abuser .
In this context , an IP address is like a license plate .
Example : someone is involved in a hit-and-run .
The cops track the license plate to your house and checks your car for damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will have no effect on RIAA cases.
I believe the RIAA investigators use an IP address to identify an alleged lawbreaker, then grabs their hard drives and looks for evidence of file sharing, illegal downloads, etc.
You cannot simply convict someone for illegal online activity simply because they have the same IP address as an alleged abuser.
In this context, an IP address is like a license plate.
Example: someone is involved in a hit-and-run.
The cops track the license plate to your house and checks your car for damage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626821</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one?</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1247083980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hahahah, yea, thats great logic, thats why drug dealers always get off when they bust a drug house.</p></div><p>It's pretty damn easy to prove that Defendant A was in a house at a given time: that's where he/she was arrested.  It's all but impossible to prove that Defendant B was using a particular computer at a given time short of a SWAT team physically catching them there.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What I want to know is why everyone is in such a big hurry to pretend an IP isn't useful for figuring out who is doing something.</p></div><p>Umm, because it's not?  So you catch the IP of my router doing something untoward.  Was it me?  My wife?  One of my minor children?  My next-door neighbor?  Without additional evidence, you cannot trace that back to an individual, regardless of how much you whine about it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Civilization is more important to me than your bullshit rants about your privacy.</p></div><p>My privacy is more important to me than your Orwellian concept of civilization.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hahahah , yea , thats great logic , thats why drug dealers always get off when they bust a drug house.It 's pretty damn easy to prove that Defendant A was in a house at a given time : that 's where he/she was arrested .
It 's all but impossible to prove that Defendant B was using a particular computer at a given time short of a SWAT team physically catching them there.What I want to know is why everyone is in such a big hurry to pretend an IP is n't useful for figuring out who is doing something.Umm , because it 's not ?
So you catch the IP of my router doing something untoward .
Was it me ?
My wife ?
One of my minor children ?
My next-door neighbor ?
Without additional evidence , you can not trace that back to an individual , regardless of how much you whine about it.Civilization is more important to me than your bullshit rants about your privacy.My privacy is more important to me than your Orwellian concept of civilization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hahahah, yea, thats great logic, thats why drug dealers always get off when they bust a drug house.It's pretty damn easy to prove that Defendant A was in a house at a given time: that's where he/she was arrested.
It's all but impossible to prove that Defendant B was using a particular computer at a given time short of a SWAT team physically catching them there.What I want to know is why everyone is in such a big hurry to pretend an IP isn't useful for figuring out who is doing something.Umm, because it's not?
So you catch the IP of my router doing something untoward.
Was it me?
My wife?
One of my minor children?
My next-door neighbor?
Without additional evidence, you cannot trace that back to an individual, regardless of how much you whine about it.Civilization is more important to me than your bullshit rants about your privacy.My privacy is more important to me than your Orwellian concept of civilization.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626251</id>
	<title>I can see the fight against the RIAA now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247082000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Yes, that is the computer that I use for my daily activities."</p><p>"Yes, according to what you have found, that computer was downloading copyrighted material illegally."</p><p>"I don't follow, sir.  Why are you accusing <i>me</i>?  That IP address that you found only identifies the computer.  Can you prove that <i>I</i> told the computer to download those files?"</p><p>This will be fun.  Or horrible, copyright-law-induced torture.  Either way, I'm gonna sit back and watch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yes , that is the computer that I use for my daily activities .
" " Yes , according to what you have found , that computer was downloading copyrighted material illegally .
" " I do n't follow , sir .
Why are you accusing me ?
That IP address that you found only identifies the computer .
Can you prove that I told the computer to download those files ?
" This will be fun .
Or horrible , copyright-law-induced torture .
Either way , I 'm gon na sit back and watch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yes, that is the computer that I use for my daily activities.
""Yes, according to what you have found, that computer was downloading copyrighted material illegally.
""I don't follow, sir.
Why are you accusing me?
That IP address that you found only identifies the computer.
Can you prove that I told the computer to download those files?
"This will be fun.
Or horrible, copyright-law-induced torture.
Either way, I'm gonna sit back and watch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627031</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1247084700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup.  And phone numbers don't identify people either, just phones.</p><p>It's already been ruled that a phone number is protected information, and if you have chosen to make it unlisted, it takes a warent to get the phone company to reveal it.  Why is an IP any different?  It may identify a device (a mobile phone connected online over wifi), it may identify a router (and by extension your address, and thus the head of household or name on the account of the deive), or it might identify an access point in a coffee shop.</p><p>It may be safe to say an IP does not ALWAYS correlate to personal information, but since there's no method of validation, it should be ASSUMED to be protected information until such a point in time as it can be proven otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup .
And phone numbers do n't identify people either , just phones.It 's already been ruled that a phone number is protected information , and if you have chosen to make it unlisted , it takes a warent to get the phone company to reveal it .
Why is an IP any different ?
It may identify a device ( a mobile phone connected online over wifi ) , it may identify a router ( and by extension your address , and thus the head of household or name on the account of the deive ) , or it might identify an access point in a coffee shop.It may be safe to say an IP does not ALWAYS correlate to personal information , but since there 's no method of validation , it should be ASSUMED to be protected information until such a point in time as it can be proven otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup.
And phone numbers don't identify people either, just phones.It's already been ruled that a phone number is protected information, and if you have chosen to make it unlisted, it takes a warent to get the phone company to reveal it.
Why is an IP any different?
It may identify a device (a mobile phone connected online over wifi), it may identify a router (and by extension your address, and thus the head of household or name on the account of the deive), or it might identify an access point in a coffee shop.It may be safe to say an IP does not ALWAYS correlate to personal information, but since there's no method of validation, it should be ASSUMED to be protected information until such a point in time as it can be proven otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627069</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1247084820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone can't be issued an IP, but I HAVE ONE.  So MY IP address IS personally tied to me.  When I was single, and lived alone, it was even more obviously mine.  My IP is also tied to my domain name, and this in a who-is, you can gleam some personal data about me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone ca n't be issued an IP , but I HAVE ONE .
So MY IP address IS personally tied to me .
When I was single , and lived alone , it was even more obviously mine .
My IP is also tied to my domain name , and this in a who-is , you can gleam some personal data about me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone can't be issued an IP, but I HAVE ONE.
So MY IP address IS personally tied to me.
When I was single, and lived alone, it was even more obviously mine.
My IP is also tied to my domain name, and this in a who-is, you can gleam some personal data about me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624495</id>
	<title>IP address IS PII</title>
	<author>cjonslashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1247076000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PII is any information that can be used to identify a person, directly or indirectly. In most cases, it is information about activities such that correlations can be used to derive the activities of individuals or information about those individuals. IP addresses certainly fall into this category. PII is NOT particular data fields: it is data that can be correlated to infer information about individuals or their activities. That is the new view of PII.</p><p>Organizations often - indeed almost always - need to store PII. It is their responsibility to safeguard that information. We can't expect that they won't store it, but we can expect them to treat it as highly sensitive. That means compartmentalizing it (breaking it up so that if some is stolen it is not the whole set), encrypting it, limiting access to it, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PII is any information that can be used to identify a person , directly or indirectly .
In most cases , it is information about activities such that correlations can be used to derive the activities of individuals or information about those individuals .
IP addresses certainly fall into this category .
PII is NOT particular data fields : it is data that can be correlated to infer information about individuals or their activities .
That is the new view of PII.Organizations often - indeed almost always - need to store PII .
It is their responsibility to safeguard that information .
We ca n't expect that they wo n't store it , but we can expect them to treat it as highly sensitive .
That means compartmentalizing it ( breaking it up so that if some is stolen it is not the whole set ) , encrypting it , limiting access to it , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PII is any information that can be used to identify a person, directly or indirectly.
In most cases, it is information about activities such that correlations can be used to derive the activities of individuals or information about those individuals.
IP addresses certainly fall into this category.
PII is NOT particular data fields: it is data that can be correlated to infer information about individuals or their activities.
That is the new view of PII.Organizations often - indeed almost always - need to store PII.
It is their responsibility to safeguard that information.
We can't expect that they won't store it, but we can expect them to treat it as highly sensitive.
That means compartmentalizing it (breaking it up so that if some is stolen it is not the whole set), encrypting it, limiting access to it, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28634063</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247137920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BREAKING NEWS: You/the owner are/is required by law to keep a record of who owns the car you're driving and the house you live in, and record any change in ownership of those possessions with the respective authority. The same is not true for computers. I don't need to have a piece of paper in my wallet that proves that I didn't steal my friend's computer, which I am currently using.</p><p>MORE AT 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BREAKING NEWS : You/the owner are/is required by law to keep a record of who owns the car you 're driving and the house you live in , and record any change in ownership of those possessions with the respective authority .
The same is not true for computers .
I do n't need to have a piece of paper in my wallet that proves that I did n't steal my friend 's computer , which I am currently using.MORE AT 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BREAKING NEWS: You/the owner are/is required by law to keep a record of who owns the car you're driving and the house you live in, and record any change in ownership of those possessions with the respective authority.
The same is not true for computers.
I don't need to have a piece of paper in my wallet that proves that I didn't steal my friend's computer, which I am currently using.MORE AT 11.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627295</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247085720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't laugh, champ. There's enough space in IPv6 for an organization to ensure that a address subnet happens to be a hash of your name and social security number.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't laugh , champ .
There 's enough space in IPv6 for an organization to ensure that a address subnet happens to be a hash of your name and social security number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't laugh, champ.
There's enough space in IPv6 for an organization to ensure that a address subnet happens to be a hash of your name and social security number.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Reason58</author>
	<datestamp>1247072700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>A license plate, street address and phone number are both unique and tied to a specific person until the person chooses to end that connection. An IP address (dynamic) is randomly assigned to a user and then changed with little or no control from the user's end. This isn't IPv6. Everyone can't be issued a permanent address when they sign up for an ISP.
<br> <br>
Beyond that, you are aware that cars and the like can't be ticketed, right? If you run a red light and are caught on camera they have to be able to determine who is driving the car for it to be valid. Simply having the plate will not work. The same does not apply to IPs, however. They do not have to prove that it was actually you who committed the act, only that at one point in time you had been randomly assigned that IP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A license plate , street address and phone number are both unique and tied to a specific person until the person chooses to end that connection .
An IP address ( dynamic ) is randomly assigned to a user and then changed with little or no control from the user 's end .
This is n't IPv6 .
Everyone ca n't be issued a permanent address when they sign up for an ISP .
Beyond that , you are aware that cars and the like ca n't be ticketed , right ?
If you run a red light and are caught on camera they have to be able to determine who is driving the car for it to be valid .
Simply having the plate will not work .
The same does not apply to IPs , however .
They do not have to prove that it was actually you who committed the act , only that at one point in time you had been randomly assigned that IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A license plate, street address and phone number are both unique and tied to a specific person until the person chooses to end that connection.
An IP address (dynamic) is randomly assigned to a user and then changed with little or no control from the user's end.
This isn't IPv6.
Everyone can't be issued a permanent address when they sign up for an ISP.
Beyond that, you are aware that cars and the like can't be ticketed, right?
If you run a red light and are caught on camera they have to be able to determine who is driving the car for it to be valid.
Simply having the plate will not work.
The same does not apply to IPs, however.
They do not have to prove that it was actually you who committed the act, only that at one point in time you had been randomly assigned that IP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624833</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>rliden</author>
	<datestamp>1247077080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If this is true, I suppose addresses and license plates aren't personal either, they just identify cars and houses, it's not as though those things usually contain the same people.  Or what about phone numbers, that really only identifies my phone, not me the individual.  And when you stop to think about it, my email is really just a code so the mailserver knows where to put some bytes it receives, it doesn't really have anything to do with me.</p></div><p>There is an important difference.  You ISP can change your IP address anytime it wants to without warning, unless you have purchased an agreement for a static IP.  Even when they do that it doesn't adversely affect other networks ability to contact you.  You analogy breaks down because the address and location system for a network, including the internet is much more complicated than a single IP address.  Routers, switches, and the MAC address for every device on the network are also part of that, not just IP address.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is true , I suppose addresses and license plates are n't personal either , they just identify cars and houses , it 's not as though those things usually contain the same people .
Or what about phone numbers , that really only identifies my phone , not me the individual .
And when you stop to think about it , my email is really just a code so the mailserver knows where to put some bytes it receives , it does n't really have anything to do with me.There is an important difference .
You ISP can change your IP address anytime it wants to without warning , unless you have purchased an agreement for a static IP .
Even when they do that it does n't adversely affect other networks ability to contact you .
You analogy breaks down because the address and location system for a network , including the internet is much more complicated than a single IP address .
Routers , switches , and the MAC address for every device on the network are also part of that , not just IP address .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is true, I suppose addresses and license plates aren't personal either, they just identify cars and houses, it's not as though those things usually contain the same people.
Or what about phone numbers, that really only identifies my phone, not me the individual.
And when you stop to think about it, my email is really just a code so the mailserver knows where to put some bytes it receives, it doesn't really have anything to do with me.There is an important difference.
You ISP can change your IP address anytime it wants to without warning, unless you have purchased an agreement for a static IP.
Even when they do that it doesn't adversely affect other networks ability to contact you.
You analogy breaks down because the address and location system for a network, including the internet is much more complicated than a single IP address.
Routers, switches, and the MAC address for every device on the network are also part of that, not just IP address.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623673</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247073000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I think this could be handy in regards to avoiding the RIAA to an extent, the problem is that in the end they will hold the IP owner responsible for the content that's coming from it, not the user.</p><p>Take for example an actual server (not just P2P server). There is frequently no single person responsible for the content on that server. Whoever owns the IP, usually a company, is responsible for the content coming from that computer.</p><p>So although an IP doesn't identify a specific user/person, you are still responsible for what happens from your IP (At least, I'd assume with most providers). This means that you'd have to take reasonable steps to secure your network from outside users as in the wireless example above. So it's kind of a mixed bag in terms of future implications, the whole Network/IP/Computer/Server/User relationship is a very grey-area for legal purposes in my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I think this could be handy in regards to avoiding the RIAA to an extent , the problem is that in the end they will hold the IP owner responsible for the content that 's coming from it , not the user.Take for example an actual server ( not just P2P server ) .
There is frequently no single person responsible for the content on that server .
Whoever owns the IP , usually a company , is responsible for the content coming from that computer.So although an IP does n't identify a specific user/person , you are still responsible for what happens from your IP ( At least , I 'd assume with most providers ) .
This means that you 'd have to take reasonable steps to secure your network from outside users as in the wireless example above .
