<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_29_2257209</id>
	<title>Federal Judge Says E-mail Not Protected By 4th Amendment</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256817480000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>DustyShadow writes <i>"In the case In re United States, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael\_W.\_Mosman">Judge Mosman</a> ruled that there is <a href="http://volokh.com/2009/10/28/district-judge-concludes-e-mail-not-protected-by-fourth-amendment/">no constitutional requirement of notice to the account holder</a> because the Fourth Amendment does not apply to e-mails under the third-party doctrine. 'When a person uses the Internet, the user's actions are no longer in his or her physical home; in fact he or she is not truly acting in private space at all. The user is generally accessing the Internet with a network account and computer storage owned by an ISP like Comcast or NetZero. All materials stored online, whether they are e-mails or remotely stored documents, are physically stored on servers owned by an ISP. When we send an e-mail or instant message from the comfort of our own homes to a friend across town the message travels from our computer to computers owned by a third party, the ISP, before being delivered to the intended recipient. Thus 'private' information is actually being held by third-party private companies.""</i> <strong>Updated 2:50 GMT by timothy:</strong> Orin Kerr, on whose blog post of yesterday this story was founded, has issued an <a href="http://volokh.com/2009/10/29/opinion-on-fourth-amendment-and-e-mail/">important correction</a>. He  writes, at the above-linked Volokh Conspiracy, "In the course of re-reading the opinion to post it, I recognized that I was misreading a key part of the opinion. As I read it now, Judge Mosman does not conclude that e-mails are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Rather, he assumes for the sake of argument that the e-mails are protected (see bottom of page 12), but then concludes that the third party context negates an argument for Fourth Amendment notice <em>to the subscribers.</em>"</htmltext>
<tokenext>DustyShadow writes " In the case In re United States , Judge Mosman ruled that there is no constitutional requirement of notice to the account holder because the Fourth Amendment does not apply to e-mails under the third-party doctrine .
'When a person uses the Internet , the user 's actions are no longer in his or her physical home ; in fact he or she is not truly acting in private space at all .
The user is generally accessing the Internet with a network account and computer storage owned by an ISP like Comcast or NetZero .
All materials stored online , whether they are e-mails or remotely stored documents , are physically stored on servers owned by an ISP .
When we send an e-mail or instant message from the comfort of our own homes to a friend across town the message travels from our computer to computers owned by a third party , the ISP , before being delivered to the intended recipient .
Thus 'private ' information is actually being held by third-party private companies .
" " Updated 2 : 50 GMT by timothy : Orin Kerr , on whose blog post of yesterday this story was founded , has issued an important correction .
He writes , at the above-linked Volokh Conspiracy , " In the course of re-reading the opinion to post it , I recognized that I was misreading a key part of the opinion .
As I read it now , Judge Mosman does not conclude that e-mails are not protected by the Fourth Amendment .
Rather , he assumes for the sake of argument that the e-mails are protected ( see bottom of page 12 ) , but then concludes that the third party context negates an argument for Fourth Amendment notice to the subscribers .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DustyShadow writes "In the case In re United States, Judge Mosman ruled that there is no constitutional requirement of notice to the account holder because the Fourth Amendment does not apply to e-mails under the third-party doctrine.
'When a person uses the Internet, the user's actions are no longer in his or her physical home; in fact he or she is not truly acting in private space at all.
The user is generally accessing the Internet with a network account and computer storage owned by an ISP like Comcast or NetZero.
All materials stored online, whether they are e-mails or remotely stored documents, are physically stored on servers owned by an ISP.
When we send an e-mail or instant message from the comfort of our own homes to a friend across town the message travels from our computer to computers owned by a third party, the ISP, before being delivered to the intended recipient.
Thus 'private' information is actually being held by third-party private companies.
"" Updated 2:50 GMT by timothy: Orin Kerr, on whose blog post of yesterday this story was founded, has issued an important correction.
He  writes, at the above-linked Volokh Conspiracy, "In the course of re-reading the opinion to post it, I recognized that I was misreading a key part of the opinion.
As I read it now, Judge Mosman does not conclude that e-mails are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Rather, he assumes for the sake of argument that the e-mails are protected (see bottom of page 12), but then concludes that the third party context negates an argument for Fourth Amendment notice to the subscribers.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920067</id>
	<title>ER, port 25 is open in MY machine</title>
	<author>Rene S. Hollan</author>
	<datestamp>1256831520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you send ME email, it winds up in MY computer, not one owned by an ISP.</p><p>And, even if an ISP held it "in trust" for me, so what?</p><p>Finally, the roads are public spaces, but the USPS, UPS and Fedex trucks on them are not.</p><p>What was this judge smoking?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you send ME email , it winds up in MY computer , not one owned by an ISP.And , even if an ISP held it " in trust " for me , so what ? Finally , the roads are public spaces , but the USPS , UPS and Fedex trucks on them are not.What was this judge smoking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you send ME email, it winds up in MY computer, not one owned by an ISP.And, even if an ISP held it "in trust" for me, so what?Finally, the roads are public spaces, but the USPS, UPS and Fedex trucks on them are not.What was this judge smoking?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919109</id>
	<title>Safe Deposit Box</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1256823960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An email box is like a safe deposit box.</p><p>I pay the bank for my safe deposit box to provide secure storage for, and access to, private documents and belongings.</p><p>I pay my email provider for my email box to provide secure storage for, and access to, private documents and belongings.</p><p>The government can no more righfully search and seize my email inbox without a warrant than it can my safe deposit box without a warrant.</p><p>The government can go fuck themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An email box is like a safe deposit box.I pay the bank for my safe deposit box to provide secure storage for , and access to , private documents and belongings.I pay my email provider for my email box to provide secure storage for , and access to , private documents and belongings.The government can no more righfully search and seize my email inbox without a warrant than it can my safe deposit box without a warrant.The government can go fuck themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An email box is like a safe deposit box.I pay the bank for my safe deposit box to provide secure storage for, and access to, private documents and belongings.I pay my email provider for my email box to provide secure storage for, and access to, private documents and belongings.The government can no more righfully search and seize my email inbox without a warrant than it can my safe deposit box without a warrant.The government can go fuck themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29923123</id>
	<title>Exactly!</title>
	<author>KiwiCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1256914380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I send a letter through snail mail, I hand deliver it. It's not like I use a 3rd party like the POSTAL SERVICE!</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I send a letter through snail mail , I hand deliver it .
It 's not like I use a 3rd party like the POSTAL SERVICE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I send a letter through snail mail, I hand deliver it.
It's not like I use a 3rd party like the POSTAL SERVICE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919757</id>
	<title>Just like regular mail</title>
	<author>wakaramon</author>
	<datestamp>1256828880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"When a person uses the postal service, the user's actions are no longer in his or her physical home; in fact he or she is not truly acting in private space at all. The user is generally accessing the postal service with a zip code and mailbox owned by the United States Postal Service. All materials in transit, whether they are letters or packages, are physically temporarely stored on facilities owned by the USPS. When we send a letter or a postcard from the comfort of our own homes to a friend across town the message travels from our home to facilities owned by a third party, the USPS, before being delivered to the intended recipient. Thus, "private" information is actually being held by third-parties."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" When a person uses the postal service , the user 's actions are no longer in his or her physical home ; in fact he or she is not truly acting in private space at all .
The user is generally accessing the postal service with a zip code and mailbox owned by the United States Postal Service .
All materials in transit , whether they are letters or packages , are physically temporarely stored on facilities owned by the USPS .
When we send a letter or a postcard from the comfort of our own homes to a friend across town the message travels from our home to facilities owned by a third party , the USPS , before being delivered to the intended recipient .
Thus , " private " information is actually being held by third-parties .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When a person uses the postal service, the user's actions are no longer in his or her physical home; in fact he or she is not truly acting in private space at all.
The user is generally accessing the postal service with a zip code and mailbox owned by the United States Postal Service.
All materials in transit, whether they are letters or packages, are physically temporarely stored on facilities owned by the USPS.
When we send a letter or a postcard from the comfort of our own homes to a friend across town the message travels from our home to facilities owned by a third party, the USPS, before being delivered to the intended recipient.
Thus, "private" information is actually being held by third-parties.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919367</id>
	<title>user name and password...</title>
	<author>modustollens</author>
	<datestamp>1256825820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...what is the purpose of these standard email account necessities if not to secure my privacy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...what is the purpose of these standard email account necessities if not to secure my privacy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...what is the purpose of these standard email account necessities if not to secure my privacy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920539</id>
	<title>Re:There are tools that can help</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1256836620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Email encryption never hit mainstream because it doesn't work.</p><p>Encryption works, public keys work, private keys work, however acquiring and distributing those keys is a dogs breakfast, which means that setting it up and configuring it just doesn't work.</p><p>For PKI to work it actually requires a trusted third party to at the very least hold a directory of everyone's public keys, and most likely handle all the generation and distribution of both the private key and public key, if not the backup and archiving of the private key.</p><p>The problem with this is of course that there's no such thing as a trusted third party for something like that. The government is the only even remotely sane choice, and that's who most people using encrypted e-mail want to hide from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Email encryption never hit mainstream because it does n't work.Encryption works , public keys work , private keys work , however acquiring and distributing those keys is a dogs breakfast , which means that setting it up and configuring it just does n't work.For PKI to work it actually requires a trusted third party to at the very least hold a directory of everyone 's public keys , and most likely handle all the generation and distribution of both the private key and public key , if not the backup and archiving of the private key.The problem with this is of course that there 's no such thing as a trusted third party for something like that .
The government is the only even remotely sane choice , and that 's who most people using encrypted e-mail want to hide from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email encryption never hit mainstream because it doesn't work.Encryption works, public keys work, private keys work, however acquiring and distributing those keys is a dogs breakfast, which means that setting it up and configuring it just doesn't work.For PKI to work it actually requires a trusted third party to at the very least hold a directory of everyone's public keys, and most likely handle all the generation and distribution of both the private key and public key, if not the backup and archiving of the private key.The problem with this is of course that there's no such thing as a trusted third party for something like that.
The government is the only even remotely sane choice, and that's who most people using encrypted e-mail want to hide from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918789</id>
	<title>RIP Cloud Computing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256822280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... we loved you while you sort of started.  And then were killed.  By the feds... who contract with the GSA for cloud computing?</p><p>Additionally, my comments are now owned by Slashdot and I as the user am no longer responsible for them.  So there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... we loved you while you sort of started .
And then were killed .
By the feds... who contract with the GSA for cloud computing ? Additionally , my comments are now owned by Slashdot and I as the user am no longer responsible for them .
So there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... we loved you while you sort of started.
And then were killed.
By the feds... who contract with the GSA for cloud computing?Additionally, my comments are now owned by Slashdot and I as the user am no longer responsible for them.
So there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919179</id>
	<title>Re:judges: stay the HELL out of tech and ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256824320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ooga booga! The evil, conniving judges are out to get you! Looks like your tinfoil hat needs a bit of adjustment.</p><p>Why do judges have to "rule in" on things? Do you really not understand the answer to that question? Sigh, okay, let's go through this slowly, since it's "CLEAR" you don't know what the purpose of law is.</p><p>Law is established to maintain order in a society. The law is a set of rules that the denizens of the society must obey. But the rules are written in English, and English is not perfect at describing actions, and certainly not at describing all possible actions or nuances. So we need some people to interpret those rules at the edge cases. That's what a judge is, and that's why judges have to "rule in" on things they don't know much about, because the law needs to cover pretty much everything. But judges can't be experts on everything. No one can. So, judges rely on two things: relevant previous case rulings and various materials submitted to the court specific to the case.</p><p>Yes, I agree that judges are not as up to speed on computer technology as they could be. But I promise you, the situation is improving. Many judges today might not be able to tell a computer from a monitor (or their ass), but judges are older than professionals of law in general. It's horrifyingly true that some judges' closest contact to a computer is dictating a letter to their secretary to type up, but the younger professionals -- meaning pretty much everyone under 50 -- are perfectly comfortable with computers and the internet. Walk into any law class and witness 98\% of the students taking notes on laptops. That doesn't make them tech experts, of course, but that certainly makes them more familiar with the general concepts, like mainstream expectations of privacy. I know you probably want improvements NOW NOW NOW, but law moves slowly by design, while current technology moves at a ridiculously fast pace.</p><p>In addition to all of the above, rulings on tech law are also based on, of all things, law, with which judges are far more familiar than you are. So, please, refrain from passing your naive judgment on a ruling since you admit to not knowing the field of law.</p><p>Also, next time, omit the plotting-judges conspiracy. You're ruining our plans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ooga booga !
The evil , conniving judges are out to get you !
Looks like your tinfoil hat needs a bit of adjustment.Why do judges have to " rule in " on things ?
Do you really not understand the answer to that question ?
Sigh , okay , let 's go through this slowly , since it 's " CLEAR " you do n't know what the purpose of law is.Law is established to maintain order in a society .
The law is a set of rules that the denizens of the society must obey .
But the rules are written in English , and English is not perfect at describing actions , and certainly not at describing all possible actions or nuances .
So we need some people to interpret those rules at the edge cases .
That 's what a judge is , and that 's why judges have to " rule in " on things they do n't know much about , because the law needs to cover pretty much everything .
But judges ca n't be experts on everything .
No one can .
So , judges rely on two things : relevant previous case rulings and various materials submitted to the court specific to the case.Yes , I agree that judges are not as up to speed on computer technology as they could be .
But I promise you , the situation is improving .
Many judges today might not be able to tell a computer from a monitor ( or their ass ) , but judges are older than professionals of law in general .
It 's horrifyingly true that some judges ' closest contact to a computer is dictating a letter to their secretary to type up , but the younger professionals -- meaning pretty much everyone under 50 -- are perfectly comfortable with computers and the internet .
Walk into any law class and witness 98 \ % of the students taking notes on laptops .
That does n't make them tech experts , of course , but that certainly makes them more familiar with the general concepts , like mainstream expectations of privacy .
I know you probably want improvements NOW NOW NOW , but law moves slowly by design , while current technology moves at a ridiculously fast pace.In addition to all of the above , rulings on tech law are also based on , of all things , law , with which judges are far more familiar than you are .
So , please , refrain from passing your naive judgment on a ruling since you admit to not knowing the field of law.Also , next time , omit the plotting-judges conspiracy .
You 're ruining our plans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ooga booga!
The evil, conniving judges are out to get you!
Looks like your tinfoil hat needs a bit of adjustment.Why do judges have to "rule in" on things?
Do you really not understand the answer to that question?
Sigh, okay, let's go through this slowly, since it's "CLEAR" you don't know what the purpose of law is.Law is established to maintain order in a society.
The law is a set of rules that the denizens of the society must obey.
But the rules are written in English, and English is not perfect at describing actions, and certainly not at describing all possible actions or nuances.
So we need some people to interpret those rules at the edge cases.
That's what a judge is, and that's why judges have to "rule in" on things they don't know much about, because the law needs to cover pretty much everything.
But judges can't be experts on everything.
No one can.
So, judges rely on two things: relevant previous case rulings and various materials submitted to the court specific to the case.Yes, I agree that judges are not as up to speed on computer technology as they could be.
But I promise you, the situation is improving.
Many judges today might not be able to tell a computer from a monitor (or their ass), but judges are older than professionals of law in general.
It's horrifyingly true that some judges' closest contact to a computer is dictating a letter to their secretary to type up, but the younger professionals -- meaning pretty much everyone under 50 -- are perfectly comfortable with computers and the internet.
Walk into any law class and witness 98\% of the students taking notes on laptops.
That doesn't make them tech experts, of course, but that certainly makes them more familiar with the general concepts, like mainstream expectations of privacy.
I know you probably want improvements NOW NOW NOW, but law moves slowly by design, while current technology moves at a ridiculously fast pace.In addition to all of the above, rulings on tech law are also based on, of all things, law, with which judges are far more familiar than you are.
So, please, refrain from passing your naive judgment on a ruling since you admit to not knowing the field of law.Also, next time, omit the plotting-judges conspiracy.
You're ruining our plans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29922481</id>
	<title>Great</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1256910060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And when we send a letter in the mail, it physically resides at a postal facility, postal airplane, postal truck, and in the postal worker's mail bag. When we call someone, our voice data is most certainly stored on a large number of phone switches and switch modules while it's being encoded, multiplexed and the reverse at the far end. So it's good to know the government won't need to notify subscribers.</p><p>TFA is not accessible at the moment, so all this may have already been addressed there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And when we send a letter in the mail , it physically resides at a postal facility , postal airplane , postal truck , and in the postal worker 's mail bag .
When we call someone , our voice data is most certainly stored on a large number of phone switches and switch modules while it 's being encoded , multiplexed and the reverse at the far end .
So it 's good to know the government wo n't need to notify subscribers.TFA is not accessible at the moment , so all this may have already been addressed there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when we send a letter in the mail, it physically resides at a postal facility, postal airplane, postal truck, and in the postal worker's mail bag.
When we call someone, our voice data is most certainly stored on a large number of phone switches and switch modules while it's being encoded, multiplexed and the reverse at the far end.
So it's good to know the government won't need to notify subscribers.TFA is not accessible at the moment, so all this may have already been addressed there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29923971</id>
	<title>When i am paying for a service,</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1256918400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>When i am paying for a service,ie,Internet connection that includes 5 email addresses i expect 100\% privicy for my emails. Now if i use gmail or anyother free email service i get what i pay for and expect as much. Its just that simple<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>When i am paying for a service,ie,Internet connection that includes 5 email addresses i expect 100 \ % privicy for my emails .
Now if i use gmail or anyother free email service i get what i pay for and expect as much .
Its just that simple : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When i am paying for a service,ie,Internet connection that includes 5 email addresses i expect 100\% privicy for my emails.
Now if i use gmail or anyother free email service i get what i pay for and expect as much.
Its just that simple :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919033</id>
	<title>Forget email, put NOTHING in the cloud!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256823480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By this argument, NOTHING in the cloud is protected by the 4th amendment.  Until this obviously flawed decision is overturned, cloud computing is out as an option for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By this argument , NOTHING in the cloud is protected by the 4th amendment .
