<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_02_1411252</id>
	<title>An Inbox Is Not a Glove Compartment</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1257175260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes
<i>"A federal judge rules that government can obtain access to a person's inbox contents without any notification to the subscriber.  The pros and cons of this are complicated, but the decision hinges on the assertion that ISP customers have lowered privacy interests in e-mail because they 'expose to the ISP's employees in the ordinary course of business the contents of their e-mails.'  Fortunately for everybody, this is not true &mdash; most ISPs do not allow their employees to read customer e-mails 'in the ordinary course of business' &mdash; but then what are the consequences for the rest of the argument?"</i>
Read on for the rest of Bennett's analysis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes " A federal judge rules that government can obtain access to a person 's inbox contents without any notification to the subscriber .
The pros and cons of this are complicated , but the decision hinges on the assertion that ISP customers have lowered privacy interests in e-mail because they 'expose to the ISP 's employees in the ordinary course of business the contents of their e-mails .
' Fortunately for everybody , this is not true    most ISPs do not allow their employees to read customer e-mails 'in the ordinary course of business '    but then what are the consequences for the rest of the argument ?
" Read on for the rest of Bennett 's analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes
"A federal judge rules that government can obtain access to a person's inbox contents without any notification to the subscriber.
The pros and cons of this are complicated, but the decision hinges on the assertion that ISP customers have lowered privacy interests in e-mail because they 'expose to the ISP's employees in the ordinary course of business the contents of their e-mails.
'  Fortunately for everybody, this is not true — most ISPs do not allow their employees to read customer e-mails 'in the ordinary course of business' — but then what are the consequences for the rest of the argument?
"
Read on for the rest of Bennett's analysis.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950550</id>
	<title>Makes me glad I run my own mail server</title>
	<author>Iphtashu Fitz</author>
	<datestamp>1257179400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the government wants access to my inbox they'll need to talk to me since I'm the admin of my mail server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the government wants access to my inbox they 'll need to talk to me since I 'm the admin of my mail server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the government wants access to my inbox they'll need to talk to me since I'm the admin of my mail server.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951534</id>
	<title>Re:Caveat Lector</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1257183720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Amendment IV

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.</p> </div><p>One does not need to be a lawyer to understand what this means.  It is absolutely clear that email DOES apply to this.  The constitution is not a complicated document, and it is not designed to require a modern law degree to understand.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amendment IV 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 .
One does not need to be a lawyer to understand what this means .
It is absolutely clear that email DOES apply to this .
The constitution is not a complicated document , and it is not designed to require a modern law degree to understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amendment IV

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.
One does not need to be a lawyer to understand what this means.
It is absolutely clear that email DOES apply to this.
The constitution is not a complicated document, and it is not designed to require a modern law degree to understand.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950712</id>
	<title>/sigh</title>
	<author>Galestar</author>
	<datestamp>1257180120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Inbox Is Not a Glove Compartment, just like the Internet is not a truck?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Inbox Is Not a Glove Compartment , just like the Internet is not a truck ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Inbox Is Not a Glove Compartment, just like the Internet is not a truck?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950970</id>
	<title>Re:The #1 Lesson</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1257181140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm...  let me get this straight then?  You believe it's an undeniable *fact* that email not only IS not private as it currently stands, but SHOULD not ever be considered private?</p><p>I'd argue that in reality, the expectation of privacy for electronic mail by the general public is no different than the expectation of privacy they have for physical mail.  Unfortunately, the implementation most often used today doesn't live up to the expectations people have.  (People tend to think that because they can't check their mail without the proper login and password, that means the mail is "secure".  They're used to thinking that passwords = security when it comes to computers.)</p><p>With the right software and proper configuration, it's possible to encrypt all outgoing email automatically, and ensure it really is private.  IMHO, it's too bad the systems administrators didn't foresee the need for this when paid customers (usually using dial-up modems with a local ISP) started signing up and trying this stuff out for the first time.  (Perhaps the truth is, many of them rather *liked* the idea that if they so desired, they'd be able to snoop into the emails of any of their users, as desired?)</p><p>Now, we're reaching a point where the courts are playing "catch up" with the technology, and they're starting to make legal rulings on this stuff.  If it's codified into law that it's ILLEGAL to ensure emails have true privacy, that'd be a shame and a big loss for the userbase as a whole.</p><p>I know companies like to claim that because they own the servers and the Internet connections the corporate emails travel over and get stored on, they own the "rights" to all of the employee emails as well.  But to me, that's rather like an owner of an apartment complex claiming he/she can legally go through any of the tenants' physical mailboxes at will, because he/she owns the panel of mailboxes in the wall that it all gets put in!  (Even in my apartment scenario though, the landlord could possibly get away with opening people's individual mailboxes, if all he/she was doing was counting the number of envelopes a tenant received each day, or was just reading the postcards before putting them back.  The fact that most mail is inside an envelope that can't be opened without leaving behind evidence it was opened/tampered with adds another layer of security for the tenant.  That's where our current email infrastructure is lacking.  The law is effectively saying "Everything's written on the equivalent of postcards that anyone can see as they handle it, anyway - so why should we grant it any legal privacy rights?")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm... let me get this straight then ?