So it 's kind of a mixed bag in terms of future implications , the whole Network/IP/Computer/Server/User relationship is a very grey-area for legal purposes in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I think this could be handy in regards to avoiding the RIAA to an extent, the problem is that in the end they will hold the IP owner responsible for the content that's coming from it, not the user.Take for example an actual server (not just P2P server).
There is frequently no single person responsible for the content on that server.
Whoever owns the IP, usually a company, is responsible for the content coming from that computer.So although an IP doesn't identify a specific user/person, you are still responsible for what happens from your IP (At least, I'd assume with most providers).
This means that you'd have to take reasonable steps to secure your network from outside users as in the wireless example above.
So it's kind of a mixed bag in terms of future implications, the whole Network/IP/Computer/Server/User relationship is a very grey-area for legal purposes in my opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624581</id>
	<title>Re:Largely irrelevant to RIAA litigation</title>
	<author>DontBlameCanada</author>
	<datestamp>1247076300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So wut yer sayin' is I should disable encryption on my wifi then resume downloading movies?</p><p>"No, Your Honour. I didn't download all those movies. I guess my wifi wasn't protected and some other unscrupulous person hacked my unsecured network and they were responsible."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So wut yer sayin ' is I should disable encryption on my wifi then resume downloading movies ?
" No , Your Honour .
I did n't download all those movies .
I guess my wifi was n't protected and some other unscrupulous person hacked my unsecured network and they were responsible .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So wut yer sayin' is I should disable encryption on my wifi then resume downloading movies?
"No, Your Honour.
I didn't download all those movies.
I guess my wifi wasn't protected and some other unscrupulous person hacked my unsecured network and they were responsible.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627553</id>
	<title>Re:Is this really a bad thing?</title>
	<author>SeeSp0tRun</author>
	<datestamp>1247043720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Again, your IP address (or mine anyway) is to the network endpoint that the ISP is not responsible for afterward.  In this case, it will identify your network.<br> <br>
I believe it is said that "Ownership is 9/10 of the law."  In this case, a computer with your billing information, or an IP address for that matter, ties it (indirectly) to you.  If my neighbor is on my computer at home, viewing kiddie porn, someone is going to be held liable.<br>
If I fail to remember that my neighbor had used my computer that week/day/whatever, you bet your ass I am going to jail.
<br> <br>
While a warrant would (and should) not be needed to collect IP addresses, the warrant should be needed to connect them to billing information, and therefore individuals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Again , your IP address ( or mine anyway ) is to the network endpoint that the ISP is not responsible for afterward .
In this case , it will identify your network .
I believe it is said that " Ownership is 9/10 of the law .
" In this case , a computer with your billing information , or an IP address for that matter , ties it ( indirectly ) to you .
If my neighbor is on my computer at home , viewing kiddie porn , someone is going to be held liable .
If I fail to remember that my neighbor had used my computer that week/day/whatever , you bet your ass I am going to jail .
While a warrant would ( and should ) not be needed to collect IP addresses , the warrant should be needed to connect them to billing information , and therefore individuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Again, your IP address (or mine anyway) is to the network endpoint that the ISP is not responsible for afterward.
In this case, it will identify your network.
I believe it is said that "Ownership is 9/10 of the law.
"  In this case, a computer with your billing information, or an IP address for that matter, ties it (indirectly) to you.
If my neighbor is on my computer at home, viewing kiddie porn, someone is going to be held liable.
If I fail to remember that my neighbor had used my computer that week/day/whatever, you bet your ass I am going to jail.
While a warrant would (and should) not be needed to collect IP addresses, the warrant should be needed to connect them to billing information, and therefore individuals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624511</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1247076000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>license plates and addresses are not personally identifying information.  They can point you to where someone is but just because a license plate or an address was involved in illegal activity does not mean the people associated with it are involved.  Someone who had their car stolen (or say their network hacked) and that car (or network) was used in an illegal activity does not mean the owner of said car (or network) was complicite in the crime in anyway.<br> <br>

The use of IP address is to help track someone.  So we know the crime came from IP xx.xx.xx.xx.  Ok we go there and find out it was grandma who does not have the expertise, or motive to do the crime. She is innocent....oh but we do investigation and find out her grandson used to work for said company and was just fired.
Like all things in life things are situational - i hope the brief is well written.</htmltext>
<tokenext>license plates and addresses are not personally identifying information .
They can point you to where someone is but just because a license plate or an address was involved in illegal activity does not mean the people associated with it are involved .
Someone who had their car stolen ( or say their network hacked ) and that car ( or network ) was used in an illegal activity does not mean the owner of said car ( or network ) was complicite in the crime in anyway .
The use of IP address is to help track someone .
So we know the crime came from IP xx.xx.xx.xx .
Ok we go there and find out it was grandma who does not have the expertise , or motive to do the crime .
She is innocent....oh but we do investigation and find out her grandson used to work for said company and was just fired .
Like all things in life things are situational - i hope the brief is well written .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>license plates and addresses are not personally identifying information.
They can point you to where someone is but just because a license plate or an address was involved in illegal activity does not mean the people associated with it are involved.
Someone who had their car stolen (or say their network hacked) and that car (or network) was used in an illegal activity does not mean the owner of said car (or network) was complicite in the crime in anyway.
The use of IP address is to help track someone.
So we know the crime came from IP xx.xx.xx.xx.
Ok we go there and find out it was grandma who does not have the expertise, or motive to do the crime.
She is innocent....oh but we do investigation and find out her grandson used to work for said company and was just fired.
Like all things in life things are situational - i hope the brief is well written.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625339</id>
	<title>defense to 'it is not my IP'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247078820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My 'IP Address" is not even a real IP Address. It is owned and shared by my ISP (Comcast unfortunately) with many customers. They doll these IPs out to many customers. If Comcast has a couple of Class C groups of IP addresses then they do not have enough addresses for all their customers and equipment (HD Set top boxes are rumored to also run on IP addresses thru Comcast). Thus my address is an Internal Comcast IP address also. So the RIAA should only be able to find Comcast's outward facing IP address which Comcast would have a corresponding log that shows its' equivalency to my rented IP, which I as my home's ISP share across my network and 'rent' it to all the local computers.</p><p>So if the FBI comes and takes your house of computers. The defense attorney should be able to seize the Comcast network for the defense exhibit. That might limit ISPs desire to freely share logs with anyone.</p><p>Computers don't hack people... People hack people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My 'IP Address " is not even a real IP Address .
It is owned and shared by my ISP ( Comcast unfortunately ) with many customers .
They doll these IPs out to many customers .
If Comcast has a couple of Class C groups of IP addresses then they do not have enough addresses for all their customers and equipment ( HD Set top boxes are rumored to also run on IP addresses thru Comcast ) .
Thus my address is an Internal Comcast IP address also .
So the RIAA should only be able to find Comcast 's outward facing IP address which Comcast would have a corresponding log that shows its ' equivalency to my rented IP , which I as my home 's ISP share across my network and 'rent ' it to all the local computers.So if the FBI comes and takes your house of computers .
The defense attorney should be able to seize the Comcast network for the defense exhibit .
That might limit ISPs desire to freely share logs with anyone.Computers do n't hack people... People hack people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My 'IP Address" is not even a real IP Address.
It is owned and shared by my ISP (Comcast unfortunately) with many customers.
They doll these IPs out to many customers.
If Comcast has a couple of Class C groups of IP addresses then they do not have enough addresses for all their customers and equipment (HD Set top boxes are rumored to also run on IP addresses thru Comcast).
Thus my address is an Internal Comcast IP address also.
So the RIAA should only be able to find Comcast's outward facing IP address which Comcast would have a corresponding log that shows its' equivalency to my rented IP, which I as my home's ISP share across my network and 'rent' it to all the local computers.So if the FBI comes and takes your house of computers.
The defense attorney should be able to seize the Comcast network for the defense exhibit.
That might limit ISPs desire to freely share logs with anyone.Computers don't hack people... People hack people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624923</id>
	<title>Re:Legal code for this</title>
	<author>Bigby</author>
	<datestamp>1247077380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the case where they sue each other?</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>if(individual.sues(evilCorporation) &amp;&amp; evilCorporation.sues(individual)) {</p><p>return throw new NYCLException("Can't find a way to RichLitigationObject to win; Mistrial");</p><p>}<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the case where they sue each other ?
...if ( individual.sues ( evilCorporation ) &amp;&amp; evilCorporation.sues ( individual ) ) { return throw new NYCLException ( " Ca n't find a way to RichLitigationObject to win ; Mistrial " ) ; } .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the case where they sue each other?
...if(individual.sues(evilCorporation) &amp;&amp; evilCorporation.sues(individual)) {return throw new NYCLException("Can't find a way to RichLitigationObject to win; Mistrial");} ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625405</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247079000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your IP address doesn't identify you at all.  As many other have pointed out, your IP address identifies your computer, or more likely these days, your wireless router.</p><p>Wireless routers are not particularly difficult to hack, and many people leave them totally unsecured.</p><p>If I get onto your wireless network and download movies illegally, and then you get charged with the crime, will you still say that your IP address uniquely identifies you? "Go ahead your honor, send me to Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison.  I don't remember downloading those movies, but I guess if they were downloaded from my IP address then I am guilty."</p><p>All the IP address does is narrow down the possible list of suspects to those in your house if you have a single computer or a wired network.  If you have a wireless network, then anyone who has been near your house is also a suspect, and that really could be anyone.  Hell, it could have even been me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your IP address does n't identify you at all .
As many other have pointed out , your IP address identifies your computer , or more likely these days , your wireless router.Wireless routers are not particularly difficult to hack , and many people leave them totally unsecured.If I get onto your wireless network and download movies illegally , and then you get charged with the crime , will you still say that your IP address uniquely identifies you ?
" Go ahead your honor , send me to Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison .
I do n't remember downloading those movies , but I guess if they were downloaded from my IP address then I am guilty .
" All the IP address does is narrow down the possible list of suspects to those in your house if you have a single computer or a wired network .
If you have a wireless network , then anyone who has been near your house is also a suspect , and that really could be anyone .
Hell , it could have even been me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your IP address doesn't identify you at all.
As many other have pointed out, your IP address identifies your computer, or more likely these days, your wireless router.Wireless routers are not particularly difficult to hack, and many people leave them totally unsecured.If I get onto your wireless network and download movies illegally, and then you get charged with the crime, will you still say that your IP address uniquely identifies you?
"Go ahead your honor, send me to Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison.
I don't remember downloading those movies, but I guess if they were downloaded from my IP address then I am guilty.
"All the IP address does is narrow down the possible list of suspects to those in your house if you have a single computer or a wired network.
If you have a wireless network, then anyone who has been near your house is also a suspect, and that really could be anyone.
Hell, it could have even been me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628771</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247049720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A license plate, street address and phone number are both unique and tied to a specific person until the person chooses to end that connection. An IP address (dynamic) is randomly assigned to a user and then changed with little or no control from the user's end. This isn't IPv6. Everyone can't be issued a permanent address when they sign up for an ISP.</p><p>Beyond that, you are aware that cars and the like can't be ticketed, right? If you run a red light and are caught on camera they have to be able to determine who is driving the car for it to be valid. Simply having the plate will not work. The same does not apply to IPs, however. They do not have to prove that it was actually you who committed the act, only that at one point in time you had been randomly assigned that IP.</p></div><p>...and your point being??...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A license plate , street address and phone number are both unique and tied to a specific person until the person chooses to end that connection .
An IP address ( dynamic ) is randomly assigned to a user and then changed with little or no control from the user 's end .
This is n't IPv6 .
Everyone ca n't be issued a permanent address when they sign up for an ISP.Beyond that , you are aware that cars and the like ca n't be ticketed , right ?
If you run a red light and are caught on camera they have to be able to determine who is driving the car for it to be valid .
Simply having the plate will not work .
The same does not apply to IPs , however .
They do not have to prove that it was actually you who committed the act , only that at one point in time you had been randomly assigned that IP....and your point being ?
? .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A license plate, street address and phone number are both unique and tied to a specific person until the person chooses to end that connection.
An IP address (dynamic) is randomly assigned to a user and then changed with little or no control from the user's end.
This isn't IPv6.
Everyone can't be issued a permanent address when they sign up for an ISP.Beyond that, you are aware that cars and the like can't be ticketed, right?
If you run a red light and are caught on camera they have to be able to determine who is driving the car for it to be valid.
Simply having the plate will not work.
The same does not apply to IPs, however.
They do not have to prove that it was actually you who committed the act, only that at one point in time you had been randomly assigned that IP....and your point being?
?...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626117</id>
	<title>Re:Largely irrelevant to RIAA litigation</title>
	<author>sckeener</author>
	<datestamp>1247081520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.
</p><p>The RIAA is doing civil lawsuits and the requirements for evidence is lower.
</p><p>That said I think this ruling should apply to all criminal cases.  Before I send someone to jail over content on their computer/network, I want police to be sure it was the right guy and not the guy that spoofed a mac address and hacked a wireless network.
</p><p>I would say a picture of the guy would do.  Best would be a picture of the guy showing the illegal material on the computer in the background.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
The RIAA is doing civil lawsuits and the requirements for evidence is lower .
That said I think this ruling should apply to all criminal cases .
Before I send someone to jail over content on their computer/network , I want police to be sure it was the right guy and not the guy that spoofed a mac address and hacked a wireless network .
I would say a picture of the guy would do .
Best would be a picture of the guy showing the illegal material on the computer in the background .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
The RIAA is doing civil lawsuits and the requirements for evidence is lower.
That said I think this ruling should apply to all criminal cases.
Before I send someone to jail over content on their computer/network, I want police to be sure it was the right guy and not the guy that spoofed a mac address and hacked a wireless network.
I would say a picture of the guy would do.
Best would be a picture of the guy showing the illegal material on the computer in the background.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624627</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247076420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>tattooed onto your ass</p></div><p>Your butt crack can then be interpreted as the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:: part in the middle of abbreviated addresses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>tattooed onto your assYour butt crack can then be interpreted as the : : part in the middle of abbreviated addresses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tattooed onto your assYour butt crack can then be interpreted as the :: part in the middle of abbreviated addresses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365</id>
	<title>Yup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247071920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>
So on one end of the stick, you've got privacy advocates who hate Microsoft, who are thinking that collecting our IP addresses is wrong and violates our privacy.<br> <br>There's more to it, though. Any sys admin could explain... Imagine trying to have a conversation with somebody by mail. They couldn't respond if they didn't take note of the return address, no? Fact of the matter is, for strictly technical reasons, use of the IP address is required. <br> <br>But... For statistical and anti-abuse reasons, a log of IP addresses is kept (on any server, really). But don't get all pissy at microsoft for doing so. I mean, almost every site on the net keeps an http log, it's the default setting! The fact is, if you don't want them knowing who you are- I've got an idea- don't contact their servers.<br> <br>You have a reasonable right to privacy, but you lose that right when you're in public. You don't get to get pissy when a store's security cameras capture your image. I rarely hear anybody complain about other people seeing you while you're at the grocery store. But the fact is: these small dings in privacy are neccessary to operate. You don't need to go in public. And you don't need to connect to somebody's server.<br> <br> <b>Now the real problem TM</b> <br>An IP address DOES identify a computer- but not the way the judge thinks. My IP address identifies my router, which in turn owns 5 to 6 computers. With the wireless open, it could refer to the whole neighborhood, for all I know/care. They need to revise, an IP address identifies a NETWORK, but not neccessarily conclusively any particular computer.<br> <br>So there's another level there. Not only is an IP address not good for identifying a person, but it's rather useless to discover a particular computer either. (Now, there are cookies and other tracking mechanisms, but they're not fool proof..) <br> <br>But hey, at least this is a step in the right direction. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whose computer an IP address identifies, if the feds pick up on your ip they'll just take every machine in your house anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So on one end of the stick , you 've got privacy advocates who hate Microsoft , who are thinking that collecting our IP addresses is wrong and violates our privacy .