Until this obviously flawed decision is overturned , cloud computing is out as an option for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By this argument, NOTHING in the cloud is protected by the 4th amendment.
Until this obviously flawed decision is overturned, cloud computing is out as an option for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918829</id>
	<title>Re:*splutter*... US Mail?</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1256822460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Postal mail privacy is a tradition that predates the current era of American politics.  In the new, digital age, you do not have the expectation of privacy, unless you are one of those crazy paranoid hacker types who uses encryption.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Postal mail privacy is a tradition that predates the current era of American politics .
In the new , digital age , you do not have the expectation of privacy , unless you are one of those crazy paranoid hacker types who uses encryption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Postal mail privacy is a tradition that predates the current era of American politics.
In the new, digital age, you do not have the expectation of privacy, unless you are one of those crazy paranoid hacker types who uses encryption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919513</id>
	<title>It's not important what states the law</title>
	<author>HollyMolly-1122</author>
	<datestamp>1256827020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Important is: who makes judgements and what is the purpose of it.
As far as people allows for lawayers to interpret meanings, they place their entire life in the hands of other people, not god.
There is not so many words in the world to describe every possible twist of interpretation. The same holds true for stupidity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Important is : who makes judgements and what is the purpose of it .
As far as people allows for lawayers to interpret meanings , they place their entire life in the hands of other people , not god .
There is not so many words in the world to describe every possible twist of interpretation .
The same holds true for stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Important is: who makes judgements and what is the purpose of it.
As far as people allows for lawayers to interpret meanings, they place their entire life in the hands of other people, not god.
There is not so many words in the world to describe every possible twist of interpretation.
The same holds true for stupidity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918945</id>
	<title>The death of the provider server?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256822880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering that many people already are not using their ISP's e-mail server, is this likely to become the death knell of publicly provided e-mail services?</p><p>I can see this being a significant issue for gmail, msn, yahoo and AOL (almost had SOL there, interesting) and their customer relations. For me it's a 5 min process to move my own services back onto my own computers. And as part of that I can advise friends and people I am going to exchange personal e-mail with to use an encrypted platform.</p><p>I don't know that it's going to be of use to many other people however. We've put a lot of work over time into making web based services simple to work with. Just as Microsoft put millions of hours into making Windows into a simple to use and work with platform. Building security and privacy into those platforms is not going to be a simple matter of tacking authentication and ssl onto them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that many people already are not using their ISP 's e-mail server , is this likely to become the death knell of publicly provided e-mail services ? I can see this being a significant issue for gmail , msn , yahoo and AOL ( almost had SOL there , interesting ) and their customer relations .
For me it 's a 5 min process to move my own services back onto my own computers .
And as part of that I can advise friends and people I am going to exchange personal e-mail with to use an encrypted platform.I do n't know that it 's going to be of use to many other people however .
We 've put a lot of work over time into making web based services simple to work with .
Just as Microsoft put millions of hours into making Windows into a simple to use and work with platform .
Building security and privacy into those platforms is not going to be a simple matter of tacking authentication and ssl onto them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering that many people already are not using their ISP's e-mail server, is this likely to become the death knell of publicly provided e-mail services?I can see this being a significant issue for gmail, msn, yahoo and AOL (almost had SOL there, interesting) and their customer relations.
For me it's a 5 min process to move my own services back onto my own computers.
And as part of that I can advise friends and people I am going to exchange personal e-mail with to use an encrypted platform.I don't know that it's going to be of use to many other people however.
We've put a lot of work over time into making web based services simple to work with.
Just as Microsoft put millions of hours into making Windows into a simple to use and work with platform.
Building security and privacy into those platforms is not going to be a simple matter of tacking authentication and ssl onto them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919771</id>
	<title>Re:Does this mean...</title>
	<author>univalue</author>
	<datestamp>1256829000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just wonder if you keep sending postcards?  Flip the card over and you can read it plain as day.   Most email is plain text.  While routers read the email data packets all the time.   Now if you encrypt your email or put your letter in an envelope would things change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wonder if you keep sending postcards ?
Flip the card over and you can read it plain as day .
Most email is plain text .
While routers read the email data packets all the time .
Now if you encrypt your email or put your letter in an envelope would things change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wonder if you keep sending postcards?
Flip the card over and you can read it plain as day.
Most email is plain text.
While routers read the email data packets all the time.
Now if you encrypt your email or put your letter in an envelope would things change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919761</id>
	<title>This story is simply incorrect...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256828880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and the author (Orin Kerr) has apologised.</p><p>http://volokh.com/2009/10/29/opinion-on-fourth-amendment-and-e-mail/</p><p>The judge's opinion only concerned whether or not the fourth amendment required the owner of an email account to be served NOTICE of a search having taken place, not whether the actual search is covered by the fourth amendment.</p><p>Huge difference.</p><p>Please fix this someone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the author ( Orin Kerr ) has apologised.http : //volokh.com/2009/10/29/opinion-on-fourth-amendment-and-e-mail/The judge 's opinion only concerned whether or not the fourth amendment required the owner of an email account to be served NOTICE of a search having taken place , not whether the actual search is covered by the fourth amendment.Huge difference.Please fix this someone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the author (Orin Kerr) has apologised.http://volokh.com/2009/10/29/opinion-on-fourth-amendment-and-e-mail/The judge's opinion only concerned whether or not the fourth amendment required the owner of an email account to be served NOTICE of a search having taken place, not whether the actual search is covered by the fourth amendment.Huge difference.Please fix this someone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29922009</id>
	<title>That...  wouldn't make sense at all.</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1256903520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; When a person uses the Internet, the user's<br>&gt; actions are no longer in his or her physical home<br><br>You know, I'm pretty sure "houses" is only *one* of the four things listed in the amendment.  Aren't we also supposed to be secure in our persons, papers, and effects, against unwarranted searches and seizures?<br><br>&gt; All materials stored online, whether they are e-mails<br>&gt; or remotely stored documents, are physically stored<br>&gt; on servers owned by an ISP.<br><br>If I rent storage space for physical objects, can that space now be searched without a warrant?  So a bank safe deposit box, for instance, is fair game for unwarranted searches, merely because I don't personally own it?<br><br>I'm really glad this is based on a misreading of the judge's opinion, because if this had been for real, it would be scary.  (Not because I'm worried that my stuff will be searched -- I don't really have much to hide, so the fourth amendment isn't particularly dear to me as things go -- but because any government that can treat its own constitution in that flagrant a fashion would likely also ignore my other legal rights, some of which *are* quite dear to me.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; When a person uses the Internet , the user 's &gt; actions are no longer in his or her physical homeYou know , I 'm pretty sure " houses " is only * one * of the four things listed in the amendment .
Are n't we also supposed to be secure in our persons , papers , and effects , against unwarranted searches and seizures ? &gt; All materials stored online , whether they are e-mails &gt; or remotely stored documents , are physically stored &gt; on servers owned by an ISP.If I rent storage space for physical objects , can that space now be searched without a warrant ?
So a bank safe deposit box , for instance , is fair game for unwarranted searches , merely because I do n't personally own it ? I 'm really glad this is based on a misreading of the judge 's opinion , because if this had been for real , it would be scary .
( Not because I 'm worried that my stuff will be searched -- I do n't really have much to hide , so the fourth amendment is n't particularly dear to me as things go -- but because any government that can treat its own constitution in that flagrant a fashion would likely also ignore my other legal rights , some of which * are * quite dear to me .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; When a person uses the Internet, the user's&gt; actions are no longer in his or her physical homeYou know, I'm pretty sure "houses" is only *one* of the four things listed in the amendment.
Aren't we also supposed to be secure in our persons, papers, and effects, against unwarranted searches and seizures?&gt; All materials stored online, whether they are e-mails&gt; or remotely stored documents, are physically stored&gt; on servers owned by an ISP.If I rent storage space for physical objects, can that space now be searched without a warrant?
So a bank safe deposit box, for instance, is fair game for unwarranted searches, merely because I don't personally own it?I'm really glad this is based on a misreading of the judge's opinion, because if this had been for real, it would be scary.
(Not because I'm worried that my stuff will be searched -- I don't really have much to hide, so the fourth amendment isn't particularly dear to me as things go -- but because any government that can treat its own constitution in that flagrant a fashion would likely also ignore my other legal rights, some of which *are* quite dear to me.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919399</id>
	<title>Re:By this logic...</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1256826060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Medical records are recognized by law as special exemptions to most laws that deal with (or more usually, codify the general lack of) personal information and privacy. See HIPPA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Medical records are recognized by law as special exemptions to most laws that deal with ( or more usually , codify the general lack of ) personal information and privacy .
See HIPPA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Medical records are recognized by law as special exemptions to most laws that deal with (or more usually, codify the general lack of) personal information and privacy.
See HIPPA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920389</id>
	<title>Apartments are owned by a 3rd party</title>
	<author>j0ebaker</author>
	<datestamp>1256834880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apartments are third party storage locations and houses.  What about<br>the homeless who keep their documents in on-line storage locations?<br>They need protection as well.</p><p>Papers and effects are to be free from unreasonable search and<br>seizure.</p><p>I'm talking out of both sides of my head again.</p><p>I'm Joey the Anarchist and It can be shown that the US Government is<br>invalid in it's present form - totally and completely as a matter of<br>law.  The US Constitution was void before the ink dried on it.  Hear<br>the podcasts up at <a href="http://nahls.net/" title="nahls.net" rel="nofollow">http://nahls.net/</a> [nahls.net] to learn more or if you like read<br>the newsletter there.</p><p>Damn! Slashdot wouldn't let me PGP sign this message!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apartments are third party storage locations and houses .
What aboutthe homeless who keep their documents in on-line storage locations ? They need protection as well.Papers and effects are to be free from unreasonable search andseizure.I 'm talking out of both sides of my head again.I 'm Joey the Anarchist and It can be shown that the US Government isinvalid in it 's present form - totally and completely as a matter oflaw .
The US Constitution was void before the ink dried on it .
Hearthe podcasts up at http : //nahls.net/ [ nahls.net ] to learn more or if you like readthe newsletter there.Damn !
Slashdot would n't let me PGP sign this message !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apartments are third party storage locations and houses.
What aboutthe homeless who keep their documents in on-line storage locations?They need protection as well.Papers and effects are to be free from unreasonable search andseizure.I'm talking out of both sides of my head again.I'm Joey the Anarchist and It can be shown that the US Government isinvalid in it's present form - totally and completely as a matter oflaw.
The US Constitution was void before the ink dried on it.
Hearthe podcasts up at http://nahls.net/ [nahls.net] to learn more or if you like readthe newsletter there.Damn!
Slashdot wouldn't let me PGP sign this message!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919671</id>
	<title>Re:TFA talks about notification not access</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1256828160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about my storage unit?  Or my box at the post office?  Or my box at the bank?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about my storage unit ?
Or my box at the post office ?
Or my box at the bank ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about my storage unit?
Or my box at the post office?
Or my box at the bank?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918609</id>
	<title>*splutter*... US Mail?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256821440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Government <b>does</b> have to get a warrant to open your mail.  Don't they?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Government does have to get a warrant to open your mail .
Do n't they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Government does have to get a warrant to open your mail.
Don't they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919849</id>
	<title>Re:Bush Appointee</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1256829600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not to get all ad hominem or anything, but [ad hominem logic].</p></div><p>There, condensed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to get all ad hominem or anything , but [ ad hominem logic ] .There , condensed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to get all ad hominem or anything, but [ad hominem logic].There, condensed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919601</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder if you can use the DMCA to your advant</title>
	<author>coolmoose25</author>
	<datestamp>1256827560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's my new email sig...<br> <br>
"Copyright  2009, All Rights Reserved - NOTICE:  This email has been digitally encrypted with the Double ROT13 encryption algorithm.  Any unauthorized access is a violation of the DMCA and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's my new email sig.. . " Copyright 2009 , All Rights Reserved - NOTICE : This email has been digitally encrypted with the Double ROT13 encryption algorithm .
Any unauthorized access is a violation of the DMCA and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's my new email sig... 
"Copyright  2009, All Rights Reserved - NOTICE:  This email has been digitally encrypted with the Double ROT13 encryption algorithm.
Any unauthorized access is a violation of the DMCA and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918759</id>
	<title>This is not the same everywhere.</title>
	<author>www.sorehands.com</author>
	<datestamp>1256822100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recently in the second Circuit, it has been ruled that gmail users do have an expectation of privacy in their e-mail account.  <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Bear1.pdf" title="wsj.com">http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Bear1.pdf</a> [wsj.com]. Here the Court ruled that the warrant was too broad since it didn't restrict the inspection of e-mails that were unrelated to the investigation.</p><p>In light of both rulings, it may not prevent the government inspection, but could be grounds to suppress. Furthermore, the Stored communications act prohibits a warrant for this type of information unless, "offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recently in the second Circuit , it has been ruled that gmail users do have an expectation of privacy in their e-mail account .
http : //online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Bear1.pdf [ wsj.com ] .
Here the Court ruled that the warrant was too broad since it did n't restrict the inspection of e-mails that were unrelated to the investigation.In light of both rulings , it may not prevent the government inspection , but could be grounds to suppress .
Furthermore , the Stored communications act prohibits a warrant for this type of information unless , " offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication , or the records or other information sought , are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recently in the second Circuit, it has been ruled that gmail users do have an expectation of privacy in their e-mail account.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Bear1.pdf [wsj.com].
Here the Court ruled that the warrant was too broad since it didn't restrict the inspection of e-mails that were unrelated to the investigation.In light of both rulings, it may not prevent the government inspection, but could be grounds to suppress.
Furthermore, the Stored communications act prohibits a warrant for this type of information unless, "offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919629</id>
	<title>The blog's author has updated his analysis...</title>
	<author>steve buttgereit</author>
	<datestamp>1256827800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original author of the blog in the story has revised his analysis thus:</p><p>"In the course of re-reading the opinion to post it, I recognized that I was misreading a key part of the opinion. As I read it now, Judge Mosman does not conclude that e-mails are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Rather, he assumes for the sake of argument that the e-mails are protected (see bottom of page 12), but then concludes that the third party context negates an argument for Fourth Amendment notice to the subscribers. I missed this because the reasoning closely resembles the argument for saying that the Fourth Amendment doesn&rsquo;t apply at all, and I didn&rsquo;t read the earlier section closely enough. That&rsquo;s obviously a much narrower position, and I apologize for misunderstanding it the first time in the quick skim I gave it. Sorry about that: The fault is entirely mine."</p><p><a href="http://volokh.com/2009/10/29/opinion-on-fourth-amendment-and-e-mail/" title="volokh.com">http://volokh.com/2009/10/29/opinion-on-fourth-amendment-and-e-mail/</a> [volokh.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original author of the blog in the story has revised his analysis thus : " In the course of re-reading the opinion to post it , I recognized that I was misreading a key part of the opinion .
As I read it now , Judge Mosman does not conclude that e-mails are not protected by the Fourth Amendment .
Rather , he assumes for the sake of argument that the e-mails are protected ( see bottom of page 12 ) , but then concludes that the third party context negates an argument for Fourth Amendment notice to the subscribers .
I missed this because the reasoning closely resembles the argument for saying that the Fourth Amendment doesn    t apply at all , and I didn    t read the earlier section closely enough .
That    s obviously a much narrower position , and I apologize for misunderstanding it the first time in the quick skim I gave it .
Sorry about that : The fault is entirely mine .
" http : //volokh.com/2009/10/29/opinion-on-fourth-amendment-and-e-mail/ [ volokh.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original author of the blog in the story has revised his analysis thus:"In the course of re-reading the opinion to post it, I recognized that I was misreading a key part of the opinion.
As I read it now, Judge Mosman does not conclude that e-mails are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Rather, he assumes for the sake of argument that the e-mails are protected (see bottom of page 12), but then concludes that the third party context negates an argument for Fourth Amendment notice to the subscribers.
I missed this because the reasoning closely resembles the argument for saying that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply at all, and I didn’t read the earlier section closely enough.
That’s obviously a much narrower position, and I apologize for misunderstanding it the first time in the quick skim I gave it.
Sorry about that: The fault is entirely mine.
"http://volokh.com/2009/10/29/opinion-on-fourth-amendment-and-e-mail/ [volokh.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29923913</id>
	<title>Re:By this logic...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256918220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is also a GIANT warning sign for Cloud Computing.</p><p>Your proprietary data is not private.</p><p>How do you like them apples.</p><p>Although, how does this go with the ruling that data on a computer is not 'in plain sight' if you're executing a search warrant on another part of the computer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is also a GIANT warning sign for Cloud Computing.Your proprietary data is not private.How do you like them apples.Although , how does this go with the ruling that data on a computer is not 'in plain sight ' if you 're executing a search warrant on another part of the computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is also a GIANT warning sign for Cloud Computing.Your proprietary data is not private.How do you like them apples.Although, how does this go with the ruling that data on a computer is not 'in plain sight' if you're executing a search warrant on another part of the computer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919299</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder if you can use the DMCA to your advant</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1256825220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As a bit of an aside, does it matter if you try to make the data private via encryption?</p><p>There could be an interesting relationship here: If you claim (probably rightfully) that you own the copyright to the 'content' in question, and encrypt it, does this mean that it would be unlawful for anyone to try and decrypt it under the DMCA?</p></div><p>Yes (if the mail does not ever leave territories where the DMCA is officially respected). Even if you used something daft like ROT13. But we don't want to go lending credence to bad laws that way, and IIRC there are exceptions in that law (intended to pertain only to very specific law enforcement or national security activity, but which are no doubt easily bendable to justify even less desirable snooping too) that could render your copyright violation point officially irrelevant in a court of law (and completely irrelevant if the information has somehow become public anyway - depending on the sensitivity of the information it is likely that no end of legal action will rectify the damage done by its capture and release).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a bit of an aside , does it matter if you try to make the data private via encryption ? There could be an interesting relationship here : If you claim ( probably rightfully ) that you own the copyright to the 'content ' in question , and encrypt it , does this mean that it would be unlawful for anyone to try and decrypt it under the DMCA ? Yes ( if the mail does not ever leave territories where the DMCA is officially respected ) .
Even if you used something daft like ROT13 .
But we do n't want to go lending credence to bad laws that way , and IIRC there are exceptions in that law ( intended to pertain only to very specific law enforcement or national security activity , but which are no doubt easily bendable to justify even less desirable snooping too ) that could render your copyright violation point officially irrelevant in a court of law ( and completely irrelevant if the information has somehow become public anyway - depending on the sensitivity of the information it is likely that no end of legal action will rectify the damage done by its capture and release ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a bit of an aside, does it matter if you try to make the data private via encryption?There could be an interesting relationship here: If you claim (probably rightfully) that you own the copyright to the 'content' in question, and encrypt it, does this mean that it would be unlawful for anyone to try and decrypt it under the DMCA?Yes (if the mail does not ever leave territories where the DMCA is officially respected).
Even if you used something daft like ROT13.
But we don't want to go lending credence to bad laws that way, and IIRC there are exceptions in that law (intended to pertain only to very specific law enforcement or national security activity, but which are no doubt easily bendable to justify even less desirable snooping too) that could render your copyright violation point officially irrelevant in a court of law (and completely irrelevant if the information has somehow become public anyway - depending on the sensitivity of the information it is likely that no end of legal action will rectify the damage done by its capture and release).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918633</id>
	<title>Re:There are tools that can help</title>
	<author>Haxzaw</author>
	<datestamp>1256821500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only tool around this story is the judge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only tool around this story is the judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only tool around this story is the judge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919605</id>
	<title>Reason enough to encrypt your email</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256827560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An easy to use email encryption option is Voltage SecureMail.</p><p>Voltage SecureMail has plug-ins and a web interface for sending encrypted email to anyone.  Messages are stored only in the sender's Sent folder and the recipient's Inbox.</p><p>Recipients don't need any special software to decrypt and read their messages...just their browser.  And, it's much easier to use than PGP or SMIME.</p><p>Try it for free at http://www.voltage.com/vsn</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An easy to use email encryption option is Voltage SecureMail.Voltage SecureMail has plug-ins and a web interface for sending encrypted email to anyone .
Messages are stored only in the sender 's Sent folder and the recipient 's Inbox.Recipients do n't need any special software to decrypt and read their messages...just their browser .
And , it 's much easier to use than PGP or SMIME.Try it for free at http : //www.voltage.com/vsn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An easy to use email encryption option is Voltage SecureMail.Voltage SecureMail has plug-ins and a web interface for sending encrypted email to anyone.
Messages are stored only in the sender's Sent folder and the recipient's Inbox.Recipients don't need any special software to decrypt and read their messages...just their browser.
And, it's much easier to use than PGP or SMIME.Try it for free at http://www.voltage.com/vsn</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919755</id>
	<title>Also run</title>
	<author>isochroma</author>
	<datestamp>1256828820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I also run my own mail server, in my home, so assume the ruling does not apply. Furthermore, I find the judge's logic quite slipshod and overbroad, for obvious reasons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also run my own mail server , in my home , so assume the ruling does not apply .
Furthermore , I find the judge 's logic quite slipshod and overbroad , for obvious reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also run my own mail server, in my home, so assume the ruling does not apply.
Furthermore, I find the judge's logic quite slipshod and overbroad, for obvious reasons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919065</id>
	<title>Bush Appointee</title>
	<author>DigMarx</author>
	<datestamp>1256823720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to get all ad hominem or anything, but this judge was apparently nominated by G.W. Bush and is an LDS, according to Wikipedia. We should be expecting these kind of rulings for a long time: Bush got a lot of his guys in before he lost his political capital. Civil rights, schmivil schmights.</p><p>Zo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to get all ad hominem or anything , but this judge was apparently nominated by G.W .
Bush and is an LDS , according to Wikipedia .
We should be expecting these kind of rulings for a long time : Bush got a lot of his guys in before he lost his political capital .
Civil rights , schmivil schmights.Zo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to get all ad hominem or anything, but this judge was apparently nominated by G.W.
Bush and is an LDS, according to Wikipedia.
We should be expecting these kind of rulings for a long time: Bush got a lot of his guys in before he lost his political capital.
Civil rights, schmivil schmights.Zo</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919819</id>
	<title>asteroid (=110,000,000k) goes off over india</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256829420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&amp; you heard it first on YOUTUBE?</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeQBzTkJNhs&amp;videos=jkRJgbXY-90</p><p>that's pretty funny?</p><p>"Based on their scrutiny of the infrasound records, the Canadian research team reported that a large (40-50 kilotons of TNT) bolide detonation occurred near the coastal city of Bone in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. The infrasonic geolocation is not precise enough to determine if the bolide was over water or land, but it was relatively near the coast, the team reported.</p><p>Follow-on observations from other instruments or ground recovery efforts, the Canadian team added, would be very valuable in further refining this unique event. Their analysis corresponds to an object some 16-33 feet (5-10 meters) in diameter. Based on the earlier work by Brown, such objects are expected to impact the Earth on average every two to 12 years.</p><p>"We are trying to coordinate with some local scientists to secure more local data, but that will likely take several weeks," Brown told SPACE.com.</p><p>Brown said a YouTube video that was aired a few days after the event convinced them it was a bolide.</p><p>"Had this happened over the ocean we would only have known that there had been a big explosion...we would presume it was a fireball, but it could be anything producing a large impulsive shock in the atmosphere," Brown said.</p><p>More data is expected from U.S. military space assets that likely detected the event. From their vantage point in space, multiple sensor systems would have seen the huge explosion and there surely is a rich dataset of measurements to be plumbed relating to the detonation.</p><p>Wall of secrecy</p><p>Why wasn't this asteroid observed before it hit?</p><p>SwRI's Chapman said he was not aware that the object was seen before it plowed into Earth's atmosphere.</p><p>"The body was large enough that some of the current Spaceguard Survey telescopes might have detected it a couple of days before it hit, were it coming from the night sky. But it struck during daytime and probably could not have been seen by those telescopes," Chapman explained. A second question is whether it was detected by military satellites that monitor bright flashes in the Earth's atmosphere for defense and security purposes.</p><p>"Almost certainly it was detected and presumably immediately identified as an explosion of a large meteoroid rather than, say, an explosion of a human-made device in the atmosphere," Chapman figures. "But these satellites are secret and, in the past, the establishments controlling them have delayed releasing the data, for weeks or months."</p><p>Earlier this year, Chapman added, a change in previous policy led the U.S. military to withhold the data from the public.</p><p>"Scientists hope that they will reverse that policy. This event will demonstrate whether the wall of secrecy is coming down again, or not," Chapman noted. "Evidently, because of the passage of weeks since the event, there has been no decision to release the data promptly.""</p><p>http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20091029/sc\_space/hugeexplosionwasbiggestspacerocktostrikeearthsince1994</p><p>so, some folks have 'privacy' on a astronomical scale, while the rest of US have no secrets at all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&amp; you heard it first on YOUTUBE ? http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = yeQBzTkJNhs&amp;videos = jkRJgbXY-90that 's pretty funny ?
" Based on their scrutiny of the infrasound records , the Canadian research team reported that a large ( 40-50 kilotons of TNT ) bolide detonation occurred near the coastal city of Bone in South Sulawesi , Indonesia .
The infrasonic geolocation is not precise enough to determine if the bolide was over water or land , but it was relatively near the coast , the team reported.Follow-on observations from other instruments or ground recovery efforts , the Canadian team added , would be very valuable in further refining this unique event .
Their analysis corresponds to an object some 16-33 feet ( 5-10 meters ) in diameter .
Based on the earlier work by Brown , such objects are expected to impact the Earth on average every two to 12 years .
" We are trying to coordinate with some local scientists to secure more local data , but that will likely take several weeks , " Brown told SPACE.com.Brown said a YouTube video that was aired a few days after the event convinced them it was a bolide .
" Had this happened over the ocean we would only have known that there had been a big explosion...we would presume it was a fireball , but it could be anything producing a large impulsive shock in the atmosphere , " Brown said.More data is expected from U.S. military space assets that likely detected the event .
From their vantage point in space , multiple sensor systems would have seen the huge explosion and there surely is a rich dataset of measurements to be plumbed relating to the detonation.Wall of secrecyWhy was n't this asteroid observed before it hit ? SwRI 's Chapman said he was not aware that the object was seen before it plowed into Earth 's atmosphere .
" The body was large enough that some of the current Spaceguard Survey telescopes might have detected it a couple of days before it hit , were it coming from the night sky .
But it struck during daytime and probably could not have been seen by those telescopes , " Chapman explained .
A second question is whether it was detected by military satellites that monitor bright flashes in the Earth 's atmosphere for defense and security purposes .
" Almost certainly it was detected and presumably immediately identified as an explosion of a large meteoroid rather than , say , an explosion of a human-made device in the atmosphere , " Chapman figures .
" But these satellites are secret and , in the past , the establishments controlling them have delayed releasing the data , for weeks or months .
" Earlier this year , Chapman added , a change in previous policy led the U.S. military to withhold the data from the public .
" Scientists hope that they will reverse that policy .
This event will demonstrate whether the wall of secrecy is coming down again , or not , " Chapman noted .
" Evidently , because of the passage of weeks since the event , there has been no decision to release the data promptly .
" " http : //news.yahoo.com/s/space/20091029/sc \ _space/hugeexplosionwasbiggestspacerocktostrikeearthsince1994so , some folks have 'privacy ' on a astronomical scale , while the rest of US have no secrets at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&amp; you heard it first on YOUTUBE?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeQBzTkJNhs&amp;videos=jkRJgbXY-90that's pretty funny?
"Based on their scrutiny of the infrasound records, the Canadian research team reported that a large (40-50 kilotons of TNT) bolide detonation occurred near the coastal city of Bone in South Sulawesi, Indonesia.
The infrasonic geolocation is not precise enough to determine if the bolide was over water or land, but it was relatively near the coast, the team reported.Follow-on observations from other instruments or ground recovery efforts, the Canadian team added, would be very valuable in further refining this unique event.
Their analysis corresponds to an object some 16-33 feet (5-10 meters) in diameter.
Based on the earlier work by Brown, such objects are expected to impact the Earth on average every two to 12 years.
"We are trying to coordinate with some local scientists to secure more local data, but that will likely take several weeks," Brown told SPACE.com.Brown said a YouTube video that was aired a few days after the event convinced them it was a bolide.
"Had this happened over the ocean we would only have known that there had been a big explosion...we would presume it was a fireball, but it could be anything producing a large impulsive shock in the atmosphere," Brown said.More data is expected from U.S. military space assets that likely detected the event.
From their vantage point in space, multiple sensor systems would have seen the huge explosion and there surely is a rich dataset of measurements to be plumbed relating to the detonation.Wall of secrecyWhy wasn't this asteroid observed before it hit?SwRI's Chapman said he was not aware that the object was seen before it plowed into Earth's atmosphere.
"The body was large enough that some of the current Spaceguard Survey telescopes might have detected it a couple of days before it hit, were it coming from the night sky.
But it struck during daytime and probably could not have been seen by those telescopes," Chapman explained.
A second question is whether it was detected by military satellites that monitor bright flashes in the Earth's atmosphere for defense and security purposes.
"Almost certainly it was detected and presumably immediately identified as an explosion of a large meteoroid rather than, say, an explosion of a human-made device in the atmosphere," Chapman figures.
"But these satellites are secret and, in the past, the establishments controlling them have delayed releasing the data, for weeks or months.
"Earlier this year, Chapman added, a change in previous policy led the U.S. military to withhold the data from the public.
"Scientists hope that they will reverse that policy.
This event will demonstrate whether the wall of secrecy is coming down again, or not," Chapman noted.
"Evidently, because of the passage of weeks since the event, there has been no decision to release the data promptly.
""http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20091029/sc\_space/hugeexplosionwasbiggestspacerocktostrikeearthsince1994so, some folks have 'privacy' on a astronomical scale, while the rest of US have no secrets at all?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919155</id>
	<title>Re:By this logic...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256824200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>By this logic, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah\_Palin\_email\_hack" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Sarah Palin email hack</a> [wikipedia.org] wasn't a violation of Sarah Palin's privacy, either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By this logic , the Sarah Palin email hack [ wikipedia.org ] was n't a violation of Sarah Palin 's privacy , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By this logic, the Sarah Palin email hack [wikipedia.org] wasn't a violation of Sarah Palin's privacy, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919619</id>
	<title>Re:By this logic...</title>
	<author>Zordak</author>
	<datestamp>1256827740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When was the last time you complained about a PHB and his knee-jerk reactions about stuff he was clueless about?  I'm talking about the guy who bought a huge suite of MS products because some sales drone bought him lunch.  You know what?  That's you.  You are complaining, on a knee-jerk reaction, about something you clearly do not understand.  First of all, <a href="a" title="slashdot.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health\_Insurance\_Portability\_and\_Accountability\_Act</a> [slashdot.org]&gt;your medical records are private.  You also have common law privacy protections covering communication with your attorney, spouse, etc.  These are rules that have been around since long before our own judicial system.  You have a lot of privacy if you choose to exercise it.</p><p>Second, did you even bother to read the <em>summary</em>?  This is not even about whether a warrant is needed.  This is about whether the Feds have to call up Al Capone and let him know they're tapping his e-mail <em>after</em> they've gotten a warrant.  This judge recognizes, much better than you apparently, that there is a very long, distinguished common law tradition of protecting the home as the pinnacle of private space.  Once you go outside your home, or send information outside your home, the rules change.  You can still have an expectation of privacy to certain degrees, but it's always going to be less than it is inside your home.</p><p>You have every right to disagree with a judge, even vehemently.  I do it all the time.  I even disagree with <em>smart</em> judges like William Brennan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg because I adamantly disapprove of their judicial philosophy.  I even disagree with judges I like most of the time, like Hugo Black (very rarely) and Antonin Scalia (occasionally).  The difference is I have a <em>reason</em> for disagreeing with them.  I disagree with them after reading their actual opinions and thinking, "no, that doesn't jive with what I think the Constitution means when it says X."  All you have is impotent rage because somebody on Slashdot told you that the evil neocons* like to get off on reading your e-mails.  At least know what this judge said before you start calling him a moron.</p><p>*By the way, I have no idea who appointed this judge.  He could be a left winger for all I know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time you complained about a PHB and his knee-jerk reactions about stuff he was clueless about ?
I 'm talking about the guy who bought a huge suite of MS products because some sales drone bought him lunch .
You know what ?
That 's you .
You are complaining , on a knee-jerk reaction , about something you clearly do not understand .
First of all , http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health \ _Insurance \ _Portability \ _and \ _Accountability \ _Act [ slashdot.org ] &gt; your medical records are private .
You also have common law privacy protections covering communication with your attorney , spouse , etc .
These are rules that have been around since long before our own judicial system .
You have a lot of privacy if you choose to exercise it.Second , did you even bother to read the summary ?
This is not even about whether a warrant is needed .
This is about whether the Feds have to call up Al Capone and let him know they 're tapping his e-mail after they 've gotten a warrant .
This judge recognizes , much better than you apparently , that there is a very long , distinguished common law tradition of protecting the home as the pinnacle of private space .
Once you go outside your home , or send information outside your home , the rules change .
You can still have an expectation of privacy to certain degrees , but it 's always going to be less than it is inside your home.You have every right to disagree with a judge , even vehemently .
I do it all the time .
I even disagree with smart judges like William Brennan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg because I adamantly disapprove of their judicial philosophy .
I even disagree with judges I like most of the time , like Hugo Black ( very rarely ) and Antonin Scalia ( occasionally ) .
The difference is I have a reason for disagreeing with them .
I disagree with them after reading their actual opinions and thinking , " no , that does n't jive with what I think the Constitution means when it says X .
" All you have is impotent rage because somebody on Slashdot told you that the evil neocons * like to get off on reading your e-mails .
At least know what this judge said before you start calling him a moron .
* By the way , I have no idea who appointed this judge .
He could be a left winger for all I know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time you complained about a PHB and his knee-jerk reactions about stuff he was clueless about?
I'm talking about the guy who bought a huge suite of MS products because some sales drone bought him lunch.
You know what?
That's you.
You are complaining, on a knee-jerk reaction, about something you clearly do not understand.
First of all, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health\_Insurance\_Portability\_and\_Accountability\_Act [slashdot.org]&gt;your medical records are private.
You also have common law privacy protections covering communication with your attorney, spouse, etc.
These are rules that have been around since long before our own judicial system.
You have a lot of privacy if you choose to exercise it.Second, did you even bother to read the summary?
This is not even about whether a warrant is needed.
This is about whether the Feds have to call up Al Capone and let him know they're tapping his e-mail after they've gotten a warrant.
This judge recognizes, much better than you apparently, that there is a very long, distinguished common law tradition of protecting the home as the pinnacle of private space.
Once you go outside your home, or send information outside your home, the rules change.
You can still have an expectation of privacy to certain degrees, but it's always going to be less than it is inside your home.You have every right to disagree with a judge, even vehemently.
I do it all the time.
I even disagree with smart judges like William Brennan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg because I adamantly disapprove of their judicial philosophy.
I even disagree with judges I like most of the time, like Hugo Black (very rarely) and Antonin Scalia (occasionally).
The difference is I have a reason for disagreeing with them.
I disagree with them after reading their actual opinions and thinking, "no, that doesn't jive with what I think the Constitution means when it says X.
"  All you have is impotent rage because somebody on Slashdot told you that the evil neocons* like to get off on reading your e-mails.
At least know what this judge said before you start calling him a moron.
*By the way, I have no idea who appointed this judge.
He could be a left winger for all I know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919979</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder if you can use the DMCA to your advant</title>
	<author>j0ebaker</author>
	<datestamp>1256830680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>Hash: SHA1</p><p>Brilliant way to use their dastardly law against them!  Right on!<br>- -Joey<br>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)</p><p>iEYEARECAAYFAkrqUZ8ACgkQ7J1dPd3sAmCaoQCeL5pcyxyU2nJTFE7XSLoN+5Cr<br>VSEAn1sbJkU434d5kkOlYTauuhZsD5za<br>=or17<br>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash : SHA1Brilliant way to use their dastardly law against them !