There 's more to it , though .
Any sys admin could explain... Imagine trying to have a conversation with somebody by mail .
They could n't respond if they did n't take note of the return address , no ?
Fact of the matter is , for strictly technical reasons , use of the IP address is required .
But... For statistical and anti-abuse reasons , a log of IP addresses is kept ( on any server , really ) .
But do n't get all pissy at microsoft for doing so .
I mean , almost every site on the net keeps an http log , it 's the default setting !
The fact is , if you do n't want them knowing who you are- I 've got an idea- do n't contact their servers .
You have a reasonable right to privacy , but you lose that right when you 're in public .
You do n't get to get pissy when a store 's security cameras capture your image .
I rarely hear anybody complain about other people seeing you while you 're at the grocery store .
But the fact is : these small dings in privacy are neccessary to operate .
You do n't need to go in public .
And you do n't need to connect to somebody 's server .
Now the real problem TM An IP address DOES identify a computer- but not the way the judge thinks .
My IP address identifies my router , which in turn owns 5 to 6 computers .
With the wireless open , it could refer to the whole neighborhood , for all I know/care .
They need to revise , an IP address identifies a NETWORK , but not neccessarily conclusively any particular computer .
So there 's another level there .
Not only is an IP address not good for identifying a person , but it 's rather useless to discover a particular computer either .
( Now , there are cookies and other tracking mechanisms , but they 're not fool proof.. ) But hey , at least this is a step in the right direction .
Anyway , it does n't really matter whose computer an IP address identifies , if the feds pick up on your ip they 'll just take every machine in your house anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
So on one end of the stick, you've got privacy advocates who hate Microsoft, who are thinking that collecting our IP addresses is wrong and violates our privacy.
There's more to it, though.
Any sys admin could explain... Imagine trying to have a conversation with somebody by mail.
They couldn't respond if they didn't take note of the return address, no?
Fact of the matter is, for strictly technical reasons, use of the IP address is required.
But... For statistical and anti-abuse reasons, a log of IP addresses is kept (on any server, really).
But don't get all pissy at microsoft for doing so.
I mean, almost every site on the net keeps an http log, it's the default setting!
The fact is, if you don't want them knowing who you are- I've got an idea- don't contact their servers.
You have a reasonable right to privacy, but you lose that right when you're in public.
You don't get to get pissy when a store's security cameras capture your image.
I rarely hear anybody complain about other people seeing you while you're at the grocery store.
But the fact is: these small dings in privacy are neccessary to operate.
You don't need to go in public.
And you don't need to connect to somebody's server.
Now the real problem TM An IP address DOES identify a computer- but not the way the judge thinks.
My IP address identifies my router, which in turn owns 5 to 6 computers.
With the wireless open, it could refer to the whole neighborhood, for all I know/care.
They need to revise, an IP address identifies a NETWORK, but not neccessarily conclusively any particular computer.
So there's another level there.
Not only is an IP address not good for identifying a person, but it's rather useless to discover a particular computer either.
(Now, there are cookies and other tracking mechanisms, but they're not fool proof..)  But hey, at least this is a step in the right direction.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter whose computer an IP address identifies, if the feds pick up on your ip they'll just take every machine in your house anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623559</id>
	<title>Fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's fine if they take that statement to its logical conclusion, if IP addresses are not identifying information then there is no need or right for the mobsters to subpoena them. It is partially true in that you may be able to say that it came from this computer, but with all the possibilties of wifi being co-opted, a misconfigured proxy server, malicious software routing requests that computer you can never be 100\% sure that even the IP address is bound to that computer.<br>So in a sense the judge is right and no one should need to have your IP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's fine if they take that statement to its logical conclusion , if IP addresses are not identifying information then there is no need or right for the mobsters to subpoena them .
It is partially true in that you may be able to say that it came from this computer , but with all the possibilties of wifi being co-opted , a misconfigured proxy server , malicious software routing requests that computer you can never be 100 \ % sure that even the IP address is bound to that computer.So in a sense the judge is right and no one should need to have your IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's fine if they take that statement to its logical conclusion, if IP addresses are not identifying information then there is no need or right for the mobsters to subpoena them.
It is partially true in that you may be able to say that it came from this computer, but with all the possibilties of wifi being co-opted, a misconfigured proxy server, malicious software routing requests that computer you can never be 100\% sure that even the IP address is bound to that computer.So in a sense the judge is right and no one should need to have your IP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28642475</id>
	<title>Re:Is this really a bad thing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247134860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>**AA doesn't go after you based on IP address. They go after you based on your ISP account information. Their case would read: User account jsmith@aol.com, owned by "John Smith", under IP 192.168.1.23 on July 9th, 2009, was downloading "such.and.such.avi" from such.and.such.com; "John Smith" is therefore the responsible party.</p><p>Microsoft on the other hand just has "IP 192.168.1.23" and not the "John Smith" identifier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* * AA does n't go after you based on IP address .
They go after you based on your ISP account information .
Their case would read : User account jsmith @ aol.com , owned by " John Smith " , under IP 192.168.1.23 on July 9th , 2009 , was downloading " such.and.such.avi " from such.and.such.com ; " John Smith " is therefore the responsible party.Microsoft on the other hand just has " IP 192.168.1.23 " and not the " John Smith " identifier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>**AA doesn't go after you based on IP address.
They go after you based on your ISP account information.
Their case would read: User account jsmith@aol.com, owned by "John Smith", under IP 192.168.1.23 on July 9th, 2009, was downloading "such.and.such.avi" from such.and.such.com; "John Smith" is therefore the responsible party.Microsoft on the other hand just has "IP 192.168.1.23" and not the "John Smith" identifier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627601</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247043960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure cars and houses cannot be prosecuted. People can. Which means that a PERSON needs to be identified, be it for a traffic ticket, crime, or misuse of an IP address (which as already stated, really only identified which computer/router/network was involved). Not a specific person, which is required for prosecution. I'm not a lawyer, but who's to say:</p><p>1) My kid had some friends over, and any one of 6 people could be responsible of misuse of the IP address.<br>2) I had a bunch of people over, and someone accessed the family computer.<br>3) Same kid and their friends borrowed the car, without permission, and they covered their face when the traffic camera got them.<br>4) I use the community, free Wi-Fi, and someone spoofed my MAC address (unlikely, but possible).<br>4) Some malware which was surreptitiously installed without my knowledge, is performing illegal acts behind-the-scenes.<br>4) Unidentified thief stole the car, committed some crime and left the scene (and vehicle behind).<br>5) The bug eradicator was over, coulda been him?<br>6) etc</p><p>How can any of the above be proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, as to who the perpetrator was?</p><p>Yes, of course everybody should take reasonable precautions to prevent their property being misused. But what is reasonable? The fact that I locked my car, which was subsequently stolen and involved in illegal activities, should not mean that I personally am held accountable. Yes, license plates, house addresses, IP addresses and so on give an INDICATION of where investigations should begin. But no more than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure cars and houses can not be prosecuted .
People can .
Which means that a PERSON needs to be identified , be it for a traffic ticket , crime , or misuse of an IP address ( which as already stated , really only identified which computer/router/network was involved ) .
Not a specific person , which is required for prosecution .
I 'm not a lawyer , but who 's to say : 1 ) My kid had some friends over , and any one of 6 people could be responsible of misuse of the IP address.2 ) I had a bunch of people over , and someone accessed the family computer.3 ) Same kid and their friends borrowed the car , without permission , and they covered their face when the traffic camera got them.4 ) I use the community , free Wi-Fi , and someone spoofed my MAC address ( unlikely , but possible ) .4 ) Some malware which was surreptitiously installed without my knowledge , is performing illegal acts behind-the-scenes.4 ) Unidentified thief stole the car , committed some crime and left the scene ( and vehicle behind ) .5 ) The bug eradicator was over , coulda been him ? 6 ) etcHow can any of the above be proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT , as to who the perpetrator was ? Yes , of course everybody should take reasonable precautions to prevent their property being misused .
But what is reasonable ?
The fact that I locked my car , which was subsequently stolen and involved in illegal activities , should not mean that I personally am held accountable .
Yes , license plates , house addresses , IP addresses and so on give an INDICATION of where investigations should begin .
But no more than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure cars and houses cannot be prosecuted.
People can.
Which means that a PERSON needs to be identified, be it for a traffic ticket, crime, or misuse of an IP address (which as already stated, really only identified which computer/router/network was involved).
Not a specific person, which is required for prosecution.
I'm not a lawyer, but who's to say:1) My kid had some friends over, and any one of 6 people could be responsible of misuse of the IP address.2) I had a bunch of people over, and someone accessed the family computer.3) Same kid and their friends borrowed the car, without permission, and they covered their face when the traffic camera got them.4) I use the community, free Wi-Fi, and someone spoofed my MAC address (unlikely, but possible).4) Some malware which was surreptitiously installed without my knowledge, is performing illegal acts behind-the-scenes.4) Unidentified thief stole the car, committed some crime and left the scene (and vehicle behind).5) The bug eradicator was over, coulda been him?6) etcHow can any of the above be proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, as to who the perpetrator was?Yes, of course everybody should take reasonable precautions to prevent their property being misused.
But what is reasonable?
The fact that I locked my car, which was subsequently stolen and involved in illegal activities, should not mean that I personally am held accountable.
Yes, license plates, house addresses, IP addresses and so on give an INDICATION of where investigations should begin.
But no more than that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627415</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247086260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>valid point but a retort to you sir,</p><p>A license plate or an address might not be personal information, they unlike other identifiable information like credit card numbers or an ip address can have financial reprocussions if data mined.</p><p>Your mailbox doesnt have a firewall, unless you have more money and time than me (and an overactive imagination). Your mailbox does not have a tunnel you can crawl through to access the rest of your home. A router on the other hand does, and because of this I am way more cautious about what goes into my network than into my mailbox.</p><p>just my $0.25 (adjusted for inflation)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>valid point but a retort to you sir,A license plate or an address might not be personal information , they unlike other identifiable information like credit card numbers or an ip address can have financial reprocussions if data mined.Your mailbox doesnt have a firewall , unless you have more money and time than me ( and an overactive imagination ) .
Your mailbox does not have a tunnel you can crawl through to access the rest of your home .
A router on the other hand does , and because of this I am way more cautious about what goes into my network than into my mailbox.just my $ 0.25 ( adjusted for inflation )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>valid point but a retort to you sir,A license plate or an address might not be personal information, they unlike other identifiable information like credit card numbers or an ip address can have financial reprocussions if data mined.Your mailbox doesnt have a firewall, unless you have more money and time than me (and an overactive imagination).
Your mailbox does not have a tunnel you can crawl through to access the rest of your home.
A router on the other hand does, and because of this I am way more cautious about what goes into my network than into my mailbox.just my $0.25 (adjusted for inflation)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624761</id>
	<title>Re:How is this significant to RIAA cases?</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1247076840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An IP address identifies exactly one Internet node. However, that node may well be forwarding traffic to the Internet from an unspecified number of private-network nodes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An IP address identifies exactly one Internet node .
However , that node may well be forwarding traffic to the Internet from an unspecified number of private-network nodes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An IP address identifies exactly one Internet node.
However, that node may well be forwarding traffic to the Internet from an unspecified number of private-network nodes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28632021</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>tinkerghost</author>
	<datestamp>1247070660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If this is true, I suppose addresses and license plates aren't personal either, they just identify cars and houses, it's not as though those things usually contain the same people.</p></div></blockquote><p>Several states have had rulings that photos of a car's plate violating a law - automated speedtrap, redlight camera, toll booth - are insufficient to issue a ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle since it is impossible to determine from the plate who is driving.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is true , I suppose addresses and license plates are n't personal either , they just identify cars and houses , it 's not as though those things usually contain the same people.Several states have had rulings that photos of a car 's plate violating a law - automated speedtrap , redlight camera , toll booth - are insufficient to issue a ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle since it is impossible to determine from the plate who is driving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is true, I suppose addresses and license plates aren't personal either, they just identify cars and houses, it's not as though those things usually contain the same people.Several states have had rulings that photos of a car's plate violating a law - automated speedtrap, redlight camera, toll booth - are insufficient to issue a ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle since it is impossible to determine from the plate who is driving.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624799</id>
	<title>Re:The IP is a lot like a license plate</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247076960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me say this as clearly and nicely as I possibly can.</p><p>Go fuck yourself.  Don't break the law if you don't want a ticket.</p><p>I'm so sick of douchebags like yourself trying to come up with excuses to break the law and get by with it.</p><p>If you don't like the law, get it changed.  If you can't get it changed, then play by the fucking rules cause the majority of us agree with the law.   If you don't want to play be the rules, expect to get spanked.  If you want to continue this sort of bullshit, expect to get spanked harder next time, you deserve it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me say this as clearly and nicely as I possibly can.Go fuck yourself .
Do n't break the law if you do n't want a ticket.I 'm so sick of douchebags like yourself trying to come up with excuses to break the law and get by with it.If you do n't like the law , get it changed .
If you ca n't get it changed , then play by the fucking rules cause the majority of us agree with the law .
If you do n't want to play be the rules , expect to get spanked .
If you want to continue this sort of bullshit , expect to get spanked harder next time , you deserve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me say this as clearly and nicely as I possibly can.Go fuck yourself.
Don't break the law if you don't want a ticket.I'm so sick of douchebags like yourself trying to come up with excuses to break the law and get by with it.If you don't like the law, get it changed.
If you can't get it changed, then play by the fucking rules cause the majority of us agree with the law.
If you don't want to play be the rules, expect to get spanked.