Right on ! - -Joey-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----Version : GnuPG v1.4.9 ( GNU/Linux ) iEYEARECAAYFAkrqUZ8ACgkQ7J1dPd3sAmCaoQCeL5pcyxyU2nJTFE7XSLoN + 5CrVSEAn1sbJkU434d5kkOlYTauuhZsD5za = or17-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash: SHA1Brilliant way to use their dastardly law against them!
Right on!- -Joey-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)iEYEARECAAYFAkrqUZ8ACgkQ7J1dPd3sAmCaoQCeL5pcyxyU2nJTFE7XSLoN+5CrVSEAn1sbJkU434d5kkOlYTauuhZsD5za=or17-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29922915</id>
	<title>So what about voicemail?</title>
	<author>JerryLove</author>
	<datestamp>1256913060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Voicemail is stored by my provider and accessed by me logging in over a service. I don't see what possible difference exists. Does this mean that voicemail is similarly not protected?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Voicemail is stored by my provider and accessed by me logging in over a service .
I do n't see what possible difference exists .
Does this mean that voicemail is similarly not protected ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Voicemail is stored by my provider and accessed by me logging in over a service.
I don't see what possible difference exists.
Does this mean that voicemail is similarly not protected?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918787</id>
	<title>ECPA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256822220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see that the electronic communication privacy act of 1986 is being ignored once again.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic\_Communications\_Privacy\_Act</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see that the electronic communication privacy act of 1986 is being ignored once again.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic \ _Communications \ _Privacy \ _Act</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see that the electronic communication privacy act of 1986 is being ignored once again.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic\_Communications\_Privacy\_Act</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919359</id>
	<title>Re:*splutter*... US Mail?</title>
	<author>Thelasko</author>
	<datestamp>1256825760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Government does have to get a warrant to open your mail. Don't they?</p></div><p>But you don't store your mail at the post office.<br> <br>
Unless you have a P.O. box...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Government does have to get a warrant to open your mail .
Do n't they ? But you do n't store your mail at the post office .
Unless you have a P.O .
box.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Government does have to get a warrant to open your mail.
Don't they?But you don't store your mail at the post office.
Unless you have a P.O.
box...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919831</id>
	<title>Re:ok</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256829480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think people's general expectation has anything to do with it. IMHO sending an e-mail is like sending a postcard through the mail. If the e-mail is encrypted the encryption is like an envelope and in that case I would expect privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think people 's general expectation has anything to do with it .
IMHO sending an e-mail is like sending a postcard through the mail .
If the e-mail is encrypted the encryption is like an envelope and in that case I would expect privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think people's general expectation has anything to do with it.
IMHO sending an e-mail is like sending a postcard through the mail.
If the e-mail is encrypted the encryption is like an envelope and in that case I would expect privacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918595</id>
	<title>As Half Life 2 taught us...</title>
	<author>Stormwatch</author>
	<datestamp>1256821380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mossman is a traitor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mossman is a traitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mossman is a traitor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920503</id>
	<title>Re:This is nothing new</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256836140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We've seen this sort of "logic" before, and often. The general principle is "When a computer becomes involved, all precedent is forgotten</p></div><p>Maybe killing, robbing, maiming, speaking, acting, etc on a computer is not EXACTLY like performing the same action in the real world.<br>Just a theory.</p><p>I think the Internet needs SOME regulation, but damn.. you sound as if all real world precedent should apply to the nearest computer analog..<br>How about we take our time with it, because it is still very freaking new, and evolving.  Personally, I would keep critical tasks OFF the Internet until we figure things out, not rush to it and rush regulation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've seen this sort of " logic " before , and often .
The general principle is " When a computer becomes involved , all precedent is forgottenMaybe killing , robbing , maiming , speaking , acting , etc on a computer is not EXACTLY like performing the same action in the real world.Just a theory.I think the Internet needs SOME regulation , but damn.. you sound as if all real world precedent should apply to the nearest computer analog..How about we take our time with it , because it is still very freaking new , and evolving .
Personally , I would keep critical tasks OFF the Internet until we figure things out , not rush to it and rush regulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've seen this sort of "logic" before, and often.
The general principle is "When a computer becomes involved, all precedent is forgottenMaybe killing, robbing, maiming, speaking, acting, etc on a computer is not EXACTLY like performing the same action in the real world.Just a theory.I think the Internet needs SOME regulation, but damn.. you sound as if all real world precedent should apply to the nearest computer analog..How about we take our time with it, because it is still very freaking new, and evolving.
Personally, I would keep critical tasks OFF the Internet until we figure things out, not rush to it and rush regulation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919935</id>
	<title>Re:3rd-party doctrine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256830320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not any more!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not any more !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not any more!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918957</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder if you can use the DMCA to your advant</title>
	<author>Lord Byron II</author>
	<datestamp>1256823000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if you host your own email server?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if you host your own email server ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if you host your own email server?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920251</id>
	<title>Papers AND Houses, Judge.</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1256833200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article's reprint of the opinion:</p><p><i>The Fourth Amendment protects our homes from unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring that, absent special circumstances, the government obtain a search warrant based on probable cause before entering. This is strong privacy protection for homes and the items within them in the physical world.</i></p><p>From the United States Constitution, Amendment IV:</p><p><i>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects</i></p><p>The meaning of the word "and" in law is extremely, painfully well established. It means the same thing it does in boolean logic. The fourth amendment does not protect papers in one's house; it protects papers <i>and</i> houses.</p><p>Anyone can make an honest mistake. But a federal judge who does not understand the first sentence of one of the ten most important specifications of the limitations of federal power is wildly outside the scope of reasonable mistakes for his position. He should be removed from office by the most expedient means available. This is not an acceptable mistake for a person who has sworn an oath to defend The Constitution, and whose most solemn duty is to interpret it correctly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article 's reprint of the opinion : The Fourth Amendment protects our homes from unreasonable searches and seizures , requiring that , absent special circumstances , the government obtain a search warrant based on probable cause before entering .
This is strong privacy protection for homes and the items within them in the physical world.From the United States Constitution , Amendment IV : The right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses , papers , and effectsThe meaning of the word " and " in law is extremely , painfully well established .
It means the same thing it does in boolean logic .
The fourth amendment does not protect papers in one 's house ; it protects papers and houses.Anyone can make an honest mistake .
But a federal judge who does not understand the first sentence of one of the ten most important specifications of the limitations of federal power is wildly outside the scope of reasonable mistakes for his position .
He should be removed from office by the most expedient means available .
This is not an acceptable mistake for a person who has sworn an oath to defend The Constitution , and whose most solemn duty is to interpret it correctly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article's reprint of the opinion:The Fourth Amendment protects our homes from unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring that, absent special circumstances, the government obtain a search warrant based on probable cause before entering.
This is strong privacy protection for homes and the items within them in the physical world.From the United States Constitution, Amendment IV:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effectsThe meaning of the word "and" in law is extremely, painfully well established.
It means the same thing it does in boolean logic.
The fourth amendment does not protect papers in one's house; it protects papers and houses.Anyone can make an honest mistake.
But a federal judge who does not understand the first sentence of one of the ten most important specifications of the limitations of federal power is wildly outside the scope of reasonable mistakes for his position.
He should be removed from office by the most expedient means available.
This is not an acceptable mistake for a person who has sworn an oath to defend The Constitution, and whose most solemn duty is to interpret it correctly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918589</id>
	<title>There are tools that can help</title>
	<author>Mrs. Grundy</author>
	<datestamp>1256821320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a real shame that email encryption never really hit the mainstream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a real shame that email encryption never really hit the mainstream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a real shame that email encryption never really hit the mainstream.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919547</id>
	<title>The heart of the matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256827200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real issue here is that Judge Mosman has a startlingly bad array of qualities. For example:</p><p>-He is a bitch.</p><p>This situation is compounded by the fact that he is also:</p><p>-a US Judge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real issue here is that Judge Mosman has a startlingly bad array of qualities .
For example : -He is a bitch.This situation is compounded by the fact that he is also : -a US Judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real issue here is that Judge Mosman has a startlingly bad array of qualities.
For example:-He is a bitch.This situation is compounded by the fact that he is also:-a US Judge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920841</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder if you can use the DMCA to your advant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256840940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure the government could find some work around for that.  If you're not rich, the government doesn't care.  At one time, when the constitution was written, the government was by the people, of the people, and for the people, but not anymore.  If you aren't a big business, they don't give a sh!t.  Where do you think the DMCA came from?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the government could find some work around for that .
If you 're not rich , the government does n't care .
At one time , when the constitution was written , the government was by the people , of the people , and for the people , but not anymore .
If you are n't a big business , they do n't give a sh ! t .
Where do you think the DMCA came from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the government could find some work around for that.
If you're not rich, the government doesn't care.
At one time, when the constitution was written, the government was by the people, of the people, and for the people, but not anymore.
If you aren't a big business, they don't give a sh!t.
Where do you think the DMCA came from?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918557</id>
	<title>ok</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256821200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I cannot see how this won't be overturned on appeal.  People have a general expectation of privacy in regards to their e-mail, and the fact that it's being physically hosted somewhere doesn't defeat that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not see how this wo n't be overturned on appeal .
People have a general expectation of privacy in regards to their e-mail , and the fact that it 's being physically hosted somewhere does n't defeat that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cannot see how this won't be overturned on appeal.
People have a general expectation of privacy in regards to their e-mail, and the fact that it's being physically hosted somewhere doesn't defeat that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919847</id>
	<title>Rot 13</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1256829600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I board an airplane, I occasionally check a bag. That bag may contain my papers. The bag is stored in a container which is the property of a third party. The bag may be unsecured. My only reasonable expectation of privacy arises from the fact that my papers are in a bag.</p><p>If I ride the train to work, I may put my briefcase in the overhead container without locking it. I may even use the bathroom along the way, and leave my bag stored in a government owned vehicle unattended. I still have a reasonable expectation of privacy.</p><p>Similarly, if I rot 13 an electronic communication, and state that it is a private communication, it meets the exact same standards of expectation of privacy as a physical document that is protected.</p><p>With that, I give you this: The following message is a private communication from me to the original founders of Slashdot. It is rot 13 encrypted, which is equally secure as if I left my briefcase unlocked on a table at a coffee shop. I dare you to violate my 4th amendment rights.</p><p>Gunax lbh sbe perngvat fhpu n cbjreshy cyngsbez sbe gur qvfphffvba bs bhe shaqnzragny evtugf.</p><p>I wonder what would be the effect of someone else decrypting the above text and posting it? Suppose I left my briefcase on a table in a coffee shop, someone opened it and photographed the contents, then gave those photos to the police. Would the police be allowed to act on that information?</p><p>Not that it is the case here, but would the police be allowed to "hint" to someone that it sure would be nice to have a copy of the plaintext?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I board an airplane , I occasionally check a bag .
That bag may contain my papers .
The bag is stored in a container which is the property of a third party .
The bag may be unsecured .
My only reasonable expectation of privacy arises from the fact that my papers are in a bag.If I ride the train to work , I may put my briefcase in the overhead container without locking it .
I may even use the bathroom along the way , and leave my bag stored in a government owned vehicle unattended .
I still have a reasonable expectation of privacy.Similarly , if I rot 13 an electronic communication , and state that it is a private communication , it meets the exact same standards of expectation of privacy as a physical document that is protected.With that , I give you this : The following message is a private communication from me to the original founders of Slashdot .
It is rot 13 encrypted , which is equally secure as if I left my briefcase unlocked on a table at a coffee shop .
I dare you to violate my 4th amendment rights.Gunax lbh sbe perngvat fhpu n cbjreshy cyngsbez sbe gur qvfphffvba bs bhe shaqnzragny evtugf.I wonder what would be the effect of someone else decrypting the above text and posting it ?
Suppose I left my briefcase on a table in a coffee shop , someone opened it and photographed the contents , then gave those photos to the police .
Would the police be allowed to act on that information ? Not that it is the case here , but would the police be allowed to " hint " to someone that it sure would be nice to have a copy of the plaintext ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I board an airplane, I occasionally check a bag.
That bag may contain my papers.
The bag is stored in a container which is the property of a third party.
The bag may be unsecured.
My only reasonable expectation of privacy arises from the fact that my papers are in a bag.If I ride the train to work, I may put my briefcase in the overhead container without locking it.
I may even use the bathroom along the way, and leave my bag stored in a government owned vehicle unattended.
I still have a reasonable expectation of privacy.Similarly, if I rot 13 an electronic communication, and state that it is a private communication, it meets the exact same standards of expectation of privacy as a physical document that is protected.With that, I give you this: The following message is a private communication from me to the original founders of Slashdot.
It is rot 13 encrypted, which is equally secure as if I left my briefcase unlocked on a table at a coffee shop.
I dare you to violate my 4th amendment rights.Gunax lbh sbe perngvat fhpu n cbjreshy cyngsbez sbe gur qvfphffvba bs bhe shaqnzragny evtugf.I wonder what would be the effect of someone else decrypting the above text and posting it?
Suppose I left my briefcase on a table in a coffee shop, someone opened it and photographed the contents, then gave those photos to the police.
Would the police be allowed to act on that information?Not that it is the case here, but would the police be allowed to "hint" to someone that it sure would be nice to have a copy of the plaintext?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919659</id>
	<title>Re:ok</title>
	<author>p-k4</author>
	<datestamp>1256827920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you RTFA you'd see the question isn't "does the government need a warrant to read your email."  It is clear the answer to that is "yes."
<p>
The question is "if the government does have a warrant to read your email held on a third party server, clearly the warrant has to be delivered to that third party.  Does the account holder, by necessity, need to be informed by the government that their email was just read?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you RTFA you 'd see the question is n't " does the government need a warrant to read your email .
" It is clear the answer to that is " yes .
" The question is " if the government does have a warrant to read your email held on a third party server , clearly the warrant has to be delivered to that third party .
Does the account holder , by necessity , need to be informed by the government that their email was just read ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you RTFA you'd see the question isn't "does the government need a warrant to read your email.
"  It is clear the answer to that is "yes.
"

The question is "if the government does have a warrant to read your email held on a third party server, clearly the warrant has to be delivered to that third party.
Does the account holder, by necessity, need to be informed by the government that their email was just read?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919387</id>
	<title>How does that song go again? Oh, right!</title>
	<author>Chris Tucker</author>
	<datestamp>1256826000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"When I find myself in times of trouble, PRZ, he comes to me.<br>Speaking words of wisdom, 'PGP, PGP!'"</p><p>You DO know how to use PGP or GPG, and have the appropriate email plugins, right?</p><p>RIGHT?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" When I find myself in times of trouble , PRZ , he comes to me.Speaking words of wisdom , 'PGP , PGP !
' " You DO know how to use PGP or GPG , and have the appropriate email plugins , right ? RIGHT ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When I find myself in times of trouble, PRZ, he comes to me.Speaking words of wisdom, 'PGP, PGP!
'"You DO know how to use PGP or GPG, and have the appropriate email plugins, right?RIGHT?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919603</id>
	<title>Re:TFA talks about notification not access</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256827560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Encryption is of course, the answer.</p></div><p>Encryption is still security by obscurity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Encryption is of course , the answer.Encryption is still security by obscurity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Encryption is of course, the answer.Encryption is still security by obscurity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919571</id>
	<title>That judge is flat-out wrong</title>
	<author>Libertarian001</author>
	<datestamp>1256827320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, but IIRC, privacy attaches to the person.  There was case where a guy, being watched by authorities, was placing a phone call from a public phone booth.  The authorities watching him bugged the booth without a warrant.  The conversation was tossed because even though he was in a public place, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy while standing in a closed booth.  SCOTUS case.  Someone else can look it up.  Assuming I'm remembering correctly (or close enough), how is this any different?  Because it's going through the tubes?  Idiot judge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but IIRC , privacy attaches to the person .
There was case where a guy , being watched by authorities , was placing a phone call from a public phone booth .
The authorities watching him bugged the booth without a warrant .
The conversation was tossed because even though he was in a public place , he had a reasonable expectation of privacy while standing in a closed booth .
SCOTUS case .
Someone else can look it up .
Assuming I 'm remembering correctly ( or close enough ) , how is this any different ?
Because it 's going through the tubes ?
Idiot judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but IIRC, privacy attaches to the person.
There was case where a guy, being watched by authorities, was placing a phone call from a public phone booth.
The authorities watching him bugged the booth without a warrant.
The conversation was tossed because even though he was in a public place, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy while standing in a closed booth.
SCOTUS case.
Someone else can look it up.
Assuming I'm remembering correctly (or close enough), how is this any different?
Because it's going through the tubes?
Idiot judge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919799</id>
	<title>Re:Unencrypted e-mail is like postcards</title>
	<author>genner</author>
	<datestamp>1256829240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you have an expectation of privacy when you send a postcard?</p></div><p>I expect people to not rifle throuigh my mailbox to read it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have an expectation of privacy when you send a postcard ? I expect people to not rifle throuigh my mailbox to read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have an expectation of privacy when you send a postcard?I expect people to not rifle throuigh my mailbox to read it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918859</id>
	<title>Unencrypted e-mail is like postcards</title>
	<author>qbzzt</author>
	<datestamp>1256822580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you have an expectation of privacy when you send a postcard?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have an expectation of privacy when you send a postcard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have an expectation of privacy when you send a postcard?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918645</id>
	<title>Glove Box in a Leased Car</title>
	<author>pete-classic</author>
	<datestamp>1256821560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By this reasoning, do I lose 4th amendment protection of property in "my" glove box if the car is leased?</p><p>Absurd.</p><p>-Peter</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By this reasoning , do I lose 4th amendment protection of property in " my " glove box if the car is leased ? Absurd.-Peter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By this reasoning, do I lose 4th amendment protection of property in "my" glove box if the car is leased?Absurd.-Peter</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919007</id>
	<title>Overturned: Doubtful: Reasonable Expectation</title>
	<author>blavallee</author>
	<datestamp>1256823300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point of this ruling is that there's no "requirement of notice to the account holder."<br>This does not change the need of probable cause and a legal warrant presented to the 'third-party' in order to obtain the e-mails.<br>The same logic applies to wire taps, the government is not required to notify an account holder that their calls are being monitored for illegal activity.  Kinda defeats the purpose of a wire tap.</p><p>In effect, this basically states that if it leaves (or is kept outside of) your home the government is not required to notify you (the account holder) that it is being looked at.  But if the government does look at it, it still needs to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.</p><p>This is a reasonable expectation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of this ruling is that there 's no " requirement of notice to the account holder .