If you want to continue this sort of bullshit, expect to get spanked harder next time, you deserve it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624171</id>
	<title>Re:Spartacus-1138</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247074980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am 127.0.0.1!</p><p>No, I am 127.0.0.1!</p><p>No, I am 127.0.0.1!</p><p>No, I am!</p><p>I am!</p></div><p>There, fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am 127.0.0.1 ! No , I am 127.0.0.1 ! No , I am 127.0.0.1 ! No , I am ! I am ! There , fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am 127.0.0.1!No, I am 127.0.0.1!No, I am 127.0.0.1!No, I am!I am!There, fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624387</id>
	<title>Re:Largely irrelevant to RIAA litigation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247075580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue of whether an IP address identifies a person is not irrelevant to the RIAA litigation merely because those cases are decided by a preponderance of the evidence. Cases in the real world are built with many, many pieces of evidence, each one suggesting, implying, indicating, but not proving, that one party should win. You seem to be under the impression that lawsuits are proven by smoking guns, which they are generally not. If evidence makes it more or less likely that one party should win, it is relevant. Each piece of evidence need not, by itself, be decisive. Will IP identification win the case? No. Is it relevant? Definitely.</p><p>I am unpersuaded by your citation to <i>Summers</i>, a state court case from California. RIAA cases, from the quick check I made, seem to be mostly in federal court, and mostly outside California. <i>Summers</i> is therefore uncontrolling in most RIAA cases. I express no opinion on whether your point is correct, but you need a better citation or at least an argument for why Summers should be followed in the present context.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue of whether an IP address identifies a person is not irrelevant to the RIAA litigation merely because those cases are decided by a preponderance of the evidence .
Cases in the real world are built with many , many pieces of evidence , each one suggesting , implying , indicating , but not proving , that one party should win .
You seem to be under the impression that lawsuits are proven by smoking guns , which they are generally not .
If evidence makes it more or less likely that one party should win , it is relevant .
Each piece of evidence need not , by itself , be decisive .
Will IP identification win the case ?
No. Is it relevant ?
Definitely.I am unpersuaded by your citation to Summers , a state court case from California .
RIAA cases , from the quick check I made , seem to be mostly in federal court , and mostly outside California .
Summers is therefore uncontrolling in most RIAA cases .
I express no opinion on whether your point is correct , but you need a better citation or at least an argument for why Summers should be followed in the present context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue of whether an IP address identifies a person is not irrelevant to the RIAA litigation merely because those cases are decided by a preponderance of the evidence.
Cases in the real world are built with many, many pieces of evidence, each one suggesting, implying, indicating, but not proving, that one party should win.
You seem to be under the impression that lawsuits are proven by smoking guns, which they are generally not.
If evidence makes it more or less likely that one party should win, it is relevant.
Each piece of evidence need not, by itself, be decisive.
Will IP identification win the case?
No. Is it relevant?
Definitely.I am unpersuaded by your citation to Summers, a state court case from California.
RIAA cases, from the quick check I made, seem to be mostly in federal court, and mostly outside California.
Summers is therefore uncontrolling in most RIAA cases.
I express no opinion on whether your point is correct, but you need a better citation or at least an argument for why Summers should be followed in the present context.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626721</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>db32</author>
	<datestamp>1247083560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have seen an IPv6 address right?  There is hardly enough room to tattoo that on a baby's ass, unless your plan is to tattoo it so small that it will become visible with age.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have seen an IPv6 address right ?
There is hardly enough room to tattoo that on a baby 's ass , unless your plan is to tattoo it so small that it will become visible with age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have seen an IPv6 address right?
There is hardly enough room to tattoo that on a baby's ass, unless your plan is to tattoo it so small that it will become visible with age.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627253</id>
	<title>Re:The IP is a lot like a license plate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247085540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is why (at least in Canada) the owner of the vehicle is fined for camera tickets but does not get demerit points against its license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why ( at least in Canada ) the owner of the vehicle is fined for camera tickets but does not get demerit points against its license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why (at least in Canada) the owner of the vehicle is fined for camera tickets but does not get demerit points against its license.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28631429</id>
	<title>Home Addresses Don't Identify People!</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1247066340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Collecting home addresses should be legal because it's not personally-identifiable information. They identify real property! This should be obvious to anyone who has a brain!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Collecting home addresses should be legal because it 's not personally-identifiable information .
They identify real property !
This should be obvious to anyone who has a brain ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Collecting home addresses should be legal because it's not personally-identifiable information.
They identify real property!
This should be obvious to anyone who has a brain!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628599</id>
	<title>Have the cake and eat it too</title>
	<author>jvkjvk</author>
	<datestamp>1247048820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, an IP address does not identify a person if it's a privacy concern about large corporations, yet can be used that way if the RIAA is involved.  Sounds about right for our system of 0wned laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , an IP address does not identify a person if it 's a privacy concern about large corporations , yet can be used that way if the RIAA is involved .
Sounds about right for our system of 0wned laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, an IP address does not identify a person if it's a privacy concern about large corporations, yet can be used that way if the RIAA is involved.
Sounds about right for our system of 0wned laws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624191</id>
	<title>Re:The IP is a lot like a license plate</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1247074980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All they have is a picture of a fake license plate changed to look like mine on someone else's car which is purposefully running redlight cameras.<br>
Golram teenagers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All they have is a picture of a fake license plate changed to look like mine on someone else 's car which is purposefully running redlight cameras .
Golram teenagers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All they have is a picture of a fake license plate changed to look like mine on someone else's car which is purposefully running redlight cameras.
Golram teenagers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627815</id>
	<title>Re:Largely irrelevant to RIAA litigation</title>
	<author>Grond</author>
	<datestamp>1247045040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I mentioned in a response below, the point is not that it's a negligence case, but that the same principle can be applied to these kinds of copyright infringement cases.  Courts do not like the subterfuge of defendant A pointing to defendant B and vice versa when it is clear that one of them must be lying (i.e., the files got on the hard drive somehow).</p><p>And that's precisely the hole in the open wifi router argument.  True, the traffic could have come from anywhere, but funny how it's the router owner's computer that has the infringing files on it, or that the router owner used the same p2p username as the infringer, or that the searches for the infringing files corresponded with when the router owner was home and never when he or she was at work.  It's circumstantial evidence like that that makes the jury far more likely to believe that it was the router owner and not some wireless leech that did the infringing.</p><p>In any case I doubt many people are going to be willing to throw their wireless networks open to the world just to provide an alibi in a potential copyright infringement case, but maybe I'm wrong about that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I mentioned in a response below , the point is not that it 's a negligence case , but that the same principle can be applied to these kinds of copyright infringement cases .
Courts do not like the subterfuge of defendant A pointing to defendant B and vice versa when it is clear that one of them must be lying ( i.e. , the files got on the hard drive somehow ) .And that 's precisely the hole in the open wifi router argument .
True , the traffic could have come from anywhere , but funny how it 's the router owner 's computer that has the infringing files on it , or that the router owner used the same p2p username as the infringer , or that the searches for the infringing files corresponded with when the router owner was home and never when he or she was at work .
It 's circumstantial evidence like that that makes the jury far more likely to believe that it was the router owner and not some wireless leech that did the infringing.In any case I doubt many people are going to be willing to throw their wireless networks open to the world just to provide an alibi in a potential copyright infringement case , but maybe I 'm wrong about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I mentioned in a response below, the point is not that it's a negligence case, but that the same principle can be applied to these kinds of copyright infringement cases.
Courts do not like the subterfuge of defendant A pointing to defendant B and vice versa when it is clear that one of them must be lying (i.e., the files got on the hard drive somehow).And that's precisely the hole in the open wifi router argument.
True, the traffic could have come from anywhere, but funny how it's the router owner's computer that has the infringing files on it, or that the router owner used the same p2p username as the infringer, or that the searches for the infringing files corresponded with when the router owner was home and never when he or she was at work.
It's circumstantial evidence like that that makes the jury far more likely to believe that it was the router owner and not some wireless leech that did the infringing.In any case I doubt many people are going to be willing to throw their wireless networks open to the world just to provide an alibi in a potential copyright infringement case, but maybe I'm wrong about that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625603</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1247079720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IPv6 addresses should be like MAC addresses for people.
Issued at birth, and tattooed onto your ass.</p></div><p>But if that address opens some kind of time portal...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 addresses should be like MAC addresses for people .
Issued at birth , and tattooed onto your ass.But if that address opens some kind of time portal.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv6 addresses should be like MAC addresses for people.
Issued at birth, and tattooed onto your ass.But if that address opens some kind of time portal...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626745</id>
	<title>Re:I'm confused...</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1247083680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Identifying my computer doesn't identify me personally by inference?</p></div><p>Absolutely not.  It might have been in use by any of my kids, or might be the IP of my open WiFi AP.  A judge finally recognizes this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Identifying my computer does n't identify me personally by inference ? Absolutely not .
It might have been in use by any of my kids , or might be the IP of my open WiFi AP .
A judge finally recognizes this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Identifying my computer doesn't identify me personally by inference?Absolutely not.
It might have been in use by any of my kids, or might be the IP of my open WiFi AP.
A judge finally recognizes this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625459</id>
	<title>I like it</title>
	<author>ecloud</author>
	<datestamp>1247079240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The RIAA reference is obvious.  Also should mean if a neighbor uses my wireless AP for some kind of crime, I'm not liable.</p><p>It's like the fact that a car license plate is not personal info because it identifies a car, not the driver.  That's why photoradar installations have to take mug shots for evidence of who was driving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA reference is obvious .
Also should mean if a neighbor uses my wireless AP for some kind of crime , I 'm not liable.It 's like the fact that a car license plate is not personal info because it identifies a car , not the driver .
That 's why photoradar installations have to take mug shots for evidence of who was driving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA reference is obvious.
Also should mean if a neighbor uses my wireless AP for some kind of crime, I'm not liable.It's like the fact that a car license plate is not personal info because it identifies a car, not the driver.
That's why photoradar installations have to take mug shots for evidence of who was driving.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627549</id>
	<title>Re:Largely irrelevant to RIAA litigation</title>
	<author>adamchou</author>
	<datestamp>1247043660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IANAL, but according to the wikipedia entry on Summers v. Tice, a large contributing factor appears to be that Tice and Simmons both fired in the direction of Summers and both were deemed negligent. In a community shared computer, the other people would not necessarily be negligent. I can't see them possibly using that case as precedent. Besides, thats only a California Supreme Court decision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but according to the wikipedia entry on Summers v. Tice , a large contributing factor appears to be that Tice and Simmons both fired in the direction of Summers and both were deemed negligent .
In a community shared computer , the other people would not necessarily be negligent .
I ca n't see them possibly using that case as precedent .
Besides , thats only a California Supreme Court decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but according to the wikipedia entry on Summers v. Tice, a large contributing factor appears to be that Tice and Simmons both fired in the direction of Summers and both were deemed negligent.
In a community shared computer, the other people would not necessarily be negligent.
I can't see them possibly using that case as precedent.
Besides, thats only a California Supreme Court decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625035</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>cmarkn</author>
	<datestamp>1247077800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The RIAA doesn't care about this, unless they can figure out a way to collect a nickel every time that tattoo is scanned - or every time it could be scanned even if no one scans it. That tattoo is a record (of your address), so they own it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA does n't care about this , unless they can figure out a way to collect a nickel every time that tattoo is scanned - or every time it could be scanned even if no one scans it .
That tattoo is a record ( of your address ) , so they own it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA doesn't care about this, unless they can figure out a way to collect a nickel every time that tattoo is scanned - or every time it could be scanned even if no one scans it.
That tattoo is a record (of your address), so they own it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28637821</id>
	<title>Personal Information</title>
	<author>noahveil</author>
	<datestamp>1247159220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess my address isn't personal information since it refers to a building and not a person.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess my address is n't personal information since it refers to a building and not a person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess my address isn't personal information since it refers to a building and not a person.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625353</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>Naturalis Philosopho</author>
	<datestamp>1247078820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like it. I'm also thinking right now of how meanings of phrases would change such as "I lost my ASS in Vegas".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like it .
I 'm also thinking right now of how meanings of phrases would change such as " I lost my ASS in Vegas " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like it.
I'm also thinking right now of how meanings of phrases would change such as "I lost my ASS in Vegas".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623771</id>
	<title>Next logical step</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247073420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If IP addresses are not "Personally Identifiable", what widely broadcast piece of information on the internet is?<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; If nothing, does that mean that users are generally anonymous, unless they choose to identify themself?<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; If yes, does that mean users have a reasonable expectation of privacy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If IP addresses are not " Personally Identifiable " , what widely broadcast piece of information on the internet is ?
      If nothing , does that mean that users are generally anonymous , unless they choose to identify themself ?
              If yes , does that mean users have a reasonable expectation of privacy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If IP addresses are not "Personally Identifiable", what widely broadcast piece of information on the internet is?
      If nothing, does that mean that users are generally anonymous, unless they choose to identify themself?
              If yes, does that mean users have a reasonable expectation of privacy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28633727</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>thunderclap</author>
	<datestamp>1247134680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You first. And personally I think it will ruin alot of beautiful bum.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You first .
And personally I think it will ruin alot of beautiful bum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You first.
And personally I think it will ruin alot of beautiful bum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623573</id>
	<title>Doesn't Identify a Person Eh?</title>
	<author>Alphanos</author>
	<datestamp>1247072640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose this only makes sense.  After all, we know that an address isn't personal information - it identifies a house, not a person.  Neither is a phone number, which identifies a phone.  License plate numbers identify a car.  In fact, one could even argue that SSN/SIN numbers identify a card or record in a government database instead of a person.  Privacy solved!  There is no personal information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose this only makes sense .
After all , we know that an address is n't personal information - it identifies a house , not a person .
Neither is a phone number , which identifies a phone .
License plate numbers identify a car .
In fact , one could even argue that SSN/SIN numbers identify a card or record in a government database instead of a person .
Privacy solved !
There is no personal information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose this only makes sense.
After all, we know that an address isn't personal information - it identifies a house, not a person.
Neither is a phone number, which identifies a phone.
License plate numbers identify a car.
In fact, one could even argue that SSN/SIN numbers identify a card or record in a government database instead of a person.
Privacy solved!
There is no personal information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627559</id>
	<title>Re:Spartacus-1138</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247043720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not a number! I am a man!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not a number !
I am a man !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not a number!
I am a man!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623501</id>
	<title>I'm confused...</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1247072460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Identifying my computer doesn't identify me personally by inference?</p><p>I'm sure this could come in handy in court eventually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Identifying my computer does n't identify me personally by inference ? I 'm sure this could come in handy in court eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Identifying my computer doesn't identify me personally by inference?I'm sure this could come in handy in court eventually.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623597</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>wtfamidoinghere</author>
	<datestamp>1247072700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Addresses are not personal. They can be connected to you in some ways, but are not personal per se. For instance, when you get a bill by mail, you have the mail address AND the person name to whom the service is registered. Imagine a situation like this: gunshots are reported as being shot from address x; does that automatically implies the owner did the shooting?</p><p>License plates and phone numbers are more or less the same. I'm sure you can come up with some examples of your own to illustrate.</p><p>As for your email, that one is on a diferent level. With email you're supposed to have identification AND authentication. (name + password)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Addresses are not personal .