" This does not change the need of probable cause and a legal warrant presented to the 'third-party ' in order to obtain the e-mails.The same logic applies to wire taps , the government is not required to notify an account holder that their calls are being monitored for illegal activity .
Kinda defeats the purpose of a wire tap.In effect , this basically states that if it leaves ( or is kept outside of ) your home the government is not required to notify you ( the account holder ) that it is being looked at .
But if the government does look at it , it still needs to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.This is a reasonable expectation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of this ruling is that there's no "requirement of notice to the account holder.
"This does not change the need of probable cause and a legal warrant presented to the 'third-party' in order to obtain the e-mails.The same logic applies to wire taps, the government is not required to notify an account holder that their calls are being monitored for illegal activity.
Kinda defeats the purpose of a wire tap.In effect, this basically states that if it leaves (or is kept outside of) your home the government is not required to notify you (the account holder) that it is being looked at.
But if the government does look at it, it still needs to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.This is a reasonable expectation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919189</id>
	<title>Re:There are tools that can help</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1256824500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, for the time being, why not just write the email in whatever text editor / word processor you want, use something like Winzip, 7-zip, or any other<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.zip program that does encryption to store it, then attach that and send the email?  Is it a hassle?  Some.  But still less hassle than the way it currently is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , for the time being , why not just write the email in whatever text editor / word processor you want , use something like Winzip , 7-zip , or any other .zip program that does encryption to store it , then attach that and send the email ?
Is it a hassle ?
Some. But still less hassle than the way it currently is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, for the time being, why not just write the email in whatever text editor / word processor you want, use something like Winzip, 7-zip, or any other .zip program that does encryption to store it, then attach that and send the email?
Is it a hassle?
Some.  But still less hassle than the way it currently is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918593</id>
	<title>I wonder if you can use the DMCA to your advantage</title>
	<author>atlasdropperofworlds</author>
	<datestamp>1256821380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a bit of an aside, does it matter if you try to make the data private via encryption?</p><p>There could be an interesting relationship here: If you claim (probably rightfully) that you own the copyright to the 'content' in question, and encrypt it, does this mean that it would be unlawful for anyone to try and decrypt it under the DMCA?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a bit of an aside , does it matter if you try to make the data private via encryption ? There could be an interesting relationship here : If you claim ( probably rightfully ) that you own the copyright to the 'content ' in question , and encrypt it , does this mean that it would be unlawful for anyone to try and decrypt it under the DMCA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a bit of an aside, does it matter if you try to make the data private via encryption?There could be an interesting relationship here: If you claim (probably rightfully) that you own the copyright to the 'content' in question, and encrypt it, does this mean that it would be unlawful for anyone to try and decrypt it under the DMCA?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918825</id>
	<title>Re:There are tools that can help</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1256822460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great... get your thoughts down on paper and you'll have a killer app.</p><p>Unfortunately, all of those things like "key signing" and "keys" and "trust" are currently required for PKI to be useful.</p><p>Someone has to mess around with all that "stuff" to make it work... and if it's not you, you have to trust someone else (software vendor, ISP) to do it for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great... get your thoughts down on paper and you 'll have a killer app.Unfortunately , all of those things like " key signing " and " keys " and " trust " are currently required for PKI to be useful.Someone has to mess around with all that " stuff " to make it work... and if it 's not you , you have to trust someone else ( software vendor , ISP ) to do it for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great... get your thoughts down on paper and you'll have a killer app.Unfortunately, all of those things like "key signing" and "keys" and "trust" are currently required for PKI to be useful.Someone has to mess around with all that "stuff" to make it work... and if it's not you, you have to trust someone else (software vendor, ISP) to do it for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919569</id>
	<title>Treating 4A like 2A...</title>
	<author>DustoneGT</author>
	<datestamp>1256827320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's funny how people are all happy for 'reasonable' restrictions of the right mentioned in the Second Amendment, but when 'reasonable' restrictions are put on the Fourth Amendment, more are willing to fight. It's time to work to protect ALL of our rights, including our Ninth Amendment rights to everything else not mentioned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny how people are all happy for 'reasonable ' restrictions of the right mentioned in the Second Amendment , but when 'reasonable ' restrictions are put on the Fourth Amendment , more are willing to fight .
It 's time to work to protect ALL of our rights , including our Ninth Amendment rights to everything else not mentioned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny how people are all happy for 'reasonable' restrictions of the right mentioned in the Second Amendment, but when 'reasonable' restrictions are put on the Fourth Amendment, more are willing to fight.
It's time to work to protect ALL of our rights, including our Ninth Amendment rights to everything else not mentioned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918931</id>
	<title>Re:By this logic...</title>
	<author>jwilty</author>
	<datestamp>1256822880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although I may agree with the concept, the analogy is only possible due to the HIPAA law.  Their privacy is not a guaranteed constitutional right.  Medical records are treated separately under the law and therefore cannot be used to justify treating other information in the same way.  Could we pass a law that explicitly states that electronic communication is personal regardless of the route?  Sure, but we don't have one.

One could also make a similar analogy to cell phones and voicemail.  I assume (IANAL) that they also have laws explicitly protecting privacy of communications sent via them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I may agree with the concept , the analogy is only possible due to the HIPAA law .
Their privacy is not a guaranteed constitutional right .
Medical records are treated separately under the law and therefore can not be used to justify treating other information in the same way .
Could we pass a law that explicitly states that electronic communication is personal regardless of the route ?
Sure , but we do n't have one .
One could also make a similar analogy to cell phones and voicemail .
I assume ( IANAL ) that they also have laws explicitly protecting privacy of communications sent via them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I may agree with the concept, the analogy is only possible due to the HIPAA law.
Their privacy is not a guaranteed constitutional right.
Medical records are treated separately under the law and therefore cannot be used to justify treating other information in the same way.
Could we pass a law that explicitly states that electronic communication is personal regardless of the route?
Sure, but we don't have one.
One could also make a similar analogy to cell phones and voicemail.
I assume (IANAL) that they also have laws explicitly protecting privacy of communications sent via them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919869</id>
	<title>At last</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256829780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have found my can of worms..Pity it has been opened</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have found my can of worms..Pity it has been opened</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have found my can of worms..Pity it has been opened</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919855</id>
	<title>Re:By this logic...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256829660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...your medical records aren't private, either. When you use a hospital or a doctor's office, you're not in your own home, and your records of the visit are stored at the facility. This judge is a moron.</p></div><p>No, the judge is just following the law.  Health care records are private ONLY because there are special laws that were enacted - relatively recently, with HIPPA.  Before HIPPA, there were few laws, and hospitals could readily share medical data with anyone, and for any reason.</p><p>Same thing with education records.  There is a law called FERPA that prevents your school or university from sharing your data with anyone... unless, of course, you give them your permission.</p><p>Telephone?  You got it - there are regulations in place to prevent such nonsense.    The Bush administration tried to get around those laws, leading to a quite a bit of discussion here (and not much of anywhere else).</p><p>But your email?  There are few regulations or laws on the books when it comes to email privacy.  Lots of people are against such laws, because they fear that laws will hurt the internet and the economy, and see it as a socialist thing.</p><p>But the judge a moron?  No.  He just knows the law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...your medical records are n't private , either .
When you use a hospital or a doctor 's office , you 're not in your own home , and your records of the visit are stored at the facility .
This judge is a moron.No , the judge is just following the law .
Health care records are private ONLY because there are special laws that were enacted - relatively recently , with HIPPA .
Before HIPPA , there were few laws , and hospitals could readily share medical data with anyone , and for any reason.Same thing with education records .
There is a law called FERPA that prevents your school or university from sharing your data with anyone... unless , of course , you give them your permission.Telephone ?
You got it - there are regulations in place to prevent such nonsense .
The Bush administration tried to get around those laws , leading to a quite a bit of discussion here ( and not much of anywhere else ) .But your email ?
There are few regulations or laws on the books when it comes to email privacy .
Lots of people are against such laws , because they fear that laws will hurt the internet and the economy , and see it as a socialist thing.But the judge a moron ?
No. He just knows the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...your medical records aren't private, either.
When you use a hospital or a doctor's office, you're not in your own home, and your records of the visit are stored at the facility.
This judge is a moron.No, the judge is just following the law.
Health care records are private ONLY because there are special laws that were enacted - relatively recently, with HIPPA.
Before HIPPA, there were few laws, and hospitals could readily share medical data with anyone, and for any reason.Same thing with education records.
There is a law called FERPA that prevents your school or university from sharing your data with anyone... unless, of course, you give them your permission.Telephone?
You got it - there are regulations in place to prevent such nonsense.
The Bush administration tried to get around those laws, leading to a quite a bit of discussion here (and not much of anywhere else).But your email?
There are few regulations or laws on the books when it comes to email privacy.
Lots of people are against such laws, because they fear that laws will hurt the internet and the economy, and see it as a socialist thing.But the judge a moron?
No.  He just knows the law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29929379</id>
	<title>Re:What About My Own Server?</title>
	<author>cs668</author>
	<datestamp>1256900280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wondered this too.  I run my own mail server.  But, I guess you could make the argument that they could intercept it in transit because it is on the ISP's system at that time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wondered this too .
I run my own mail server .
But , I guess you could make the argument that they could intercept it in transit because it is on the ISP 's system at that time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wondered this too.
I run my own mail server.
But, I guess you could make the argument that they could intercept it in transit because it is on the ISP's system at that time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919027</id>
	<title>Re:judges: stay the HELL out of tech and ..</title>
	<author>srothroc</author>
	<datestamp>1256823360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I can understand where you're coming from, I think it's a bit arrogant to look down on them like that. Judges are just people doing their jobs to the best of their ability <b>with the information given to them</b>. You also see judges ruling in areas as diverse as medical issues, building codes, traffic codes, food safety, and so on, yet I doubt all of those judges are doctors, architects, civil engineers, or chefs. There's a reason judges have expert witness testimonies and <i>amici curiae</i>. If you want to improve how these things turn out, why not try to be a lawyer that specializes in technology issues? How about looking into submitting an <i>amicus curiae</i> brief for cases that you feel you have knowledgable input in? Or maybe there isn't really much you can do but hope that people with the relevant expertise can help.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I can understand where you 're coming from , I think it 's a bit arrogant to look down on them like that .
Judges are just people doing their jobs to the best of their ability with the information given to them .
You also see judges ruling in areas as diverse as medical issues , building codes , traffic codes , food safety , and so on , yet I doubt all of those judges are doctors , architects , civil engineers , or chefs .
There 's a reason judges have expert witness testimonies and amici curiae .
If you want to improve how these things turn out , why not try to be a lawyer that specializes in technology issues ?
How about looking into submitting an amicus curiae brief for cases that you feel you have knowledgable input in ?
Or maybe there is n't really much you can do but hope that people with the relevant expertise can help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I can understand where you're coming from, I think it's a bit arrogant to look down on them like that.
Judges are just people doing their jobs to the best of their ability with the information given to them.
You also see judges ruling in areas as diverse as medical issues, building codes, traffic codes, food safety, and so on, yet I doubt all of those judges are doctors, architects, civil engineers, or chefs.
There's a reason judges have expert witness testimonies and amici curiae.
If you want to improve how these things turn out, why not try to be a lawyer that specializes in technology issues?
How about looking into submitting an amicus curiae brief for cases that you feel you have knowledgable input in?
Or maybe there isn't really much you can do but hope that people with the relevant expertise can help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919081</id>
	<title>Bank Records?</title>
	<author>forand</author>
	<datestamp>1256823840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is confusing to me: how do bank records not fall into the same classification? Clearly if my mail provider say they will give out my email to whomever they like then sure but most have a privacy policy which explicitly states that they will NOT do that unless compelled by law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is confusing to me : how do bank records not fall into the same classification ?
Clearly if my mail provider say they will give out my email to whomever they like then sure but most have a privacy policy which explicitly states that they will NOT do that unless compelled by law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is confusing to me: how do bank records not fall into the same classification?
Clearly if my mail provider say they will give out my email to whomever they like then sure but most have a privacy policy which explicitly states that they will NOT do that unless compelled by law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920085</id>
	<title>Re:TFA talks about notification not access</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256831640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is similar to wire-tapping.   The principal is the same, although the time frame is different.  Law Enforcement gets a warrant and adds your number to the CALEA system.  Are you notified?  No....  Email communications is similar, although the major difference is that voice calls are monitored from the point the warrant is issued.  It is not possible to listen to past conversations.</p><p>With Email, not only are future emails monitored after a warrant is issued, past emails are also scanned.</p><p>Note that the government also wants to get warrants to monitor WWW surfing as well.</p><p>Rule of thumb....if you don't want to be monitored, don't use electrons when you communicate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is similar to wire-tapping .
The principal is the same , although the time frame is different .
Law Enforcement gets a warrant and adds your number to the CALEA system .
Are you notified ?
No.... Email communications is similar , although the major difference is that voice calls are monitored from the point the warrant is issued .
It is not possible to listen to past conversations.With Email , not only are future emails monitored after a warrant is issued , past emails are also scanned.Note that the government also wants to get warrants to monitor WWW surfing as well.Rule of thumb....if you do n't want to be monitored , do n't use electrons when you communicate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is similar to wire-tapping.
The principal is the same, although the time frame is different.
Law Enforcement gets a warrant and adds your number to the CALEA system.
Are you notified?
No....  Email communications is similar, although the major difference is that voice calls are monitored from the point the warrant is issued.
It is not possible to listen to past conversations.With Email, not only are future emails monitored after a warrant is issued, past emails are also scanned.Note that the government also wants to get warrants to monitor WWW surfing as well.Rule of thumb....if you don't want to be monitored, don't use electrons when you communicate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29925277</id>
	<title>it gets worse</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1256923440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can put up with posters not reading the TFA.  I can even tolerate the editors not doing so.  But when even the twits submitting the stories don't bother to read them don't you think that's going too far?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can put up with posters not reading the TFA .
I can even tolerate the editors not doing so .
But when even the twits submitting the stories do n't bother to read them do n't you think that 's going too far ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can put up with posters not reading the TFA.
I can even tolerate the editors not doing so.
But when even the twits submitting the stories don't bother to read them don't you think that's going too far?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920025</id>
	<title>We've tested it</title>
	<author>neo00</author>
	<datestamp>1256831100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>To prove the correctness of ClearView, we ran it against itself, and found no bugs, no vulnerabilities,.... nothing at all!</htmltext>
<tokenext>To prove the correctness of ClearView , we ran it against itself , and found no bugs , no vulnerabilities,.... nothing at all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To prove the correctness of ClearView, we ran it against itself, and found no bugs, no vulnerabilities,.... nothing at all!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920567</id>
	<title>Re:By this logic</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1256836740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US, you can't be compelled to provide a decryption key anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , you ca n't be compelled to provide a decryption key anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US, you can't be compelled to provide a decryption key anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918745</id>
	<title>What About My Own Server?</title>
	<author>Neflyte\_Zero</author>
	<datestamp>1256822040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what happens to people who run their own mailservers?  Do they get 4th Amendment protection since they're in physical control of the server and its data?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what happens to people who run their own mailservers ?
Do they get 4th Amendment protection since they 're in physical control of the server and its data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what happens to people who run their own mailservers?
Do they get 4th Amendment protection since they're in physical control of the server and its data?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919295</id>
	<title>I think it's not right</title>
	<author>HollyMolly-1122</author>
	<datestamp>1256825160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The email is still private regardless of physical location of storage. The owner leases server space from ISP, like many others leases their hotel room.
Are you agree that your hotel room while you stay there are YOUR PRIVATE SPACE ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The email is still private regardless of physical location of storage .
The owner leases server space from ISP , like many others leases their hotel room .
Are you agree that your hotel room while you stay there are YOUR PRIVATE SPACE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The email is still private regardless of physical location of storage.
The owner leases server space from ISP, like many others leases their hotel room.
Are you agree that your hotel room while you stay there are YOUR PRIVATE SPACE ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29922177</id>
	<title>ridicules shortsighted</title>
	<author>Ofloo</author>
	<datestamp>1256906160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is ridicules not all email is stored on ISP sites some are stored at home, those who run home servers for example and also pop3 email is stored locally not remotely, the daemon is just means of transport, as a telephone central.

I think it's a bit shortsighted to claim the above and before a judge makes statements in these matters they should consult different people on how things work, before they make such claims.

There is more then one way to use email, this seems based on webmail services.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is ridicules not all email is stored on ISP sites some are stored at home , those who run home servers for example and also pop3 email is stored locally not remotely , the daemon is just means of transport , as a telephone central .
I think it 's a bit shortsighted to claim the above and before a judge makes statements in these matters they should consult different people on how things work , before they make such claims .
There is more then one way to use email , this seems based on webmail services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is ridicules not all email is stored on ISP sites some are stored at home, those who run home servers for example and also pop3 email is stored locally not remotely, the daemon is just means of transport, as a telephone central.
I think it's a bit shortsighted to claim the above and before a judge makes statements in these matters they should consult different people on how things work, before they make such claims.
There is more then one way to use email, this seems based on webmail services.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920039</id>
	<title>By this logic</title>
	<author>sheepofblue</author>
	<datestamp>1256831160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By this logic it would seem two things happen that law enforcement might not like.  First since it is not in your possession how can you be compelled to provide a key for decryption of something that is not 'yours'   Further providing that key might even be a violation of law since you are cracking an encrypted piece of software.</p><p>Though the original logic actually makes sense from a law enforcement perspective what of general access.  If you have no expectation of privacy could an ISP open every piece of email and sell the contents?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By this logic it would seem two things happen that law enforcement might not like .