They can be connected to you in some ways , but are not personal per se .
For instance , when you get a bill by mail , you have the mail address AND the person name to whom the service is registered .
Imagine a situation like this : gunshots are reported as being shot from address x ; does that automatically implies the owner did the shooting ? License plates and phone numbers are more or less the same .
I 'm sure you can come up with some examples of your own to illustrate.As for your email , that one is on a diferent level .
With email you 're supposed to have identification AND authentication .
( name + password )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Addresses are not personal.
They can be connected to you in some ways, but are not personal per se.
For instance, when you get a bill by mail, you have the mail address AND the person name to whom the service is registered.
Imagine a situation like this: gunshots are reported as being shot from address x; does that automatically implies the owner did the shooting?License plates and phone numbers are more or less the same.
I'm sure you can come up with some examples of your own to illustrate.As for your email, that one is on a diferent level.
With email you're supposed to have identification AND authentication.
(name + password)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625145</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one?</title>
	<author>dzfoo</author>
	<datestamp>1247078160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, chill a bit and read the article.</p><p>The "privacy" context in this case is not regarding the obscuring of criminal behaviour but the prevention of being intrusively monitored by commercial entities in order to build consumer behaviour profiles, and bombard you directly with even MORE advertising.</p><p>On that context, this ruling means that there is no way to avoid having your browsing and purchasing behaviour monitored, collated, analyzed, correlated and associated with you personally, and sold for profit; which will entice advertising organizations to intrude even more into your life.</p><p>That's just creepy.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , chill a bit and read the article.The " privacy " context in this case is not regarding the obscuring of criminal behaviour but the prevention of being intrusively monitored by commercial entities in order to build consumer behaviour profiles , and bombard you directly with even MORE advertising.On that context , this ruling means that there is no way to avoid having your browsing and purchasing behaviour monitored , collated , analyzed , correlated and associated with you personally , and sold for profit ; which will entice advertising organizations to intrude even more into your life.That 's just creepy .
          -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, chill a bit and read the article.The "privacy" context in this case is not regarding the obscuring of criminal behaviour but the prevention of being intrusively monitored by commercial entities in order to build consumer behaviour profiles, and bombard you directly with even MORE advertising.On that context, this ruling means that there is no way to avoid having your browsing and purchasing behaviour monitored, collated, analyzed, correlated and associated with you personally, and sold for profit; which will entice advertising organizations to intrude even more into your life.That's just creepy.
          -dZ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625813</id>
	<title>Re:Spartacus-1138</title>
	<author>Mr. Beatdown</author>
	<datestamp>1247080500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm 10.0.0.107.  Spartacus can suck it.  Anyone repping 172.16-32 range?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm 10.0.0.107 .
Spartacus can suck it .
Anyone repping 172.16-32 range ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm 10.0.0.107.
Spartacus can suck it.
Anyone repping 172.16-32 range?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624981</id>
	<title>RIAA suits are toast.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Double-edge sword for big business.  The RIAA in their suits try to identify individuals based on the IP addresses and such so now they will not be able to do so based on this FEDERAL court ruling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Double-edge sword for big business .
The RIAA in their suits try to identify individuals based on the IP addresses and such so now they will not be able to do so based on this FEDERAL court ruling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Double-edge sword for big business.
The RIAA in their suits try to identify individuals based on the IP addresses and such so now they will not be able to do so based on this FEDERAL court ruling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625225</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one?</title>
	<author>dargaud</author>
	<datestamp>1247078400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My house address doesn't change twice a day like my ADSL IP address does... If there's no timezone information on the takedown/pseudo-warrant/blackmail letter, I'd fight it to the death.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My house address does n't change twice a day like my ADSL IP address does... If there 's no timezone information on the takedown/pseudo-warrant/blackmail letter , I 'd fight it to the death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My house address doesn't change twice a day like my ADSL IP address does... If there's no timezone information on the takedown/pseudo-warrant/blackmail letter, I'd fight it to the death.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28632199</id>
	<title>Re:Legal code for this</title>
	<author>Rakshasa Taisab</author>
	<datestamp>1247072220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate people like you, who arbitrarily drop curly braces from else blocks. Be consistent or I'll take a shit on your lawn after fixing your code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate people like you , who arbitrarily drop curly braces from else blocks .
Be consistent or I 'll take a shit on your lawn after fixing your code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate people like you, who arbitrarily drop curly braces from else blocks.
Be consistent or I'll take a shit on your lawn after fixing your code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28630251</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>mdielmann</author>
	<datestamp>1247057940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IPv6 addresses should be like MAC addresses for people.<br>Issued at birth, and tattooed onto your ass.</p><p>Actually I hope the RIAA aren't reading this. It will give them ideas.</p></div><p>Yeah, I can see it now...<br>Cashier:  And how will you be paying?<br>(Probably ugly) Customer:  The usual.  *Drops pants*<br>Cashier:  Of course.  *sigh*  Whose idea was that anyway...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 addresses should be like MAC addresses for people.Issued at birth , and tattooed onto your ass.Actually I hope the RIAA are n't reading this .
It will give them ideas.Yeah , I can see it now...Cashier : And how will you be paying ?
( Probably ugly ) Customer : The usual .
* Drops pants * Cashier : Of course .
* sigh * Whose idea was that anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv6 addresses should be like MAC addresses for people.Issued at birth, and tattooed onto your ass.Actually I hope the RIAA aren't reading this.
It will give them ideas.Yeah, I can see it now...Cashier:  And how will you be paying?
(Probably ugly) Customer:  The usual.
*Drops pants*Cashier:  Of course.
*sigh*  Whose idea was that anyway...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624177</id>
	<title>Windows95 vs Unix mentality</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1247074980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to say this is one of the better rulings. The judge is enlightened to know that multi-tasking computers can serve many users at once. The idea that one IP=one user is completely a windows-centric perspective, which is even less true since windows 2000 (ish, not exact).</p><p>Now this should raise the bar for RIAA and MPAA, who only collect IP addresses. Now they need to associate the activity with the user's account. Given that this information is not usually available, it is a coffin nail for those organizations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to say this is one of the better rulings .
The judge is enlightened to know that multi-tasking computers can serve many users at once .
The idea that one IP = one user is completely a windows-centric perspective , which is even less true since windows 2000 ( ish , not exact ) .Now this should raise the bar for RIAA and MPAA , who only collect IP addresses .
Now they need to associate the activity with the user 's account .
Given that this information is not usually available , it is a coffin nail for those organizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to say this is one of the better rulings.
The judge is enlightened to know that multi-tasking computers can serve many users at once.
The idea that one IP=one user is completely a windows-centric perspective, which is even less true since windows 2000 (ish, not exact).Now this should raise the bar for RIAA and MPAA, who only collect IP addresses.
Now they need to associate the activity with the user's account.
Given that this information is not usually available, it is a coffin nail for those organizations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625927</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>ion.simon.c</author>
	<datestamp>1247080920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>An IP address (dynamic) is randomly assigned to a user and then changed with little or no control from the user's end.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Everyone can't be issued a permanent address when they sign up for an ISP.</p></div><p>Hio. "Residential" Comcast Cable customer here.<br>I had the same IPv4 address for three, four years.. then I moved across town, so yanno, new IP.<br>I suppose that I *could* be assigned a new IP address at some point, but I can't see why on earth that would ever happen. If you have an Internet-facing address, and the device connected to the ISP's network is on 24/7, then -unless your ISP's network layout changes- you're going to get handed the same IP, renewal after renewal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An IP address ( dynamic ) is randomly assigned to a user and then changed with little or no control from the user 's end .
... Everyone ca n't be issued a permanent address when they sign up for an ISP.Hio .
" Residential " Comcast Cable customer here.I had the same IPv4 address for three , four years.. then I moved across town , so yanno , new IP.I suppose that I * could * be assigned a new IP address at some point , but I ca n't see why on earth that would ever happen .
If you have an Internet-facing address , and the device connected to the ISP 's network is on 24/7 , then -unless your ISP 's network layout changes- you 're going to get handed the same IP , renewal after renewal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An IP address (dynamic) is randomly assigned to a user and then changed with little or no control from the user's end.
... Everyone can't be issued a permanent address when they sign up for an ISP.Hio.
"Residential" Comcast Cable customer here.I had the same IPv4 address for three, four years.. then I moved across town, so yanno, new IP.I suppose that I *could* be assigned a new IP address at some point, but I can't see why on earth that would ever happen.
If you have an Internet-facing address, and the device connected to the ISP's network is on 24/7, then -unless your ISP's network layout changes- you're going to get handed the same IP, renewal after renewal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624847</id>
	<title>A question</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1247077140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Under the established laws, is a phone number considered personal information or not?</p><p>If it's not, then this ruling makes perfect sense. If it is, then there is a double standard here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Under the established laws , is a phone number considered personal information or not ? If it 's not , then this ruling makes perfect sense .
If it is , then there is a double standard here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under the established laws, is a phone number considered personal information or not?If it's not, then this ruling makes perfect sense.
If it is, then there is a double standard here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623747</id>
	<title>Legal code for this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247073300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>private static String getRuling(LitigationObject individual, RichLitigationObject evilCorporation) throws NYCLException {<br>
if(individual.sues(evilCorporation)) {<br>
return "IP address is not personal identification";<br>
} else if(evilCorporation.sues(individual) {<br>
return "IP address is personal information";<br>
} else return "Please submit amount available to donate to my election campaign";<br>
}</htmltext>
<tokenext>private static String getRuling ( LitigationObject individual , RichLitigationObject evilCorporation ) throws NYCLException { if ( individual.sues ( evilCorporation ) ) { return " IP address is not personal identification " ; } else if ( evilCorporation.sues ( individual ) { return " IP address is personal information " ; } else return " Please submit amount available to donate to my election campaign " ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>private static String getRuling(LitigationObject individual, RichLitigationObject evilCorporation) throws NYCLException {
if(individual.sues(evilCorporation)) {
return "IP address is not personal identification";
} else if(evilCorporation.sues(individual) {
return "IP address is personal information";
} else return "Please submit amount available to donate to my election campaign";
}</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625099</id>
	<title>Re:Spartacus-1138</title>
	<author>KWolfe81</author>
	<datestamp>1247077980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would the real 192.168.0.1 please stand up?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would the real 192.168.0.1 please stand up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would the real 192.168.0.1 please stand up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626395</id>
	<title>Re:Couldn't this be a potentially good thing?</title>
	<author>that IT girl</author>
	<datestamp>1247082420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"...13.37"
<br> <br>
I see what you did there, you 1337 hax0r you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...13.37 " I see what you did there , you 1337 hax0r you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...13.37"
 
I see what you did there, you 1337 hax0r you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625401</id>
	<title>Re:Issued at Birth</title>
	<author>TaoPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1247079000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They already do - it's called a Social Security number.<br>Funny thing - it's personally identifiable all right... "virtually stamped" for life.<br>So the judge issued a fairly complex ruling. An IP is not identifiable in all cases, cue the sysadmins.<br>So the NEXT ruling down the pike is something like "neither is an IP wholly disconnected and may be contributory to identifiable info."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already do - it 's called a Social Security number.Funny thing - it 's personally identifiable all right... " virtually stamped " for life.So the judge issued a fairly complex ruling .
An IP is not identifiable in all cases , cue the sysadmins.So the NEXT ruling down the pike is something like " neither is an IP wholly disconnected and may be contributory to identifiable info .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already do - it's called a Social Security number.Funny thing - it's personally identifiable all right... "virtually stamped" for life.So the judge issued a fairly complex ruling.
An IP is not identifiable in all cases, cue the sysadmins.So the NEXT ruling down the pike is something like "neither is an IP wholly disconnected and may be contributory to identifiable info.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28629219</id>
	<title>Re:I'm confused...</title>
	<author>Dr Damage I</author>
	<datestamp>1247051820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm fairly sure this ruling only helps you if you have "pty ltd" after your name.  Otherwise it either identifies you (if you're accused of stealing music) or it doesn't (if someone is collecting your IP address in violation of your TOS)

Now if only I could get modded +5 cynical</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fairly sure this ruling only helps you if you have " pty ltd " after your name .
Otherwise it either identifies you ( if you 're accused of stealing music ) or it does n't ( if someone is collecting your IP address in violation of your TOS ) Now if only I could get modded + 5 cynical</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fairly sure this ruling only helps you if you have "pty ltd" after your name.
Otherwise it either identifies you (if you're accused of stealing music) or it doesn't (if someone is collecting your IP address in violation of your TOS)

Now if only I could get modded +5 cynical</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624729</id>
	<title>Hate to sound jaded</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1247076720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but notice how the courts supported the large corporations in both cases.</p><p>I'm not sure if it is because they just support corporations (and want campaign donations in some cases- or invites to cool parties at the country club in others) or if wealthy corporations have more money so they get more (as in entire legal teams- not just one lawyer) of better (more researchers, more experts, experts willing to basically perjure themselves) which also says our "justice" system is really about money-- where a lady who pirates 24 songs is fined 1.8 million and a rich man who murders someone serves 24 days in jail.</p><p>It will be interesting to see how the justice system holds that both an I.P. address uniquely identifies a person and does not uniquely identify a person.</p><p>If you ever get on a jury, remember your right to jury nullification and remember to NOT tell any of the other juries about it (or answer the innappropriate lawyer questions designed to strike you from the jury).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but notice how the courts supported the large corporations in both cases.I 'm not sure if it is because they just support corporations ( and want campaign donations in some cases- or invites to cool parties at the country club in others ) or if wealthy corporations have more money so they get more ( as in entire legal teams- not just one lawyer ) of better ( more researchers , more experts , experts willing to basically perjure themselves ) which also says our " justice " system is really about money-- where a lady who pirates 24 songs is fined 1.8 million and a rich man who murders someone serves 24 days in jail.It will be interesting to see how the justice system holds that both an I.P .
address uniquely identifies a person and does not uniquely identify a person.If you ever get on a jury , remember your right to jury nullification and remember to NOT tell any of the other juries about it ( or answer the innappropriate lawyer questions designed to strike you from the jury ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but notice how the courts supported the large corporations in both cases.I'm not sure if it is because they just support corporations (and want campaign donations in some cases- or invites to cool parties at the country club in others) or if wealthy corporations have more money so they get more (as in entire legal teams- not just one lawyer) of better (more researchers, more experts, experts willing to basically perjure themselves) which also says our "justice" system is really about money-- where a lady who pirates 24 songs is fined 1.8 million and a rich man who murders someone serves 24 days in jail.It will be interesting to see how the justice system holds that both an I.P.
address uniquely identifies a person and does not uniquely identify a person.If you ever get on a jury, remember your right to jury nullification and remember to NOT tell any of the other juries about it (or answer the innappropriate lawyer questions designed to strike you from the jury).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626047</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>dyingtolive</author>
	<datestamp>1247081280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>my email is really just a code so the mailserver knows where to put some bytes it receives, it doesn't really have anything to do with me.</p></div><p>

But for that matter, that downloaded song isn't actually a song download, just the instruction received from another computer on how to align the magnetic field on the platters of my hard drive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>my email is really just a code so the mailserver knows where to put some bytes it receives , it does n't really have anything to do with me .
But for that matter , that downloaded song is n't actually a song download , just the instruction received from another computer on how to align the magnetic field on the platters of my hard drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my email is really just a code so the mailserver knows where to put some bytes it receives, it doesn't really have anything to do with me.
But for that matter, that downloaded song isn't actually a song download, just the instruction received from another computer on how to align the magnetic field on the platters of my hard drive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28687893</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247564460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>However, yes indeed your license plate and address are not personal information with an implicit right to privacy. They are public records. I can go to the DMV and look up your license plate to get owner information, and I can go to your local municipality and get owner information about your address.</i> </p><p>Like hell you can. You'd have to have a damned serious reason to get that from the cops.</p><p>My wife and I were goddamned near killed by a 16 or 17 yo punk who ripped through one of those corner cutouts at an intersection, against a red light, from a street at right angles to where we were passing through the intersection on a green light. He very nearly drove us across a double yellow line into oncoming traffic.</p><p>We hit the brakes, hard, and the horn. He just looked back, threw his arms in the air, laughed and punched it.</p><p>We got his license plate and called the cops. They said they couldn't tell us where he lived, "citing his right to privacy". We said we didn't want his address -- we just wanted a uniform to go to the house and let the parents know what their spawn was doing. No dice.</p><p>Cops really don't give a shit about anyone not "one of their own". If my brother were a cop, you can be goddamned sure they'd have hacked up the asshole's name. Hell, they'd probably have also given me a drop gun along with the address.</p><p>Never forget -- to a cop, there are only three kinds of people in the world -- cops, cops' families and suspects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , yes indeed your license plate and address are not personal information with an implicit right to privacy .
They are public records .
I can go to the DMV and look up your license plate to get owner information , and I can go to your local municipality and get owner information about your address .
Like hell you can .
You 'd have to have a damned serious reason to get that from the cops.My wife and I were goddamned near killed by a 16 or 17 yo punk who ripped through one of those corner cutouts at an intersection , against a red light , from a street at right angles to where we were passing through the intersection on a green light .
He very nearly drove us across a double yellow line into oncoming traffic.We hit the brakes , hard , and the horn .
He just looked back , threw his arms in the air , laughed and punched it.We got his license plate and called the cops .
They said they could n't tell us where he lived , " citing his right to privacy " .
We said we did n't want his address -- we just wanted a uniform to go to the house and let the parents know what their spawn was doing .
No dice.Cops really do n't give a shit about anyone not " one of their own " .
If my brother were a cop , you can be goddamned sure they 'd have hacked up the asshole 's name .
Hell , they 'd probably have also given me a drop gun along with the address.Never forget -- to a cop , there are only three kinds of people in the world -- cops , cops ' families and suspects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, yes indeed your license plate and address are not personal information with an implicit right to privacy.
They are public records.
I can go to the DMV and look up your license plate to get owner information, and I can go to your local municipality and get owner information about your address.
Like hell you can.
You'd have to have a damned serious reason to get that from the cops.My wife and I were goddamned near killed by a 16 or 17 yo punk who ripped through one of those corner cutouts at an intersection, against a red light, from a street at right angles to where we were passing through the intersection on a green light.
He very nearly drove us across a double yellow line into oncoming traffic.We hit the brakes, hard, and the horn.
He just looked back, threw his arms in the air, laughed and punched it.We got his license plate and called the cops.
They said they couldn't tell us where he lived, "citing his right to privacy".
We said we didn't want his address -- we just wanted a uniform to go to the house and let the parents know what their spawn was doing.
No dice.Cops really don't give a shit about anyone not "one of their own".
If my brother were a cop, you can be goddamned sure they'd have hacked up the asshole's name.
Hell, they'd probably have also given me a drop gun along with the address.Never forget -- to a cop, there are only three kinds of people in the world -- cops, cops' families and suspects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627421</id>
	<title>Re:The IP is a lot like a license plate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247086260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.dailytech.com/Students+Use+Speed+Cameras+to+Frame+Innocent+Drivers+Prank+Teachers/article13749.htm" title="dailytech.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailytech.com/Students+Use+Speed+Cameras+to+Frame+Innocent+Drivers+Prank+Teachers/article13749.htm</a> [dailytech.com]</p><p>A group of kids were makign false plates of teachers and then blasting through stop light cameras in Maryland and innocent people were getting the $40 tickets in the mail even though it wasn't even their car much less them driving it.  But the assumption was the plate matched the guilty party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.dailytech.com/Students + Use + Speed + Cameras + to + Frame + Innocent + Drivers + Prank + Teachers/article13749.htm [ dailytech.com ] A group of kids were makign false plates of teachers and then blasting through stop light cameras in Maryland and innocent people were getting the $ 40 tickets in the mail even though it was n't even their car much less them driving it .
But the assumption was the plate matched the guilty party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.dailytech.com/Students+Use+Speed+Cameras+to+Frame+Innocent+Drivers+Prank+Teachers/article13749.htm [dailytech.com]A group of kids were makign false plates of teachers and then blasting through stop light cameras in Maryland and innocent people were getting the $40 tickets in the mail even though it wasn't even their car much less them driving it.
But the assumption was the plate matched the guilty party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625797</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247080440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I suppose addresses and license plates aren't personal either, they just identify cars and houses, it's not as though those things usually contain the same people</i></p><p>Key word here is "usually", and I have a personal gripe about that. I loaned out my car, now I got a parking ticket. I didn't park illegally, but I still have to pay the ticket. Last time I let the bitch borrow MY car.</p><p>And phone numbers? I don't have to pay minutes, so I'll let anybody in the bar use my phone as long as it stays in sight. If somebody uses my phone to set up a dope deal or arrange a murder, I'm responsible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose addresses and license plates are n't personal either , they just identify cars and houses , it 's not as though those things usually contain the same peopleKey word here is " usually " , and I have a personal gripe about that .
I loaned out my car , now I got a parking ticket .
I did n't park illegally , but I still have to pay the ticket .
Last time I let the bitch borrow MY car.And phone numbers ?
I do n't have to pay minutes , so I 'll let anybody in the bar use my phone as long as it stays in sight .
If somebody uses my phone to set up a dope deal or arrange a murder , I 'm responsible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose addresses and license plates aren't personal either, they just identify cars and houses, it's not as though those things usually contain the same peopleKey word here is "usually", and I have a personal gripe about that.
I loaned out my car, now I got a parking ticket.
I didn't park illegally, but I still have to pay the ticket.
Last time I let the bitch borrow MY car.And phone numbers?
I don't have to pay minutes, so I'll let anybody in the bar use my phone as long as it stays in sight.
If somebody uses my phone to set up a dope deal or arrange a murder, I'm responsible?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</id>
	<title>Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this is true, I suppose addresses and license plates aren't personal either, they just identify cars and houses, it's not as though those things usually contain the same people.  Or what about phone numbers, that really only identifies my phone, not me the individual.  And when you stop to think about it, my email is really just a code so the mailserver knows where to put some bytes it receives, it doesn't really have anything to do with me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is true , I suppose addresses and license plates are n't personal either , they just identify cars and houses , it 's not as though those things usually contain the same people .
Or what about phone numbers , that really only identifies my phone , not me the individual .
And when you stop to think about it , my email is really just a code so the mailserver knows where to put some bytes it receives , it does n't really have anything to do with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is true, I suppose addresses and license plates aren't personal either, they just identify cars and houses, it's not as though those things usually contain the same people.
Or what about phone numbers, that really only identifies my phone, not me the individual.
And when you stop to think about it, my email is really just a code so the mailserver knows where to put some bytes it receives, it doesn't really have anything to do with me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623655</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Trojan35</author>
	<datestamp>1247072940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While that is true, I'm betting your phone number, license plate, and email address do not change on a monthly basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While that is true , I 'm betting your phone number , license plate , and email address do not change on a monthly basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While that is true, I'm betting your phone number, license plate, and email address do not change on a monthly basis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641</id>
	<title>Spartacus-1138</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am 192.168.0.1!</p><p>No, I am 192.168.0.1!<br>No, I am 192.168.0.1!<br>No, I am!<br>I am!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am 192.168.0.1 ! No , I am 192.168.0.1 ! No , I am 192.168.0.1 ! No , I am ! I am !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am 192.168.0.1!No, I am 192.168.0.1!No, I am 192.168.0.1!No, I am!I am!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623473</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IP addresses identify either networks or devices on a network... not to be that asshat that corrects people, just.. seeking to clarify. But certainly, not necessarily conclusively any particular computer, or for any amount of time. Particularly once your IP lease expires, if your ISP doesn't maintain the same (or even records of previous) IP/MAC resolutions... you get a new address and the old address won't likely lead back to you for a long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IP addresses identify either networks or devices on a network... not to be that asshat that corrects people , just.. seeking to clarify .
But certainly , not necessarily conclusively any particular computer , or for any amount of time .
Particularly once your IP lease expires , if your ISP does n't maintain the same ( or even records of previous ) IP/MAC resolutions... you get a new address and the old address wo n't likely lead back to you for a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IP addresses identify either networks or devices on a network... not to be that asshat that corrects people, just.. seeking to clarify.
But certainly, not necessarily conclusively any particular computer, or for any amount of time.
Particularly once your IP lease expires, if your ISP doesn't maintain the same (or even records of previous) IP/MAC resolutions... you get a new address and the old address won't likely lead back to you for a long time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625559</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247079600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>An IP address (dynamic) is randomly assigned to a user and then changed with little or no control from the user's end.</p> </div><p>ipconfig<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/release<br>ipconfig<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/renew</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An IP address ( dynamic ) is randomly assigned to a user and then changed with little or no control from the user 's end .
ipconfig /releaseipconfig /renew</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An IP address (dynamic) is randomly assigned to a user and then changed with little or no control from the user's end.
ipconfig /releaseipconfig /renew
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628591</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1247048760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are exactly correct. Even if you have the license plate, it can only be used as supportive evidence. You need to get information identifying the person driving it to charge them. The car can not be charged with a crime. I don't know how red light cameras work, but I suspect they also take a picture of the driver's seat. Same thing with the house address. It can only be used as supportive evidence. Email addresses are not at all personal. It is what ever I want to tell your mail server in respect to the from heading. It could also be redirected to my server if your dns address is poisoned. I think this is great step forward in realistically classifying an IP address. It is completely accurate of what the protocol can do and how it should be treated as evidence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are exactly correct .
Even if you have the license plate , it can only be used as supportive evidence .
You need to get information identifying the person driving it to charge them .
The car can not be charged with a crime .
I do n't know how red light cameras work , but I suspect they also take a picture of the driver 's seat .
Same thing with the house address .
It can only be used as supportive evidence .
Email addresses are not at all personal .
It is what ever I want to tell your mail server in respect to the from heading .
It could also be redirected to my server if your dns address is poisoned .
I think this is great step forward in realistically classifying an IP address .
It is completely accurate of what the protocol can do and how it should be treated as evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are exactly correct.
Even if you have the license plate, it can only be used as supportive evidence.
You need to get information identifying the person driving it to charge them.
The car can not be charged with a crime.
I don't know how red light cameras work, but I suspect they also take a picture of the driver's seat.
Same thing with the house address.
It can only be used as supportive evidence.
Email addresses are not at all personal.
It is what ever I want to tell your mail server in respect to the from heading.
It could also be redirected to my server if your dns address is poisoned.
I think this is great step forward in realistically classifying an IP address.
It is completely accurate of what the protocol can do and how it should be treated as evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626765</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247083740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the worst possible thing that can happen, with respect to privacy.  That would be tantamount to chipping all newborns, or requiring GPS tracking devices in all vehicles.  Oh, wait, there are those who are already TRYING to do those things.  The loss of privacy is inevitable, the abuse of that loss, equally so.  I weep for my child's future, and I am glad I will be dead by then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the worst possible thing that can happen , with respect to privacy .
That would be tantamount to chipping all newborns , or requiring GPS tracking devices in all vehicles .
Oh , wait , there are those who are already TRYING to do those things .
The loss of privacy is inevitable , the abuse of that loss , equally so .
I weep for my child 's future , and I am glad I will be dead by then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the worst possible thing that can happen, with respect to privacy.
That would be tantamount to chipping all newborns, or requiring GPS tracking devices in all vehicles.
Oh, wait, there are those who are already TRYING to do those things.
The loss of privacy is inevitable, the abuse of that loss, equally so.
I weep for my child's future, and I am glad I will be dead by then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628117</id>
	<title>GREAT NEWS!!!!</title>
	<author>AmigaMMC</author>
	<datestamp>1247046420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If a person cannot be identified solely by IP address that the RIAA cannot sue someone because copyrighted material was alleged download from an IP address.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a person can not be identified solely by IP address that the RIAA can not sue someone because copyrighted material was alleged download from an IP address .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a person cannot be identified solely by IP address that the RIAA cannot sue someone because copyrighted material was alleged download from an IP address.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28632769</id>
	<title>a drivers license numbr identifies only the licens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247079000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>judge is obviously a tool.</p><p>We could make the same argument about whether the his american social security number identifies him. No it doesn't - it is only the key to data in some rows in a database of the entity which issued the number (the government).  It identifies those rows, not him personally.</p><p>substitute, 'IP address' for 'social security number', and  'the ISP' for 'the government' and the statement is no less true.</p><p>sadly, from the rulings I've seen over the last few years, it seems that american judges really are stupid enough to come out with bullshit like this and actually believe it, and blind enough to not see the obvious parallels with other forms of identifying information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>judge is obviously a tool.We could make the same argument about whether the his american social security number identifies him .
No it does n't - it is only the key to data in some rows in a database of the entity which issued the number ( the government ) .
It identifies those rows , not him personally.substitute , 'IP address ' for 'social security number ' , and 'the ISP ' for 'the government ' and the statement is no less true.sadly , from the rulings I 've seen over the last few years , it seems that american judges really are stupid enough to come out with bullshit like this and actually believe it , and blind enough to not see the obvious parallels with other forms of identifying information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>judge is obviously a tool.We could make the same argument about whether the his american social security number identifies him.