First since it is not in your possession how can you be compelled to provide a key for decryption of something that is not 'yours ' Further providing that key might even be a violation of law since you are cracking an encrypted piece of software.Though the original logic actually makes sense from a law enforcement perspective what of general access .
If you have no expectation of privacy could an ISP open every piece of email and sell the contents ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By this logic it would seem two things happen that law enforcement might not like.
First since it is not in your possession how can you be compelled to provide a key for decryption of something that is not 'yours'   Further providing that key might even be a violation of law since you are cracking an encrypted piece of software.Though the original logic actually makes sense from a law enforcement perspective what of general access.
If you have no expectation of privacy could an ISP open every piece of email and sell the contents?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919071</id>
	<title>Re:judges: stay the HELL out of tech and ..</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1256823780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>judges: stay the HELL out of tech and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and I'll stay out of law.
</i>
<br>
<br>
I will say there are far, far more techies willing to (oftentimes loudly) give their opinions about the law.  Hence slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>judges : stay the HELL out of tech and .. and I 'll stay out of law .
I will say there are far , far more techies willing to ( oftentimes loudly ) give their opinions about the law .
Hence slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>judges: stay the HELL out of tech and .. and I'll stay out of law.
I will say there are far, far more techies willing to (oftentimes loudly) give their opinions about the law.
Hence slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918667</id>
	<title>Goodbye plaintext, hello SSL/TLS/SSH/VPN/IPSEC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256821680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this doesn't get appealed away, say hello to widespread email encryption and encryption in general.</p><p>This kind of ruling must make the type of miscreant that enjoys sniffing packets have a spontaneous orgasm.</p><p>(note that I intentionally specified miscreants;  I don't care if you enjoy sniffing packets if you aren't sniffing anyone else's packets.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this does n't get appealed away , say hello to widespread email encryption and encryption in general.This kind of ruling must make the type of miscreant that enjoys sniffing packets have a spontaneous orgasm .
( note that I intentionally specified miscreants ; I do n't care if you enjoy sniffing packets if you are n't sniffing anyone else 's packets .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this doesn't get appealed away, say hello to widespread email encryption and encryption in general.This kind of ruling must make the type of miscreant that enjoys sniffing packets have a spontaneous orgasm.
(note that I intentionally specified miscreants;  I don't care if you enjoy sniffing packets if you aren't sniffing anyone else's packets.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919017</id>
	<title>Summary is not quite right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256823300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The judge ruled that the warrant can be served on the third party without notifying the sender. This would be akin to serving a warrant to one's employer to search one's workspace.</p><p>Or, serving a warrant on your friend to access your friend's computer to get emails sent by you.</p><p>I think this ruling is on shaky ground due to the concept of "reasonable expectation of privacy".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The judge ruled that the warrant can be served on the third party without notifying the sender .
This would be akin to serving a warrant to one 's employer to search one 's workspace.Or , serving a warrant on your friend to access your friend 's computer to get emails sent by you.I think this ruling is on shaky ground due to the concept of " reasonable expectation of privacy " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The judge ruled that the warrant can be served on the third party without notifying the sender.
This would be akin to serving a warrant to one's employer to search one's workspace.Or, serving a warrant on your friend to access your friend's computer to get emails sent by you.I think this ruling is on shaky ground due to the concept of "reasonable expectation of privacy".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920489</id>
	<title>Double Negative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256836080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"does not conclude that e-mails are not protected"</p><p>Double Negative</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" does not conclude that e-mails are not protected " Double Negative</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"does not conclude that e-mails are not protected"Double Negative</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918621</id>
	<title>USPS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256821440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So when I hand USPS my mail, they get to open it because they are a 3rd party? There should be a computer literacy test for government officials.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So when I hand USPS my mail , they get to open it because they are a 3rd party ?
There should be a computer literacy test for government officials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when I hand USPS my mail, they get to open it because they are a 3rd party?
There should be a computer literacy test for government officials.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918929</id>
	<title>Netzero?</title>
	<author>Rude Turnip</author>
	<datestamp>1256822820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get with the times, man...Juno is the ISP of the future!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get with the times , man...Juno is the ISP of the future ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get with the times, man...Juno is the ISP of the future!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919115</id>
	<title>With all due respect</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1256824020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This Judge should be impeached and removed from office for this. Start a campaign fund; I'll donate.</p><p>I am tired of these lovers of tyranny who pretend that Constitution's protections only apply to technologies in existence in 1789.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This Judge should be impeached and removed from office for this .
Start a campaign fund ; I 'll donate.I am tired of these lovers of tyranny who pretend that Constitution 's protections only apply to technologies in existence in 1789 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This Judge should be impeached and removed from office for this.
Start a campaign fund; I'll donate.I am tired of these lovers of tyranny who pretend that Constitution's protections only apply to technologies in existence in 1789.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29924829</id>
	<title>Private mailserver</title>
	<author>MaxToTheMax</author>
	<datestamp>1256921880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I run my own mailserver with a DYNDNS domain. I guess this means I have no right to demand that I notify myself if I read my own mail...?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I run my own mailserver with a DYNDNS domain .
I guess this means I have no right to demand that I notify myself if I read my own mail... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run my own mailserver with a DYNDNS domain.
I guess this means I have no right to demand that I notify myself if I read my own mail...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919323</id>
	<title>Re:By this logic...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256825580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that we've enacted special laws for your medical records.  No such laws have been enacted for email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that we 've enacted special laws for your medical records .
No such laws have been enacted for email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that we've enacted special laws for your medical records.
No such laws have been enacted for email.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918647</id>
	<title>Re:There are tools that can help</title>
	<author>DeadlyBattleRobot</author>
	<datestamp>1256821620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a killer app out there waiting to be written for this. I want automatic encryption built in to email, without the end user having to mess around with keys, key registrys, pgp, or any other encryption framework. I think there is way to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a killer app out there waiting to be written for this .
I want automatic encryption built in to email , without the end user having to mess around with keys , key registrys , pgp , or any other encryption framework .
I think there is way to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a killer app out there waiting to be written for this.
I want automatic encryption built in to email, without the end user having to mess around with keys, key registrys, pgp, or any other encryption framework.
I think there is way to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919019</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1256823300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time to encrypt, bitches. I'll show you a "private space".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to encrypt , bitches .
I 'll show you a " private space " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to encrypt, bitches.
I'll show you a "private space".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919245</id>
	<title>What about snail mail.</title>
	<author>Volda</author>
	<datestamp>1256824860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I guess because mail goes thru a post office it isnt considered private either...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I guess because mail goes thru a post office it isnt considered private either.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I guess because mail goes thru a post office it isnt considered private either...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918687</id>
	<title>Re:There are tools that can help</title>
	<author>Onymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1256821740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Key management is a hassle for most folks.  I still think people can be trained, though.  Just need simple enough metaphors.</p><p>Meanwhile, here's an easy Thunderbird plug-in:  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigmail" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigmail</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Key management is a hassle for most folks .
I still think people can be trained , though .
Just need simple enough metaphors.Meanwhile , here 's an easy Thunderbird plug-in : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigmail [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Key management is a hassle for most folks.
I still think people can be trained, though.
Just need simple enough metaphors.Meanwhile, here's an easy Thunderbird plug-in:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigmail [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918613</id>
	<title>Does this mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256821440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when we send mail via USPS, since the mail isn't technically in our homes while it is sitting in the post office, that the government can read it without violating A4?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when we send mail via USPS , since the mail is n't technically in our homes while it is sitting in the post office , that the government can read it without violating A4 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when we send mail via USPS, since the mail isn't technically in our homes while it is sitting in the post office, that the government can read it without violating A4?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918785</id>
	<title>4th</title>
	<author>MikeD83</author>
	<datestamp>1256822220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>	The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</i> <br> <br>
Papers and effects? The founding fathers were smart enough to protect email. This ruling is a disgrace.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses , papers , and effects , against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated , and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause , supported by Oath or affirmation , and particularly describing the place to be searched , and the persons or things to be seized .
Papers and effects ?
The founding fathers were smart enough to protect email .
This ruling is a disgrace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>	The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Papers and effects?
The founding fathers were smart enough to protect email.
This ruling is a disgrace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919259</id>
	<title>Legislate this away</title>
	<author>putaro</author>
	<datestamp>1256824920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Judges interpret the law.  There is no clear law on e-mail privacy so this judge made an interpretation.  This is an excellent example of where the Congress needs to be doing its job and TELL the courts what they should be thinking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judges interpret the law .
There is no clear law on e-mail privacy so this judge made an interpretation .
This is an excellent example of where the Congress needs to be doing its job and TELL the courts what they should be thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judges interpret the law.
There is no clear law on e-mail privacy so this judge made an interpretation.
This is an excellent example of where the Congress needs to be doing its job and TELL the courts what they should be thinking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920333</id>
	<title>This is just a ploy to validate AT&amp;T's actions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256834100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same argument could be said for phone calls and wiretaps because the conversation takes place on a 'network' of devices and servers maintained by a third party company.</p><p>Total bullshit.  You need a warrant to read MY fucking e-mail AND the traffic that goes through my service provider because,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I live in the U.S. and the U.S. is supposed to comply with my UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.   It should be needless to say that this isn't going to make a few hundred million Americans very happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same argument could be said for phone calls and wiretaps because the conversation takes place on a 'network ' of devices and servers maintained by a third party company.Total bullshit .
You need a warrant to read MY fucking e-mail AND the traffic that goes through my service provider because,,,,,,,,,,,,, , I live in the U.S. and the U.S. is supposed to comply with my UNALIENABLE RIGHTS .
It should be needless to say that this is n't going to make a few hundred million Americans very happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same argument could be said for phone calls and wiretaps because the conversation takes place on a 'network' of devices and servers maintained by a third party company.Total bullshit.
You need a warrant to read MY fucking e-mail AND the traffic that goes through my service provider because,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I live in the U.S. and the U.S. is supposed to comply with my UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.
It should be needless to say that this isn't going to make a few hundred million Americans very happy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29921465</id>
	<title>Re:By this logic...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256894640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the HIPAA agreement you signed.  Your medical records are not private.  They can be turned over at any moment on request by anyone with a badge that claims to be investigating "terrorism."</p><p>Welcome to the New World Order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the HIPAA agreement you signed .
Your medical records are not private .
They can be turned over at any moment on request by anyone with a badge that claims to be investigating " terrorism .
" Welcome to the New World Order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the HIPAA agreement you signed.
Your medical records are not private.
They can be turned over at any moment on request by anyone with a badge that claims to be investigating "terrorism.
"Welcome to the New World Order.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918889</id>
	<title>3rd-party doctrine</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1256822640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When a person uses the Internet, the user's actions are no longer in his or her physical home... All materials stored online, whether they are e-mails or remotely stored documents, are physically stored on servers owned by an ISP</p></div><p>Yes, just like:<br>- Mail<br>- Safe deposit boxes<br>- Bank accounts<br>- Voice mails<br>- Telephone conversations<br>- Storage units</p><p>As far as I know, all of the above things are subject to the 4th amendment.  WTF???!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When a person uses the Internet , the user 's actions are no longer in his or her physical home... All materials stored online , whether they are e-mails or remotely stored documents , are physically stored on servers owned by an ISPYes , just like : - Mail- Safe deposit boxes- Bank accounts- Voice mails- Telephone conversations- Storage unitsAs far as I know , all of the above things are subject to the 4th amendment .
WTF ? ? ? ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a person uses the Internet, the user's actions are no longer in his or her physical home... All materials stored online, whether they are e-mails or remotely stored documents, are physically stored on servers owned by an ISPYes, just like:- Mail- Safe deposit boxes- Bank accounts- Voice mails- Telephone conversations- Storage unitsAs far as I know, all of the above things are subject to the 4th amendment.
WTF???!!!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918775</id>
	<title>It's all hosted from my apartment!</title>
	<author>dosius</author>
	<datestamp>1256822160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run my own e-mail, www and even irc server right here.  My primary e-mail addresses are all directed straight to my computer; do not pass go, do not collect $200.  And that's the way I like it!</p><p>-uso.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run my own e-mail , www and even irc server right here .
My primary e-mail addresses are all directed straight to my computer ; do not pass go , do not collect $ 200 .
And that 's the way I like it ! -uso .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run my own e-mail, www and even irc server right here.
My primary e-mail addresses are all directed straight to my computer; do not pass go, do not collect $200.
And that's the way I like it!-uso.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918689</id>
	<title>judges: stay the HELL out of tech and ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256821800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and I'll stay out of law.</p><p>deal?</p><p>I know my field.  its CLEAR you don't know my field.  I don't know your field.  why do you have to 'rule in' on things that make us laugh (or cry) at you, due to your TOTAL lack of understanding.</p><p>hang on a minute.  what if this guy DOES know what's going on and yet he still wants to have government prying on your email?</p><p>I'm not sure which is worse; a clueless idiot in robes or a smart one who PLOTS against the basic US constitution, stealing our rights bit by bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and I 'll stay out of law.deal ? I know my field .
its CLEAR you do n't know my field .
I do n't know your field .
why do you have to 'rule in ' on things that make us laugh ( or cry ) at you , due to your TOTAL lack of understanding.hang on a minute .
what if this guy DOES know what 's going on and yet he still wants to have government prying on your email ? I 'm not sure which is worse ; a clueless idiot in robes or a smart one who PLOTS against the basic US constitution , stealing our rights bit by bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I'll stay out of law.deal?I know my field.
its CLEAR you don't know my field.
I don't know your field.
why do you have to 'rule in' on things that make us laugh (or cry) at you, due to your TOTAL lack of understanding.hang on a minute.
what if this guy DOES know what's going on and yet he still wants to have government prying on your email?I'm not sure which is worse; a clueless idiot in robes or a smart one who PLOTS against the basic US constitution, stealing our rights bit by bit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918891</id>
	<title>Reasonable ruling if analogy holds</title>
	<author>ugen</author>
	<datestamp>1256822700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this ruling is just fine as long as they extend analogy with the physical world further. I.e. if e-mail and information stored on the 3rd party servers are not "private", then e-mails and information stored locally on servers in my home should be protected by the 4th amendment.</p><p>As long as that's the way they read the law (applying "home" boundaries literally rather than as a way to define a set of "things that belong to a person") - fine with me. It's not upholding the spirit of the amendment but rather only the letter, but that's better than nothing I suppose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this ruling is just fine as long as they extend analogy with the physical world further .
I.e. if e-mail and information stored on the 3rd party servers are not " private " , then e-mails and information stored locally on servers in my home should be protected by the 4th amendment.As long as that 's the way they read the law ( applying " home " boundaries literally rather than as a way to define a set of " things that belong to a person " ) - fine with me .
It 's not upholding the spirit of the amendment but rather only the letter , but that 's better than nothing I suppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this ruling is just fine as long as they extend analogy with the physical world further.
I.e. if e-mail and information stored on the 3rd party servers are not "private", then e-mails and information stored locally on servers in my home should be protected by the 4th amendment.As long as that's the way they read the law (applying "home" boundaries literally rather than as a way to define a set of "things that belong to a person") - fine with me.
It's not upholding the spirit of the amendment but rather only the letter, but that's better than nothing I suppose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919191</id>
	<title>Re:There are tools that can help</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1256824500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My pet concept is the job of key generation, trust, and management should be handled by banks.  After all, we all trust the banks with our money already.</p></div><p>Who is this "we" of which you speak? I can tell you that I only "trust" banks with my money because the only other option (under my mattress where it could be lost due to fire or burglar) is less safe and would earn even less interest that way than it does already. Even though I don't have a lot of money (only my emergency fund, a couple of grand in other savings, and the general float that lives in an instant access current account) I've already started splitting what I have between banks in case of customer service issues (if one bank fucks up and I can't get at some cash when I need it, I've got some in the other current account to draw from until I bash heads together to get the problem sorted) or worse (bank goes under just when I need that emergency fund, I'm not stuck waiting for the government's capital guarantee plan to pay out before I can draw a penny unless all my banks go under at the same time).</p><p>Getting back on topic for a moment, you can cover this with a combination of public key encryption and some form of key/identity verification that doesn't rely on a bank. And this issue isn't really about key validation anyway, it is about ISP snooping. If I were to send a message to you encrypted with your public key, even though I can not be 100\% sure the key came from you I can be pretty sure it didn't come from my ISP and probably almost as sure (depending on where I got the key from, of course) it didn't come from yours so the chance of my ISP or yours or someone in between having the private half needed to read the message is very small. And for circumstances where you need that extra verification that the key is valid for the individual and that the individual I am talking to is the one I think it is, well then you'd have to arrange some sort of key verification either physically, electronically (if we were both online at the same time, and convinced by some code or other means that we are the right people, we could setup a trusted secure link using an online key exchange protocol like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffie\%E2\%80\%93Hellman\_key\_exchange" title="wikipedia.org">Diffie-Hellman</a> [wikipedia.org] and verify our public keys to each other over that), or via a third party that we both already trust (or a potentially a short string of third parties). If I am paranoid enough to need to thoroughly verify your public key before using it to send something to you, I would be paranoid enough not to trust a central agency like a bank, especially <i>your</i> bank who I would probably trust less than I would trust one I already do business with.</p><p>The reason encrypted mail has not taken off is not the lack of central verification methods, it is the fact that it isn't completely seamless and the general public, even the business community, are not generally worried enough about these things (whether they should be or not) to care to make the slightest little bit of extra effort. And for the most part they are not wrong. I can't say there is anything much I am ever likely to send by email that is *that* sensitive, personally speaking (some communication in my professional life is another matter). Bank related stuff perhaps, but they have HTTPS based interfaces I can communicate with them through rather than email and that has the advantage of being more reliable too.</p><p>This may change, of course. I deal with banks in my day job (the staff training and competence areas, rather than the customer facing or actual money management areas) and over the last decade I've seen the use of good encryption go from not thought of (or even dismissed if I suggested it), to recommended, to required, for any communication of anything relatively sensitive (data with real staff member training records in, for testing or import into a new system, for instance), so maybe this is the start. Next would be for the banks to mandate and enforce encryption standards for all internal and business-to-business mail, from there once the businesses have the facility setup for that purpose they'll start using/recommending/requiring it for other B2B communication, and so it'll spread until enough of the populous uses good PKI based encrypted mail in their working lives that it'll creep its way into the consciousness of the general populous. All this may take too much time, of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My pet concept is the job of key generation , trust , and management should be handled by banks .