No it doesn't - it is only the key to data in some rows in a database of the entity which issued the number (the government).
It identifies those rows, not him personally.substitute, 'IP address' for 'social security number', and  'the ISP' for 'the government' and the statement is no less true.sadly, from the rulings I've seen over the last few years, it seems that american judges really are stupid enough to come out with bullshit like this and actually believe it, and blind enough to not see the obvious parallels with other forms of identifying information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28632755</id>
	<title>Re:Spartacus-1138</title>
	<author>AceofSpades19</author>
	<datestamp>1247078700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm 127.0.0.1</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm 127.0.0.1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm 127.0.0.1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627153</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one?</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1247085180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Seems logical to me. An IP address no more identifies a person than a house address identifies one. It's tying those two together for investigative purposes that should be illegal without a warrant.</i></p><p>Indeed: and the difference in EU law is that under EU law an item is considered personally identifying if it is plausible that it could be used to identify individual people in a significant number of cases using information that is likely to be available to the person collecting the data.  It's a matter of different definitions:</p><p>US law: "personally identifying" means "identifies a person in all cases"<br>EU law: "personally identifying" means "could plausibly be used to identify a person in at least some cases"</p><p>The different laws in these different jurisdictions use the same phrase for different purposes and with different consequences.  Is it really any surprise, therefore, that they are interpreted differently?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems logical to me .
An IP address no more identifies a person than a house address identifies one .
It 's tying those two together for investigative purposes that should be illegal without a warrant.Indeed : and the difference in EU law is that under EU law an item is considered personally identifying if it is plausible that it could be used to identify individual people in a significant number of cases using information that is likely to be available to the person collecting the data .
It 's a matter of different definitions : US law : " personally identifying " means " identifies a person in all cases " EU law : " personally identifying " means " could plausibly be used to identify a person in at least some cases " The different laws in these different jurisdictions use the same phrase for different purposes and with different consequences .
Is it really any surprise , therefore , that they are interpreted differently ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems logical to me.
An IP address no more identifies a person than a house address identifies one.
It's tying those two together for investigative purposes that should be illegal without a warrant.Indeed: and the difference in EU law is that under EU law an item is considered personally identifying if it is plausible that it could be used to identify individual people in a significant number of cases using information that is likely to be available to the person collecting the data.
It's a matter of different definitions:US law: "personally identifying" means "identifies a person in all cases"EU law: "personally identifying" means "could plausibly be used to identify a person in at least some cases"The different laws in these different jurisdictions use the same phrase for different purposes and with different consequences.
Is it really any surprise, therefore, that they are interpreted differently?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624523</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1247076060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A license plate, street address and phone number are both unique and tied to a specific person until the person chooses to end that connection.</i></p><p>That's a fair summary, and far better than uncessarily mixing in technical terms like "network endpoint" which is domain-specific.</p><p>An IP address should more correctly be identified as a lease, or more generically, an assignment.  Hardly a legal term, but it'll do for most discussions.</p><p>A house address can, therefore, be viewed as an assignment of a given plot of land to a mortgage holder, an apartment address is an assignment to a renter, and a license plate is an assignment to a person owning a given car.</p><p>Any or all of those "can" be considered personally identifiable.  But without taking into account the terms of the assignment (date and time, duration, terms, and ultimately, usage), those assigments can be meaningless.  A room assignment in a Las Vegas hotel room may be proof of blackjack and hookers, or it could be proof of nothing at all.</p><p>Why that's obvious in certain contexts (LEA officials using a given "last known address"), but not judges in RIAA cases, is anyone's guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A license plate , street address and phone number are both unique and tied to a specific person until the person chooses to end that connection.That 's a fair summary , and far better than uncessarily mixing in technical terms like " network endpoint " which is domain-specific.An IP address should more correctly be identified as a lease , or more generically , an assignment .
Hardly a legal term , but it 'll do for most discussions.A house address can , therefore , be viewed as an assignment of a given plot of land to a mortgage holder , an apartment address is an assignment to a renter , and a license plate is an assignment to a person owning a given car.Any or all of those " can " be considered personally identifiable .
But without taking into account the terms of the assignment ( date and time , duration , terms , and ultimately , usage ) , those assigments can be meaningless .
A room assignment in a Las Vegas hotel room may be proof of blackjack and hookers , or it could be proof of nothing at all.Why that 's obvious in certain contexts ( LEA officials using a given " last known address " ) , but not judges in RIAA cases , is anyone 's guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A license plate, street address and phone number are both unique and tied to a specific person until the person chooses to end that connection.That's a fair summary, and far better than uncessarily mixing in technical terms like "network endpoint" which is domain-specific.An IP address should more correctly be identified as a lease, or more generically, an assignment.
Hardly a legal term, but it'll do for most discussions.A house address can, therefore, be viewed as an assignment of a given plot of land to a mortgage holder, an apartment address is an assignment to a renter, and a license plate is an assignment to a person owning a given car.Any or all of those "can" be considered personally identifiable.
But without taking into account the terms of the assignment (date and time, duration, terms, and ultimately, usage), those assigments can be meaningless.
A room assignment in a Las Vegas hotel room may be proof of blackjack and hookers, or it could be proof of nothing at all.Why that's obvious in certain contexts (LEA officials using a given "last known address"), but not judges in RIAA cases, is anyone's guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626555</id>
	<title>Personally Identifiable vs Address Portability</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1247082900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recall past discussions here about a movement to make IP addresses portable, in the way that phone numbers currently are.  In other words, the idea would be that you would "own" an IP address, and you could use that address with any ISP you wanted.  Granted, it could cause some interesting problems, but that is aside the point for the moment.<br> <br>
As the current system is setup, with IP4 addresses, IP addresses essentially belong to an organization - for most home users that organization is their ISP.  If you switch to a different ISP you can expect a different address.  However, it would seem that if we did have IP address portability, then addresses would have some relevance for identifying a user (or at least a user's computer).<br> <br>
So while the fans of IP address portability lost their fight years ago, they may have inadvertently won a battle for privacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall past discussions here about a movement to make IP addresses portable , in the way that phone numbers currently are .
In other words , the idea would be that you would " own " an IP address , and you could use that address with any ISP you wanted .
Granted , it could cause some interesting problems , but that is aside the point for the moment .
As the current system is setup , with IP4 addresses , IP addresses essentially belong to an organization - for most home users that organization is their ISP .
If you switch to a different ISP you can expect a different address .
However , it would seem that if we did have IP address portability , then addresses would have some relevance for identifying a user ( or at least a user 's computer ) .
So while the fans of IP address portability lost their fight years ago , they may have inadvertently won a battle for privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall past discussions here about a movement to make IP addresses portable, in the way that phone numbers currently are.
In other words, the idea would be that you would "own" an IP address, and you could use that address with any ISP you wanted.
Granted, it could cause some interesting problems, but that is aside the point for the moment.
As the current system is setup, with IP4 addresses, IP addresses essentially belong to an organization - for most home users that organization is their ISP.
If you switch to a different ISP you can expect a different address.
However, it would seem that if we did have IP address portability, then addresses would have some relevance for identifying a user (or at least a user's computer).
So while the fans of IP address portability lost their fight years ago, they may have inadvertently won a battle for privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623441</id>
	<title>A question...</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1247072220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could this decision be referenced to disqualify the IP as evidence when the MAFIAA goes after someone based on IP addresses they got from WhateverMediaSentryIsCalledNow?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could this decision be referenced to disqualify the IP as evidence when the MAFIAA goes after someone based on IP addresses they got from WhateverMediaSentryIsCalledNow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could this decision be referenced to disqualify the IP as evidence when the MAFIAA goes after someone based on IP addresses they got from WhateverMediaSentryIsCalledNow?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625105</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An IP address works exactly the same way, its just potentially a smaller window. I say potentially because even with a dynamic address on roadrunner, I went a good two years with the same IP.</p><p>An IP address is just as good as a phone number -- It goes from useless to perfectly valid targetting info, all you need to do is add an exact time and good logs on the {ISP|PHONE COMPANY} end.</p><p>It doesnt matter if 50 other people had your ip in the same day, if the crime was comitted at 12:05:32 pm on Jan 17th 2006,  and the isp logs show that  at that exact time the ip belonged to a specific modems mac address that was currently leased to a customer at a certain address.. I'd say thats exactly as identifiable as a phone number or license plate.</p><p>Of course you should still gather some more info to tell which potential user in the house was using it, but thats what search warrants are for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An IP address works exactly the same way , its just potentially a smaller window .
I say potentially because even with a dynamic address on roadrunner , I went a good two years with the same IP.An IP address is just as good as a phone number -- It goes from useless to perfectly valid targetting info , all you need to do is add an exact time and good logs on the { ISP | PHONE COMPANY } end.It doesnt matter if 50 other people had your ip in the same day , if the crime was comitted at 12 : 05 : 32 pm on Jan 17th 2006 , and the isp logs show that at that exact time the ip belonged to a specific modems mac address that was currently leased to a customer at a certain address.. I 'd say thats exactly as identifiable as a phone number or license plate.Of course you should still gather some more info to tell which potential user in the house was using it , but thats what search warrants are for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An IP address works exactly the same way, its just potentially a smaller window.
I say potentially because even with a dynamic address on roadrunner, I went a good two years with the same IP.An IP address is just as good as a phone number -- It goes from useless to perfectly valid targetting info, all you need to do is add an exact time and good logs on the {ISP|PHONE COMPANY} end.It doesnt matter if 50 other people had your ip in the same day, if the crime was comitted at 12:05:32 pm on Jan 17th 2006,  and the isp logs show that  at that exact time the ip belonged to a specific modems mac address that was currently leased to a customer at a certain address.. I'd say thats exactly as identifiable as a phone number or license plate.Of course you should still gather some more info to tell which potential user in the house was using it, but thats what search warrants are for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28629455</id>
	<title>What to do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247053320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get this.  So I should be angry that Microsoft won, but be happy that this means the RIAA will lose...  What am I supposed to be, angry or happy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get this .
So I should be angry that Microsoft won , but be happy that this means the RIAA will lose... What am I supposed to be , angry or happy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get this.
So I should be angry that Microsoft won, but be happy that this means the RIAA will lose...  What am I supposed to be, angry or happy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28629363</id>
	<title>Bought Judge</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1247052780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One can only guess that the Judge was bought off.  Clearly his ruling contradicts reality.  Collection of the IP address is collecting personally identifiable information.</p><p>In example:</p><p>1)  you have a social security number.</p><p>2)  by looking at that number you can't tell much about the person.   You can't identify them.</p><p>3)  By tying that number to something personal you can identify them, thus making it personally identifiable.</p><p>In the case of the IP address you can't see anything personal by just looking at the number, just as is the case with the SSN, but you can tell about the person if you tie it to a date and time and then look at the account information.  Just like looking at the SSN in relation to the decade/year/month/day it is active and then looking at the database that identifies who the person is.</p><p>This Judge was bought because you can't make that ruling without thinking to yourself that you are defying common sense.</p><p>Saying that the IP address is not personally identifiable is like saying that the SSN isn't personally identifiable.  If both are the same type of system then the judge is saying neither is, so the question then becomes:  what is personally identifiable?  His definition doesn't hold water.  It's a circular reference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One can only guess that the Judge was bought off .
Clearly his ruling contradicts reality .
Collection of the IP address is collecting personally identifiable information.In example : 1 ) you have a social security number.2 ) by looking at that number you ca n't tell much about the person .
You ca n't identify them.3 ) By tying that number to something personal you can identify them , thus making it personally identifiable.In the case of the IP address you ca n't see anything personal by just looking at the number , just as is the case with the SSN , but you can tell about the person if you tie it to a date and time and then look at the account information .
Just like looking at the SSN in relation to the decade/year/month/day it is active and then looking at the database that identifies who the person is.This Judge was bought because you ca n't make that ruling without thinking to yourself that you are defying common sense.Saying that the IP address is not personally identifiable is like saying that the SSN is n't personally identifiable .
If both are the same type of system then the judge is saying neither is , so the question then becomes : what is personally identifiable ?
His definition does n't hold water .
It 's a circular reference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One can only guess that the Judge was bought off.
Clearly his ruling contradicts reality.
Collection of the IP address is collecting personally identifiable information.In example:1)  you have a social security number.2)  by looking at that number you can't tell much about the person.
You can't identify them.3)  By tying that number to something personal you can identify them, thus making it personally identifiable.In the case of the IP address you can't see anything personal by just looking at the number, just as is the case with the SSN, but you can tell about the person if you tie it to a date and time and then look at the account information.
Just like looking at the SSN in relation to the decade/year/month/day it is active and then looking at the database that identifies who the person is.This Judge was bought because you can't make that ruling without thinking to yourself that you are defying common sense.Saying that the IP address is not personally identifiable is like saying that the SSN isn't personally identifiable.
If both are the same type of system then the judge is saying neither is, so the question then becomes:  what is personally identifiable?
His definition doesn't hold water.
It's a circular reference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623835</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1247073600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RICO would disagree with your argument that objects can't be charged/ticketed.</p><p>It allows objects to commit crimes and since objects have no rights they can be seized without due process.</p><p>Anyone could stick your address as the return address on anything they send. There's nothing physically stopping them from doing so. Also, it doesn't really matter when you stop using an address since their will still be mail sent to that address that should have been yours but is now the current occupant's. Same idea with cars, you do a person to person sale and it can take awhile for the ownership change to work through the system. Hell, a lot of people buy cars just because they still have valid tags with a normal number.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RICO would disagree with your argument that objects ca n't be charged/ticketed.It allows objects to commit crimes and since objects have no rights they can be seized without due process.Anyone could stick your address as the return address on anything they send .
There 's nothing physically stopping them from doing so .
Also , it does n't really matter when you stop using an address since their will still be mail sent to that address that should have been yours but is now the current occupant 's .
Same idea with cars , you do a person to person sale and it can take awhile for the ownership change to work through the system .
Hell , a lot of people buy cars just because they still have valid tags with a normal number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RICO would disagree with your argument that objects can't be charged/ticketed.It allows objects to commit crimes and since objects have no rights they can be seized without due process.Anyone could stick your address as the return address on anything they send.
There's nothing physically stopping them from doing so.
Also, it doesn't really matter when you stop using an address since their will still be mail sent to that address that should have been yours but is now the current occupant's.
Same idea with cars, you do a person to person sale and it can take awhile for the ownership change to work through the system.
Hell, a lot of people buy cars just because they still have valid tags with a normal number.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626507</id>
	<title>Re:Largely irrelevant to RIAA litigation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247082720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks.  The RIAA need all the help they can get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks .
The RIAA need all the help they can get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks.
The RIAA need all the help they can get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624183</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1247074980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If this is true, I suppose addresses and license plates aren't personal either, they just identify cars and houses, it's not as though those things usually contain the same people.</i> <br> <br>That's incorrect.  I have filed official government documents, signed, with my name and license plate on them, identifying me as the person responsible for that car and the associated plate.  It's called "vehicle registration."  It's an official government document.  My IP is some randomly handed out number that isn't even tied to a computer.  It's tied to a subscriber line, and that's usually run into a router running NAT, so the IP that "identifies" the person, as you imply, is not assigned to any user computer at all.<br> <br> <i>Or what about phone numbers, that really only identifies my phone, not me the individual.</i> <br> <br>That depends.  If it's a cell number, it's presumed that the number is personal.  If you didn't make the call, you were probably in the room with the person that was.  That's a reasonable expectation.  However, there are multiple people living in my house.  There are guests.  I have only cordless phones, so they could go to the bathroom and use the phone and I'd never know.  Heck, I have long range ones, I can be three houses over and making calls.  And I lost a cordless phone a while back (we think the couch monster ate it), but for all I know, a neighbor is calling in threats to the president and I'll get my door broken down any minute.  But again, it's tied to a house, not a person.  The person who has the name on the account will get some grief, but it isn't anywhere near proof they made that call unless they live alone and don't have visitors.<br> <br> <i>And when you stop to think about it, my email is really just a code so the mailserver knows where to put some bytes it receives, it doesn't really have anything to do with me.</i> <br> <br>But there, to get it, you need a password and such.  So again, it is more closely tied to an individual.  And a reasonable person would assume that you didn't share your email, or only did so with a limited number of people you were familiar with (like hubby and wife sharing a single account), so you would still be responsible.  That's still different from a non-identifying number assigned to a subscriber line that wasn't designed to identify a person and wasn't designed to be secure in its identification.  It can be hacked, spoofed, shared, and isn't tied to a person at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is true , I suppose addresses and license plates are n't personal either , they just identify cars and houses , it 's not as though those things usually contain the same people .
That 's incorrect .
I have filed official government documents , signed , with my name and license plate on them , identifying me as the person responsible for that car and the associated plate .
It 's called " vehicle registration .
" It 's an official government document .
My IP is some randomly handed out number that is n't even tied to a computer .
It 's tied to a subscriber line , and that 's usually run into a router running NAT , so the IP that " identifies " the person , as you imply , is not assigned to any user computer at all .
Or what about phone numbers , that really only identifies my phone , not me the individual .
That depends .
If it 's a cell number , it 's presumed that the number is personal .
If you did n't make the call , you were probably in the room with the person that was .
That 's a reasonable expectation .
However , there are multiple people living in my house .
There are guests .
I have only cordless phones , so they could go to the bathroom and use the phone and I 'd never know .
Heck , I have long range ones , I can be three houses over and making calls .
And I lost a cordless phone a while back ( we think the couch monster ate it ) , but for all I know , a neighbor is calling in threats to the president and I 'll get my door broken down any minute .
But again , it 's tied to a house , not a person .
The person who has the name on the account will get some grief , but it is n't anywhere near proof they made that call unless they live alone and do n't have visitors .
And when you stop to think about it , my email is really just a code so the mailserver knows where to put some bytes it receives , it does n't really have anything to do with me .
But there , to get it , you need a password and such .
So again , it is more closely tied to an individual .
And a reasonable person would assume that you did n't share your email , or only did so with a limited number of people you were familiar with ( like hubby and wife sharing a single account ) , so you would still be responsible .
That 's still different from a non-identifying number assigned to a subscriber line that was n't designed to identify a person and was n't designed to be secure in its identification .
It can be hacked , spoofed , shared , and is n't tied to a person at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is true, I suppose addresses and license plates aren't personal either, they just identify cars and houses, it's not as though those things usually contain the same people.
That's incorrect.
I have filed official government documents, signed, with my name and license plate on them, identifying me as the person responsible for that car and the associated plate.
It's called "vehicle registration.
"  It's an official government document.
My IP is some randomly handed out number that isn't even tied to a computer.
It's tied to a subscriber line, and that's usually run into a router running NAT, so the IP that "identifies" the person, as you imply, is not assigned to any user computer at all.
Or what about phone numbers, that really only identifies my phone, not me the individual.
That depends.
If it's a cell number, it's presumed that the number is personal.
If you didn't make the call, you were probably in the room with the person that was.
That's a reasonable expectation.
However, there are multiple people living in my house.
There are guests.
I have only cordless phones, so they could go to the bathroom and use the phone and I'd never know.
Heck, I have long range ones, I can be three houses over and making calls.
And I lost a cordless phone a while back (we think the couch monster ate it), but for all I know, a neighbor is calling in threats to the president and I'll get my door broken down any minute.
But again, it's tied to a house, not a person.
The person who has the name on the account will get some grief, but it isn't anywhere near proof they made that call unless they live alone and don't have visitors.
And when you stop to think about it, my email is really just a code so the mailserver knows where to put some bytes it receives, it doesn't really have anything to do with me.
But there, to get it, you need a password and such.
So again, it is more closely tied to an individual.
And a reasonable person would assume that you didn't share your email, or only did so with a limited number of people you were familiar with (like hubby and wife sharing a single account), so you would still be responsible.
That's still different from a non-identifying number assigned to a subscriber line that wasn't designed to identify a person and wasn't designed to be secure in its identification.
It can be hacked, spoofed, shared, and isn't tied to a person at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624409</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247075640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can also be ticketed for speeding or running a red light soley on the basis of license plate. There was a story not too long ago talking about how a bunch of irate teens taped the license plate numbers of their teachers to their cars and drove past a traffic cam. The city had an automated system set up to send tickets to any license plate number caught speeding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can also be ticketed for speeding or running a red light soley on the basis of license plate .
There was a story not too long ago talking about how a bunch of irate teens taped the license plate numbers of their teachers to their cars and drove past a traffic cam .
The city had an automated system set up to send tickets to any license plate number caught speeding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can also be ticketed for speeding or running a red light soley on the basis of license plate.
There was a story not too long ago talking about how a bunch of irate teens taped the license plate numbers of their teachers to their cars and drove past a traffic cam.
The city had an automated system set up to send tickets to any license plate number caught speeding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628257</id>
	<title>Re:How is this significant to RIAA cases?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247047080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chewbacca Defense!!!<br>It was Chewbacca with a wap and a netbook in the garage!<br>With Colonel Mustard on the side!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chewbacca Defense ! !
! It was Chewbacca with a wap and a netbook in the garage ! With Colonel Mustard on the side !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chewbacca Defense!!
!It was Chewbacca with a wap and a netbook in the garage!With Colonel Mustard on the side!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626311</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>mauriceh</author>
	<datestamp>1247082240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It all comes down to what I will call "Commercial convenience"<br>If a governmental agency wants to collect revenue, they will easily find judges to support their contention<br>that issuing a ticket to a car from a photo radar point is quite acceptable.</p><p>In the case of RIAA suits, or other commercial situations is also clear:<br>If the money leads to the IP, the ruling will favour that use.<br>If the money leads to not accepting the IP as a valid identifier, that will also be the predominant ruling.</p><p>It all comes down to two rules:<br>1) Follow the money<br>2) You can't fight city hall.</p><p>It all illustrates what a sham court rulings can be.</p><p>Whatever the "800 lb gorilla" needs will be the law of the land.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It all comes down to what I will call " Commercial convenience " If a governmental agency wants to collect revenue , they will easily find judges to support their contentionthat issuing a ticket to a car from a photo radar point is quite acceptable.In the case of RIAA suits , or other commercial situations is also clear : If the money leads to the IP , the ruling will favour that use.If the money leads to not accepting the IP as a valid identifier , that will also be the predominant ruling.It all comes down to two rules : 1 ) Follow the money2 ) You ca n't fight city hall.It all illustrates what a sham court rulings can be.Whatever the " 800 lb gorilla " needs will be the law of the land .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It all comes down to what I will call "Commercial convenience"If a governmental agency wants to collect revenue, they will easily find judges to support their contentionthat issuing a ticket to a car from a photo radar point is quite acceptable.In the case of RIAA suits, or other commercial situations is also clear:If the money leads to the IP, the ruling will favour that use.If the money leads to not accepting the IP as a valid identifier, that will also be the predominant ruling.It all comes down to two rules:1) Follow the money2) You can't fight city hall.It all illustrates what a sham court rulings can be.Whatever the "800 lb gorilla" needs will be the law of the land.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625115</id>
	<title>Re:Legal code for this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247078040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>else return "Please submit amount available to donate to my election campaign";</p></div></blockquote><p>Cute, but very wrong.  Article III (as in article III of the Constitution) Federal judges are appointed for life.  Just because you don't like their opinions and you are unwilling to study them to find out what distinguishes one ruling from another doesn't mean that Federal judges are corrupt or biased in favor of evil corporations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>else return " Please submit amount available to donate to my election campaign " ; Cute , but very wrong .
Article III ( as in article III of the Constitution ) Federal judges are appointed for life .
Just because you do n't like their opinions and you are unwilling to study them to find out what distinguishes one ruling from another does n't mean that Federal judges are corrupt or biased in favor of evil corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>else return "Please submit amount available to donate to my election campaign";Cute, but very wrong.
Article III (as in article III of the Constitution) Federal judges are appointed for life.
Just because you don't like their opinions and you are unwilling to study them to find out what distinguishes one ruling from another doesn't mean that Federal judges are corrupt or biased in favor of evil corporations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623845</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>dilute</author>
	<datestamp>1247073660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I got a ticket because someone who was driving a car with my plate number went through a light and the plate was automatically photographed.  Now I have an airtight defense!  Whoopee!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I got a ticket because someone who was driving a car with my plate number went through a light and the plate was automatically photographed .
Now I have an airtight defense !
Whoopee !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I got a ticket because someone who was driving a car with my plate number went through a light and the plate was automatically photographed.
Now I have an airtight defense!
Whoopee!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624217</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1247075100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>VPN baby.<br><br>Just connect to a secure VPN server and you can go back to the underground net.</htmltext>
<tokenext>VPN baby.Just connect to a secure VPN server and you can go back to the underground net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VPN baby.Just connect to a secure VPN server and you can go back to the underground net.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627265</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>ArcCoyote</author>
	<datestamp>1247085600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where I live, if you get nailed by a red-light or speed camera, the violation is on the vehicle. No points are assessed on your driving record (because they cannot prove it was a certain person) but that vehicle's registration can't be renewed (and may be suspended) unless you either pay the fine or go to court as the owner of the vehicle.</p><p>When your ISP can produce the logs showing a particular IP was assigned to your CPE MAC, which is in turn tied to your account, there is a connection between you and the IP address. It doesn't necessarily identify you or your computers, but you bear some responsibility for it.</p><p>To continue the car analogy, if you leave your network open, that's like leaving your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition. If someone "borrows" it and starts running down pedestrians, the police are going to trace the car back to you by the tags and if they can show you took no precautions (or even encouraged) open use of that vehicle... you might get in trouble!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where I live , if you get nailed by a red-light or speed camera , the violation is on the vehicle .
No points are assessed on your driving record ( because they can not prove it was a certain person ) but that vehicle 's registration ca n't be renewed ( and may be suspended ) unless you either pay the fine or go to court as the owner of the vehicle.When your ISP can produce the logs showing a particular IP was assigned to your CPE MAC , which is in turn tied to your account , there is a connection between you and the IP address .
It does n't necessarily identify you or your computers , but you bear some responsibility for it.To continue the car analogy , if you leave your network open , that 's like leaving your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition .
If someone " borrows " it and starts running down pedestrians , the police are going to trace the car back to you by the tags and if they can show you took no precautions ( or even encouraged ) open use of that vehicle... you might get in trouble !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where I live, if you get nailed by a red-light or speed camera, the violation is on the vehicle.
No points are assessed on your driving record (because they cannot prove it was a certain person) but that vehicle's registration can't be renewed (and may be suspended) unless you either pay the fine or go to court as the owner of the vehicle.When your ISP can produce the logs showing a particular IP was assigned to your CPE MAC, which is in turn tied to your account, there is a connection between you and the IP address.
It doesn't necessarily identify you or your computers, but you bear some responsibility for it.To continue the car analogy, if you leave your network open, that's like leaving your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition.
If someone "borrows" it and starts running down pedestrians, the police are going to trace the car back to you by the tags and if they can show you took no precautions (or even encouraged) open use of that vehicle... you might get in trouble!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623773</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, it's not personal at all</title>
	<author>moon3</author>
	<datestamp>1247073420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bad analogy. Internet is not a car. After your grandma clicks smiley that installs Trojan to serve some terrible content, virus that does spam, DOS or similar thing from your IP. Then your family might be investigated by authorities.. you will then thank that good Judge, the Jury and the God almighty for this very resolution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad analogy .
Internet is not a car .
After your grandma clicks smiley that installs Trojan to serve some terrible content , virus that does spam , DOS or similar thing from your IP .
Then your family might be investigated by authorities.. you will then thank that good Judge , the Jury and the God almighty for this very resolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad analogy.
Internet is not a car.
After your grandma clicks smiley that installs Trojan to serve some terrible content, virus that does spam, DOS or similar thing from your IP.
Then your family might be investigated by authorities.. you will then thank that good Judge, the Jury and the God almighty for this very resolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626243</id>
	<title>And My Checking Account</title>
	<author>gearloos</author>
	<datestamp>1247081940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And My Checking Account Just Describes My Money.
nothing personal.....jeeze</htmltext>
<tokenext>And My Checking Account Just Describes My Money .
nothing personal.....jeeze</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And My Checking Account Just Describes My Money.
nothing personal.....jeeze</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28629101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28638947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28635911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28632199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28630897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28630797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28629219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28632021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28632755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28635175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28633727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28687893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28642475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28633559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28634063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1522247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28630251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625273
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623571
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28687893
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28634063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28632021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623979
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627069
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625105
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628771
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28635175
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624375
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623805
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625405
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626173
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624409
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623835
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624185
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628257
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623687
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28642475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627553
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28632199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28630897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624923
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626251
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28635911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28629219
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623499
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626765
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625365
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627209
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625353
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624627
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624715
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627295
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624217
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625603
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625401
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28630251
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626479
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625723
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625607
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626721
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28633727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623467
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627237
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627815
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28630797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628117
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28638947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624191
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623771
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624585
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625145
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626821
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625225
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624171
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28626387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28627559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28632755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28633559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28629101
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28625459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1522247.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28623553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28624655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1522247.28628353
</commentlist>
</conversation>