After all , we all trust the banks with our money already.Who is this " we " of which you speak ?
I can tell you that I only " trust " banks with my money because the only other option ( under my mattress where it could be lost due to fire or burglar ) is less safe and would earn even less interest that way than it does already .
Even though I do n't have a lot of money ( only my emergency fund , a couple of grand in other savings , and the general float that lives in an instant access current account ) I 've already started splitting what I have between banks in case of customer service issues ( if one bank fucks up and I ca n't get at some cash when I need it , I 've got some in the other current account to draw from until I bash heads together to get the problem sorted ) or worse ( bank goes under just when I need that emergency fund , I 'm not stuck waiting for the government 's capital guarantee plan to pay out before I can draw a penny unless all my banks go under at the same time ) .Getting back on topic for a moment , you can cover this with a combination of public key encryption and some form of key/identity verification that does n't rely on a bank .
And this issue is n't really about key validation anyway , it is about ISP snooping .
If I were to send a message to you encrypted with your public key , even though I can not be 100 \ % sure the key came from you I can be pretty sure it did n't come from my ISP and probably almost as sure ( depending on where I got the key from , of course ) it did n't come from yours so the chance of my ISP or yours or someone in between having the private half needed to read the message is very small .
And for circumstances where you need that extra verification that the key is valid for the individual and that the individual I am talking to is the one I think it is , well then you 'd have to arrange some sort of key verification either physically , electronically ( if we were both online at the same time , and convinced by some code or other means that we are the right people , we could setup a trusted secure link using an online key exchange protocol like Diffie-Hellman [ wikipedia.org ] and verify our public keys to each other over that ) , or via a third party that we both already trust ( or a potentially a short string of third parties ) .
If I am paranoid enough to need to thoroughly verify your public key before using it to send something to you , I would be paranoid enough not to trust a central agency like a bank , especially your bank who I would probably trust less than I would trust one I already do business with.The reason encrypted mail has not taken off is not the lack of central verification methods , it is the fact that it is n't completely seamless and the general public , even the business community , are not generally worried enough about these things ( whether they should be or not ) to care to make the slightest little bit of extra effort .
And for the most part they are not wrong .
I ca n't say there is anything much I am ever likely to send by email that is * that * sensitive , personally speaking ( some communication in my professional life is another matter ) .
Bank related stuff perhaps , but they have HTTPS based interfaces I can communicate with them through rather than email and that has the advantage of being more reliable too.This may change , of course .
I deal with banks in my day job ( the staff training and competence areas , rather than the customer facing or actual money management areas ) and over the last decade I 've seen the use of good encryption go from not thought of ( or even dismissed if I suggested it ) , to recommended , to required , for any communication of anything relatively sensitive ( data with real staff member training records in , for testing or import into a new system , for instance ) , so maybe this is the start .
Next would be for the banks to mandate and enforce encryption standards for all internal and business-to-business mail , from there once the businesses have the facility setup for that purpose they 'll start using/recommending/requiring it for other B2B communication , and so it 'll spread until enough of the populous uses good PKI based encrypted mail in their working lives that it 'll creep its way into the consciousness of the general populous .
All this may take too much time , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My pet concept is the job of key generation, trust, and management should be handled by banks.
After all, we all trust the banks with our money already.Who is this "we" of which you speak?
I can tell you that I only "trust" banks with my money because the only other option (under my mattress where it could be lost due to fire or burglar) is less safe and would earn even less interest that way than it does already.
Even though I don't have a lot of money (only my emergency fund, a couple of grand in other savings, and the general float that lives in an instant access current account) I've already started splitting what I have between banks in case of customer service issues (if one bank fucks up and I can't get at some cash when I need it, I've got some in the other current account to draw from until I bash heads together to get the problem sorted) or worse (bank goes under just when I need that emergency fund, I'm not stuck waiting for the government's capital guarantee plan to pay out before I can draw a penny unless all my banks go under at the same time).Getting back on topic for a moment, you can cover this with a combination of public key encryption and some form of key/identity verification that doesn't rely on a bank.
And this issue isn't really about key validation anyway, it is about ISP snooping.
If I were to send a message to you encrypted with your public key, even though I can not be 100\% sure the key came from you I can be pretty sure it didn't come from my ISP and probably almost as sure (depending on where I got the key from, of course) it didn't come from yours so the chance of my ISP or yours or someone in between having the private half needed to read the message is very small.
And for circumstances where you need that extra verification that the key is valid for the individual and that the individual I am talking to is the one I think it is, well then you'd have to arrange some sort of key verification either physically, electronically (if we were both online at the same time, and convinced by some code or other means that we are the right people, we could setup a trusted secure link using an online key exchange protocol like Diffie-Hellman [wikipedia.org] and verify our public keys to each other over that), or via a third party that we both already trust (or a potentially a short string of third parties).
If I am paranoid enough to need to thoroughly verify your public key before using it to send something to you, I would be paranoid enough not to trust a central agency like a bank, especially your bank who I would probably trust less than I would trust one I already do business with.The reason encrypted mail has not taken off is not the lack of central verification methods, it is the fact that it isn't completely seamless and the general public, even the business community, are not generally worried enough about these things (whether they should be or not) to care to make the slightest little bit of extra effort.
And for the most part they are not wrong.
I can't say there is anything much I am ever likely to send by email that is *that* sensitive, personally speaking (some communication in my professional life is another matter).
Bank related stuff perhaps, but they have HTTPS based interfaces I can communicate with them through rather than email and that has the advantage of being more reliable too.This may change, of course.
I deal with banks in my day job (the staff training and competence areas, rather than the customer facing or actual money management areas) and over the last decade I've seen the use of good encryption go from not thought of (or even dismissed if I suggested it), to recommended, to required, for any communication of anything relatively sensitive (data with real staff member training records in, for testing or import into a new system, for instance), so maybe this is the start.
Next would be for the banks to mandate and enforce encryption standards for all internal and business-to-business mail, from there once the businesses have the facility setup for that purpose they'll start using/recommending/requiring it for other B2B communication, and so it'll spread until enough of the populous uses good PKI based encrypted mail in their working lives that it'll creep its way into the consciousness of the general populous.
All this may take too much time, of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919833</id>
	<title>What if?</title>
	<author>jackspenn</author>
	<datestamp>1256829480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if I setup a private VPN tunnel or private connection to send mail between my private mail server and that of my friend or a private organization, company?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if I setup a private VPN tunnel or private connection to send mail between my private mail server and that of my friend or a private organization , company ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if I setup a private VPN tunnel or private connection to send mail between my private mail server and that of my friend or a private organization, company?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29924037</id>
	<title>Re:It's all hosted from my apartment!</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1256918700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those packets have to get routed to your server somehow...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those packets have to get routed to your server somehow.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those packets have to get routed to your server somehow...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919517</id>
	<title>This is nothing new</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1256827020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've seen this sort of "logic" before, and often.  The general principle is "When a computer becomes involved, all precedent is forgotten, and centuries of hard-learned lessons must be learned all over again."  I've forgotten who first pointed this out, but it's a useful thing to remember.</p><p>It took many centuries, and many deaths, for the freedoms that most of the "first-world" countries have were encoded in their laws.  But over and over, we've found that the courts don't apply those laws to anything that involves a computer.  It takes a good list of horror stories about the actions of ISPs and other people in positions of power, plus new laws, to get the older Real World laws applied to anything involving a computer.  This is just one example of many.</p><p>It's sorta funny that computers, which are the ultimate in relentless, unforgiving, mechanical logic, have an effect on humans that can be characterized as destroying our ability to use logic as simple as saying that everything we knew before still applies when there's a computer in the vicinity.</p><p>In most of the First World, it's illegal for a postal or other delivery employee to open a package and make notes on the content.  There are good historic reasons for this.  It's interesting to read the history of the concept of "common carrier", and understand why it came to be.  People did literally die before these rules went into effect, as the result of people opening and reading the contents of messages in transit, and selling the information to interested parties.  This history isn't a secret.  But when its a computer transferring messages, the carriers are permitted to inspect the contents and sell the information to interested parties.  This will eventually lead to laws applying the common-carrier rules to computerized communications.  But this will only happen after the same sort of disasters that led to the common-carrier rules for written, printed and analog telephone communications.</p><p>The only scheme that's stable over the long term is that "carriers" of messages should not be allowed to use the contents of the messages for any purpose.  In exchange for this, the people in power agree to not punish the carriers for the contents of any delivered messages.  Anything else will eventually be a disaster for the people in power, when they learn too late that the carriers have made "commercial" use of the contents of messages to/from powerful people.</p><p>This isn't a hypothetical scenario; it is exactly what led to the common-carrier laws in the past.  Things like this court decision just shorten the time until such disasters occur.  And it's all due to our mysterious inability to remember and apply historic precedent when there's a computer involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've seen this sort of " logic " before , and often .
The general principle is " When a computer becomes involved , all precedent is forgotten , and centuries of hard-learned lessons must be learned all over again .
" I 've forgotten who first pointed this out , but it 's a useful thing to remember.It took many centuries , and many deaths , for the freedoms that most of the " first-world " countries have were encoded in their laws .
But over and over , we 've found that the courts do n't apply those laws to anything that involves a computer .
It takes a good list of horror stories about the actions of ISPs and other people in positions of power , plus new laws , to get the older Real World laws applied to anything involving a computer .
This is just one example of many.It 's sorta funny that computers , which are the ultimate in relentless , unforgiving , mechanical logic , have an effect on humans that can be characterized as destroying our ability to use logic as simple as saying that everything we knew before still applies when there 's a computer in the vicinity.In most of the First World , it 's illegal for a postal or other delivery employee to open a package and make notes on the content .
There are good historic reasons for this .
It 's interesting to read the history of the concept of " common carrier " , and understand why it came to be .
People did literally die before these rules went into effect , as the result of people opening and reading the contents of messages in transit , and selling the information to interested parties .
This history is n't a secret .
But when its a computer transferring messages , the carriers are permitted to inspect the contents and sell the information to interested parties .
This will eventually lead to laws applying the common-carrier rules to computerized communications .
But this will only happen after the same sort of disasters that led to the common-carrier rules for written , printed and analog telephone communications.The only scheme that 's stable over the long term is that " carriers " of messages should not be allowed to use the contents of the messages for any purpose .
In exchange for this , the people in power agree to not punish the carriers for the contents of any delivered messages .
Anything else will eventually be a disaster for the people in power , when they learn too late that the carriers have made " commercial " use of the contents of messages to/from powerful people.This is n't a hypothetical scenario ; it is exactly what led to the common-carrier laws in the past .
Things like this court decision just shorten the time until such disasters occur .
And it 's all due to our mysterious inability to remember and apply historic precedent when there 's a computer involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've seen this sort of "logic" before, and often.
The general principle is "When a computer becomes involved, all precedent is forgotten, and centuries of hard-learned lessons must be learned all over again.
"  I've forgotten who first pointed this out, but it's a useful thing to remember.It took many centuries, and many deaths, for the freedoms that most of the "first-world" countries have were encoded in their laws.
But over and over, we've found that the courts don't apply those laws to anything that involves a computer.
It takes a good list of horror stories about the actions of ISPs and other people in positions of power, plus new laws, to get the older Real World laws applied to anything involving a computer.
This is just one example of many.It's sorta funny that computers, which are the ultimate in relentless, unforgiving, mechanical logic, have an effect on humans that can be characterized as destroying our ability to use logic as simple as saying that everything we knew before still applies when there's a computer in the vicinity.In most of the First World, it's illegal for a postal or other delivery employee to open a package and make notes on the content.
There are good historic reasons for this.
It's interesting to read the history of the concept of "common carrier", and understand why it came to be.
People did literally die before these rules went into effect, as the result of people opening and reading the contents of messages in transit, and selling the information to interested parties.
This history isn't a secret.
But when its a computer transferring messages, the carriers are permitted to inspect the contents and sell the information to interested parties.
This will eventually lead to laws applying the common-carrier rules to computerized communications.
But this will only happen after the same sort of disasters that led to the common-carrier rules for written, printed and analog telephone communications.The only scheme that's stable over the long term is that "carriers" of messages should not be allowed to use the contents of the messages for any purpose.
In exchange for this, the people in power agree to not punish the carriers for the contents of any delivered messages.
Anything else will eventually be a disaster for the people in power, when they learn too late that the carriers have made "commercial" use of the contents of messages to/from powerful people.This isn't a hypothetical scenario; it is exactly what led to the common-carrier laws in the past.
Things like this court decision just shorten the time until such disasters occur.
And it's all due to our mysterious inability to remember and apply historic precedent when there's a computer involved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920061</id>
	<title>Is it possible to sue the judge ?</title>
	<author>HollyMolly-1122</author>
	<datestamp>1256831460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Against non ethical interpretation of law ?
I guess, the same judge cannot judge itself being judged ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Against non ethical interpretation of law ?
I guess , the same judge can not judge itself being judged ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Against non ethical interpretation of law ?
I guess, the same judge cannot judge itself being judged ?
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919171</id>
	<title>From his Wiki article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256824320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>While clerking for Powell, he was involved in the justice's voting to uphold Georgia's sodomy law in Bowers v. Hardwick.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Well, I guess we see how he feels about things in your own home, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While clerking for Powell , he was involved in the justice 's voting to uphold Georgia 's sodomy law in Bowers v. Hardwick . Well , I guess we see how he feels about things in your own home , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While clerking for Powell, he was involved in the justice's voting to uphold Georgia's sodomy law in Bowers v. Hardwick.

Well, I guess we see how he feels about things in your own home, too.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918917</id>
	<title>Re:There are tools that can help</title>
	<author>calmofthestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1256822760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it's great: that's why it's still legal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it 's great : that 's why it 's still legal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it's great: that's why it's still legal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918549</id>
	<title>Stop using FedEx</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1256821140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, best to stop using FedEx and other *private* companies to send mail then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , best to stop using FedEx and other * private * companies to send mail then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, best to stop using FedEx and other *private* companies to send mail then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918671</id>
	<title>Re:There are tools that can help</title>
	<author>dpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1256821680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way I've always heard it, regular email is just like a postcard - anyone in the chain who touches it can read it.  Maybe decisions like this one will get more people using encryption for their email.  My pet concept is the job of key generation, trust, and management should be handled by banks.  After all, we all trust the banks with our money already.</p><p>Of course another option would be to get common carrier status for the internet, at least within the US.<br>Yet another step would be for the US Postal service to run (TLS encrypted and authenticated) mail services.  Not that I'm enamored of the Post Office doing the job, but that's the easiest way to grant legal protection to the content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way I 've always heard it , regular email is just like a postcard - anyone in the chain who touches it can read it .
Maybe decisions like this one will get more people using encryption for their email .
My pet concept is the job of key generation , trust , and management should be handled by banks .
After all , we all trust the banks with our money already.Of course another option would be to get common carrier status for the internet , at least within the US.Yet another step would be for the US Postal service to run ( TLS encrypted and authenticated ) mail services .
Not that I 'm enamored of the Post Office doing the job , but that 's the easiest way to grant legal protection to the content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way I've always heard it, regular email is just like a postcard - anyone in the chain who touches it can read it.
Maybe decisions like this one will get more people using encryption for their email.
My pet concept is the job of key generation, trust, and management should be handled by banks.
After all, we all trust the banks with our money already.Of course another option would be to get common carrier status for the internet, at least within the US.Yet another step would be for the US Postal service to run (TLS encrypted and authenticated) mail services.
Not that I'm enamored of the Post Office doing the job, but that's the easiest way to grant legal protection to the content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920617</id>
	<title>If you RTFA...</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1256837220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you will see that this does not state that e-mail is unprotected by the 4th or that the government or anyone else has the right to view it.<p>What it states is that the phrase "\_\_\_\_ will release this information to comply with search warrants" constitutes adequate notification that they will release the information to comply with search warrants and that the e-mail user does not have to be notified that the information has been released to comply with a search warrant.</p><p>The search warrant is still required, you are still given privacy of your e-mail, and the search warrant must still be reasonable and legal. The only thing this does is say that if your ISP has warned you they will release this information to the authorities under a search warrant, they don't have to tell you that you've been searched.</p><p>I know that on slashdot we don't(including me) generally RTFA, but it would be nice if the person posting it would RTFA, or if the no name blogger who wrote it would RTF Opinion(which he acknowledges later he did not adequately do.</p><p>Personally I think that ISPs probably should notify you, and I would certainly switch providers if I found out mine had not, but if you're going to disagree with this opinion, at least disagree with it as opposed to random FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you will see that this does not state that e-mail is unprotected by the 4th or that the government or anyone else has the right to view it.What it states is that the phrase " \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ will release this information to comply with search warrants " constitutes adequate notification that they will release the information to comply with search warrants and that the e-mail user does not have to be notified that the information has been released to comply with a search warrant.The search warrant is still required , you are still given privacy of your e-mail , and the search warrant must still be reasonable and legal .
The only thing this does is say that if your ISP has warned you they will release this information to the authorities under a search warrant , they do n't have to tell you that you 've been searched.I know that on slashdot we do n't ( including me ) generally RTFA , but it would be nice if the person posting it would RTFA , or if the no name blogger who wrote it would RTF Opinion ( which he acknowledges later he did not adequately do.Personally I think that ISPs probably should notify you , and I would certainly switch providers if I found out mine had not , but if you 're going to disagree with this opinion , at least disagree with it as opposed to random FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you will see that this does not state that e-mail is unprotected by the 4th or that the government or anyone else has the right to view it.What it states is that the phrase "\_\_\_\_ will release this information to comply with search warrants" constitutes adequate notification that they will release the information to comply with search warrants and that the e-mail user does not have to be notified that the information has been released to comply with a search warrant.The search warrant is still required, you are still given privacy of your e-mail, and the search warrant must still be reasonable and legal.
The only thing this does is say that if your ISP has warned you they will release this information to the authorities under a search warrant, they don't have to tell you that you've been searched.I know that on slashdot we don't(including me) generally RTFA, but it would be nice if the person posting it would RTFA, or if the no name blogger who wrote it would RTF Opinion(which he acknowledges later he did not adequately do.Personally I think that ISPs probably should notify you, and I would certainly switch providers if I found out mine had not, but if you're going to disagree with this opinion, at least disagree with it as opposed to random FUD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919243</id>
	<title>Re:ok</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1256824800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://volokh.com/2009/10/29/opinion-on-fourth-amendment-and-e-mail/" title="volokh.com">Oops.  I probably should have read the actual opinion before opining.</a> [volokh.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oops .
I probably should have read the actual opinion before opining .
[ volokh.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oops.
I probably should have read the actual opinion before opining.
[volokh.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611</id>
	<title>By this logic...</title>
	<author>TrebleJunkie</author>
	<datestamp>1256821440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...your medical records aren't private, either.  When you use a hospital or a doctor's office, you're not in your own home, and your records of the visit are stored at the facility.  This judge is a moron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...your medical records are n't private , either .
When you use a hospital or a doctor 's office , you 're not in your own home , and your records of the visit are stored at the facility .
This judge is a moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...your medical records aren't private, either.
When you use a hospital or a doctor's office, you're not in your own home, and your records of the visit are stored at the facility.
This judge is a moron.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919257</id>
	<title>Re:judges: stay the HELL out of tech and ..</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1256824920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So did you vote for McCain or Obama?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So did you vote for McCain or Obama ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So did you vote for McCain or Obama?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920191</id>
	<title>RTFA!?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256832540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You actually read TFA!?! What were you thinking? This is digg, not slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You actually read TFA ! ? !
What were you thinking ?
This is digg , not slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You actually read TFA!?!
What were you thinking?
This is digg, not slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918861</id>
	<title>Exsqueeze me?</title>
	<author>ArcadeNut</author>
	<datestamp>1256822580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this any different then making a phone call?  My voice still has to go through the Phone Companies equipment.   They still need a warrant to tap my phones (well, maybe not thanks to the Patriot Act).</p><p>If this ruling stands, it's going to open up a whole new can of worms.  Email should be considered PRIVATE if there is only one recipient, just the same as if I make a call to a single individual.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this any different then making a phone call ?
My voice still has to go through the Phone Companies equipment .
They still need a warrant to tap my phones ( well , maybe not thanks to the Patriot Act ) .If this ruling stands , it 's going to open up a whole new can of worms .
Email should be considered PRIVATE if there is only one recipient , just the same as if I make a call to a single individual .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this any different then making a phone call?
My voice still has to go through the Phone Companies equipment.
They still need a warrant to tap my phones (well, maybe not thanks to the Patriot Act).If this ruling stands, it's going to open up a whole new can of worms.
Email should be considered PRIVATE if there is only one recipient, just the same as if I make a call to a single individual.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919023</id>
	<title>Hate to be devils advocate on this one, but...</title>
	<author>isThisNameAvailable</author>
	<datestamp>1256823360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you and your doctor frequently exchange your medical records via postcard?  No, that would knowingly expose your information to any number of mail carriers.  Likewise, e-mail goes through the hands/servers of any number of strangers and can be read without so much as holding it up to the light.  It's a disappointing precedent, and certainly judges and government should be held to a higher standard than a USPS sorter making minimum wage, but the reasoning here isn't wrong.  You shouldn't expect privacy if you can't even stuff your letter in an envelope.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you and your doctor frequently exchange your medical records via postcard ?
No , that would knowingly expose your information to any number of mail carriers .
Likewise , e-mail goes through the hands/servers of any number of strangers and can be read without so much as holding it up to the light .
It 's a disappointing precedent , and certainly judges and government should be held to a higher standard than a USPS sorter making minimum wage , but the reasoning here is n't wrong .
You should n't expect privacy if you ca n't even stuff your letter in an envelope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you and your doctor frequently exchange your medical records via postcard?
No, that would knowingly expose your information to any number of mail carriers.
Likewise, e-mail goes through the hands/servers of any number of strangers and can be read without so much as holding it up to the light.
It's a disappointing precedent, and certainly judges and government should be held to a higher standard than a USPS sorter making minimum wage, but the reasoning here isn't wrong.
You shouldn't expect privacy if you can't even stuff your letter in an envelope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29926735</id>
	<title>If the original article had been correct...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256930040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could have made the court overturn it, and I'm not even a lawyer, that's how unreasonable that decision WOULD have been IF it had been correctly stated the first time. I think expectation of privacy kind of defeats this decision, because ask any American if they expect their emails to be private and read by them alone: I'm pretty sure all of them would say "Yes!".</p><p>Since the future will mostly be digital, unfortunately, most of our lives will be streaming through third-party affiliates. So according to the supposed logic of this court decision, everything would be subject to search. The Smart Houses coming out sometime? "Yeah yeah yeah, since their fridge stats and children bedroom security system pass through our safe-o-meter server offsite from their house,  we can monitor them while they sleep, eat, watch tv, read, play games, dress, undress, bathe" etc. Slipper-slope argument, but that logic is dangerous!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could have made the court overturn it , and I 'm not even a lawyer , that 's how unreasonable that decision WOULD have been IF it had been correctly stated the first time .
I think expectation of privacy kind of defeats this decision , because ask any American if they expect their emails to be private and read by them alone : I 'm pretty sure all of them would say " Yes !
" .Since the future will mostly be digital , unfortunately , most of our lives will be streaming through third-party affiliates .
So according to the supposed logic of this court decision , everything would be subject to search .
The Smart Houses coming out sometime ?
" Yeah yeah yeah , since their fridge stats and children bedroom security system pass through our safe-o-meter server offsite from their house , we can monitor them while they sleep , eat , watch tv , read , play games , dress , undress , bathe " etc .
Slipper-slope argument , but that logic is dangerous !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could have made the court overturn it, and I'm not even a lawyer, that's how unreasonable that decision WOULD have been IF it had been correctly stated the first time.
I think expectation of privacy kind of defeats this decision, because ask any American if they expect their emails to be private and read by them alone: I'm pretty sure all of them would say "Yes!
".Since the future will mostly be digital, unfortunately, most of our lives will be streaming through third-party affiliates.
So according to the supposed logic of this court decision, everything would be subject to search.
The Smart Houses coming out sometime?
"Yeah yeah yeah, since their fridge stats and children bedroom security system pass through our safe-o-meter server offsite from their house,  we can monitor them while they sleep, eat, watch tv, read, play games, dress, undress, bathe" etc.
Slipper-slope argument, but that logic is dangerous!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920059</id>
	<title>Hey lookit ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256831400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the government has found yet another way to exert control over you. At least, temporarily, until it gets to the Supreme Court.</p><p>Good thing we have 9 other amendments out there to protect us (for now)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... including, if it comes down to it in the very end, the second.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the government has found yet another way to exert control over you .
At least , temporarily , until it gets to the Supreme Court.Good thing we have 9 other amendments out there to protect us ( for now ) ... including , if it comes down to it in the very end , the second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the government has found yet another way to exert control over you.
At least, temporarily, until it gets to the Supreme Court.Good thing we have 9 other amendments out there to protect us (for now) ... including, if it comes down to it in the very end, the second.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918887</id>
	<title>Consequences</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256822640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By that logic, that judge's emails should be open to being searched.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By that logic , that judge 's emails should be open to being searched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By that logic, that judge's emails should be open to being searched.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29922247</id>
	<title>Re:There are tools that can help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256907000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The PostOffice already does this.</p><p>You'll get your keys in 4-6 weeks OR stand in line 90 minutes to be told you were in the wrong line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The PostOffice already does this.You 'll get your keys in 4-6 weeks OR stand in line 90 minutes to be told you were in the wrong line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PostOffice already does this.You'll get your keys in 4-6 weeks OR stand in line 90 minutes to be told you were in the wrong line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919431</id>
	<title>Re:Unencrypted e-mail is like postcards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256826360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About a decade ago I gave my Mom this piece of advice....treat every thing that you say on the internet as if you are having a conversation at a party with a hundred people around...any body could be listening....of all the bits of computer advice I've tried to pass on this is one that stuck...and it has served her well to be cautious...true that encryption is better now, but I don't expect most people to know the difference between http, and https.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About a decade ago I gave my Mom this piece of advice....treat every thing that you say on the internet as if you are having a conversation at a party with a hundred people around...any body could be listening....of all the bits of computer advice I 've tried to pass on this is one that stuck...and it has served her well to be cautious...true that encryption is better now , but I do n't expect most people to know the difference between http , and https .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About a decade ago I gave my Mom this piece of advice....treat every thing that you say on the internet as if you are having a conversation at a party with a hundred people around...any body could be listening....of all the bits of computer advice I've tried to pass on this is one that stuck...and it has served her well to be cautious...true that encryption is better now, but I don't expect most people to know the difference between http, and https.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918577</id>
	<title>Geeks may say</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256821320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run my own mail server, you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run my own mail server , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run my own mail server, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918585</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256821320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"When a person uses the mail, the user's actions are no longer in his or her physical home; in fact he or she is not truly acting in private space at all. The user is generally accessing the mail system with an address and mailbox owned by a mail service provider like the US Postal Service. All materials delivered, whether they are letters or courier-delivered packages, are physically stored in buildings owned by a mail service provider. When we send a letter or package from the comfort of our own homes to a friend across town the letter travels from our hand to boxes, vehicles, and parts of buildings owned or controlled by a third party, the mail service provider, before being delivered to the intended recipient. Thus, "private" information is actually being held by third-party private companies."
<p>
Obviously, I should STFU before I give the government any more ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" When a person uses the mail , the user 's actions are no longer in his or her physical home ; in fact he or she is not truly acting in private space at all .
The user is generally accessing the mail system with an address and mailbox owned by a mail service provider like the US Postal Service .
All materials delivered , whether they are letters or courier-delivered packages , are physically stored in buildings owned by a mail service provider .
When we send a letter or package from the comfort of our own homes to a friend across town the letter travels from our hand to boxes , vehicles , and parts of buildings owned or controlled by a third party , the mail service provider , before being delivered to the intended recipient .
Thus , " private " information is actually being held by third-party private companies .
" Obviously , I should STFU before I give the government any more ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When a person uses the mail, the user's actions are no longer in his or her physical home; in fact he or she is not truly acting in private space at all.
The user is generally accessing the mail system with an address and mailbox owned by a mail service provider like the US Postal Service.
All materials delivered, whether they are letters or courier-delivered packages, are physically stored in buildings owned by a mail service provider.
When we send a letter or package from the comfort of our own homes to a friend across town the letter travels from our hand to boxes, vehicles, and parts of buildings owned or controlled by a third party, the mail service provider, before being delivered to the intended recipient.
Thus, "private" information is actually being held by third-party private companies.
"

Obviously, I should STFU before I give the government any more ideas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920293</id>
	<title>Re:*splutter*... US Mail?</title>
	<author>Nagroth</author>
	<datestamp>1256833740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's what the article that spawned this story says. First sentence, btw:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>The issue in the case is whether the government must notify a person when the government obtains a search warrant to access the contents of the person&rsquo;s e-mail account.</b></p> </div><p>The blog's author then continues on much later to say</p><p><div class="quote"><p>s I read it now, Judge Mosman does not conclude that e-mails are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Rather, he assumes for the sake of argument that the e-mails are protected (see bottom of page 12), but then concludes that the third party context negates an argument for Fourth Amendment notice to the subscribers.</p></div><p>So apparently the story is that if they get a warrant for something that's held by a 3rd party, they don't have to tell you about it.</p><p>my opinion: moot point, they've already got your ass cold enough to have a warrant, remember?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's what the article that spawned this story says .
First sentence , btw : The issue in the case is whether the government must notify a person when the government obtains a search warrant to access the contents of the person    s e-mail account .
The blog 's author then continues on much later to says I read it now , Judge Mosman does not conclude that e-mails are not protected by the Fourth Amendment .
Rather , he assumes for the sake of argument that the e-mails are protected ( see bottom of page 12 ) , but then concludes that the third party context negates an argument for Fourth Amendment notice to the subscribers.So apparently the story is that if they get a warrant for something that 's held by a 3rd party , they do n't have to tell you about it.my opinion : moot point , they 've already got your ass cold enough to have a warrant , remember ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's what the article that spawned this story says.
First sentence, btw: The issue in the case is whether the government must notify a person when the government obtains a search warrant to access the contents of the person’s e-mail account.
The blog's author then continues on much later to says I read it now, Judge Mosman does not conclude that e-mails are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Rather, he assumes for the sake of argument that the e-mails are protected (see bottom of page 12), but then concludes that the third party context negates an argument for Fourth Amendment notice to the subscribers.So apparently the story is that if they get a warrant for something that's held by a 3rd party, they don't have to tell you about it.my opinion: moot point, they've already got your ass cold enough to have a warrant, remember?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919111</id>
	<title>TFA talks about notification not access</title>
	<author>Nkwe</author>
	<datestamp>1256823960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fine article refers to a ruling that says you don't have to be notified if your email is accessed. It doesn't talk about if it is legal or not to access your email. I guess the theory being that if your mail is stored "publicly" at an ISP and that someone has the legal right to look at your mail, they don't have to <b>tell you</b> that you have been snooped on.
<br> <br>
The article doesn't seem to make the distinction between mail at rest (on a mail server) and mail in transit (passing on the wire) so I don't know if running your own mail server makes any difference here or not. It would at least reduce the exposure time for "snapshots" to be taken and disclosed. If your mail was on your own server you would at least have to be approached by a court with a subpoena or similar that demands access, which you would probably notice.
<br> <br>
Encryption is of course, the answer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fine article refers to a ruling that says you do n't have to be notified if your email is accessed .
It does n't talk about if it is legal or not to access your email .
I guess the theory being that if your mail is stored " publicly " at an ISP and that someone has the legal right to look at your mail , they do n't have to tell you that you have been snooped on .
The article does n't seem to make the distinction between mail at rest ( on a mail server ) and mail in transit ( passing on the wire ) so I do n't know if running your own mail server makes any difference here or not .
It would at least reduce the exposure time for " snapshots " to be taken and disclosed .
If your mail was on your own server you would at least have to be approached by a court with a subpoena or similar that demands access , which you would probably notice .
Encryption is of course , the answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fine article refers to a ruling that says you don't have to be notified if your email is accessed.
It doesn't talk about if it is legal or not to access your email.
I guess the theory being that if your mail is stored "publicly" at an ISP and that someone has the legal right to look at your mail, they don't have to tell you that you have been snooped on.
The article doesn't seem to make the distinction between mail at rest (on a mail server) and mail in transit (passing on the wire) so I don't know if running your own mail server makes any difference here or not.
It would at least reduce the exposure time for "snapshots" to be taken and disclosed.
If your mail was on your own server you would at least have to be approached by a court with a subpoena or similar that demands access, which you would probably notice.
Encryption is of course, the answer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918853</id>
	<title>This a bad precedent</title>
	<author>Jeffk67</author>
	<datestamp>1256822580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can he make the analogy to postal mail or telephone calls and not see that the same principles apply to email? We should have a constitutional amendment guaranteeing  a right to privacy. The anti federalists were right. Without an explicit protection the government will  take away every protection it can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can he make the analogy to postal mail or telephone calls and not see that the same principles apply to email ?
We should have a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to privacy .
The anti federalists were right .
Without an explicit protection the government will take away every protection it can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can he make the analogy to postal mail or telephone calls and not see that the same principles apply to email?
We should have a constitutional amendment guaranteeing  a right to privacy.
The anti federalists were right.
Without an explicit protection the government will  take away every protection it can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918599</id>
	<title>That is why I've been using crypto</title>
	<author>siddesu</author>
	<datestamp>1256821380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and communicating in person with people who don't for quite some time now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>and communicating in person with people who do n't for quite some time now ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and communicating in person with people who don't for quite some time now ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918901</id>
	<title>Re:ok</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1256822760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More to the point, it is clearly no different than a bank safety deposit box, and those cannot be searched without a warrant.  The mere fact that we are talking about data instead of physical objects should have no legal bearing on the requirement of a warrant for search and seizure.  This is a clear case of bailment, and in bailment cases with a corporate entity, one can generally assume a right to privacy.</p><p>This will <b>definitely</b> get overturned on appeal unless the lawyers involved are inept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More to the point , it is clearly no different than a bank safety deposit box , and those can not be searched without a warrant .
The mere fact that we are talking about data instead of physical objects should have no legal bearing on the requirement of a warrant for search and seizure .
This is a clear case of bailment , and in bailment cases with a corporate entity , one can generally assume a right to privacy.This will definitely get overturned on appeal unless the lawyers involved are inept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More to the point, it is clearly no different than a bank safety deposit box, and those cannot be searched without a warrant.
The mere fact that we are talking about data instead of physical objects should have no legal bearing on the requirement of a warrant for search and seizure.
This is a clear case of bailment, and in bailment cases with a corporate entity, one can generally assume a right to privacy.This will definitely get overturned on appeal unless the lawyers involved are inept.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920801</id>
	<title>Correct; they're protected by encryption</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1256840220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have a simple technological solution to this issue: encryption. Why waste time with people who just don't get it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have a simple technological solution to this issue : encryption .
Why waste time with people who just do n't get it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have a simple technological solution to this issue: encryption.
Why waste time with people who just don't get it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29922247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29924037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29923913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29921465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29929379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_2257209_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919071
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29921465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29923913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29925277
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919819
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29924037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918887
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920503
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918759
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918671
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29922247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918647
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919189
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919081
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918599
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919771
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29929379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919603
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920567
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919017
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29920293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919849
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919259
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_2257209.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29918901
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_2257209.29919831
</commentlist>
</conversation>