You believe it 's an undeniable * fact * that email not only IS not private as it currently stands , but SHOULD not ever be considered private ? I 'd argue that in reality , the expectation of privacy for electronic mail by the general public is no different than the expectation of privacy they have for physical mail .
Unfortunately , the implementation most often used today does n't live up to the expectations people have .
( People tend to think that because they ca n't check their mail without the proper login and password , that means the mail is " secure " .
They 're used to thinking that passwords = security when it comes to computers .
) With the right software and proper configuration , it 's possible to encrypt all outgoing email automatically , and ensure it really is private .
IMHO , it 's too bad the systems administrators did n't foresee the need for this when paid customers ( usually using dial-up modems with a local ISP ) started signing up and trying this stuff out for the first time .
( Perhaps the truth is , many of them rather * liked * the idea that if they so desired , they 'd be able to snoop into the emails of any of their users , as desired ?
) Now , we 're reaching a point where the courts are playing " catch up " with the technology , and they 're starting to make legal rulings on this stuff .
If it 's codified into law that it 's ILLEGAL to ensure emails have true privacy , that 'd be a shame and a big loss for the userbase as a whole.I know companies like to claim that because they own the servers and the Internet connections the corporate emails travel over and get stored on , they own the " rights " to all of the employee emails as well .
But to me , that 's rather like an owner of an apartment complex claiming he/she can legally go through any of the tenants ' physical mailboxes at will , because he/she owns the panel of mailboxes in the wall that it all gets put in !
( Even in my apartment scenario though , the landlord could possibly get away with opening people 's individual mailboxes , if all he/she was doing was counting the number of envelopes a tenant received each day , or was just reading the postcards before putting them back .
The fact that most mail is inside an envelope that ca n't be opened without leaving behind evidence it was opened/tampered with adds another layer of security for the tenant .
That 's where our current email infrastructure is lacking .
The law is effectively saying " Everything 's written on the equivalent of postcards that anyone can see as they handle it , anyway - so why should we grant it any legal privacy rights ?
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm...  let me get this straight then?
You believe it's an undeniable *fact* that email not only IS not private as it currently stands, but SHOULD not ever be considered private?I'd argue that in reality, the expectation of privacy for electronic mail by the general public is no different than the expectation of privacy they have for physical mail.
Unfortunately, the implementation most often used today doesn't live up to the expectations people have.
(People tend to think that because they can't check their mail without the proper login and password, that means the mail is "secure".
They're used to thinking that passwords = security when it comes to computers.
)With the right software and proper configuration, it's possible to encrypt all outgoing email automatically, and ensure it really is private.
IMHO, it's too bad the systems administrators didn't foresee the need for this when paid customers (usually using dial-up modems with a local ISP) started signing up and trying this stuff out for the first time.
(Perhaps the truth is, many of them rather *liked* the idea that if they so desired, they'd be able to snoop into the emails of any of their users, as desired?
)Now, we're reaching a point where the courts are playing "catch up" with the technology, and they're starting to make legal rulings on this stuff.
If it's codified into law that it's ILLEGAL to ensure emails have true privacy, that'd be a shame and a big loss for the userbase as a whole.I know companies like to claim that because they own the servers and the Internet connections the corporate emails travel over and get stored on, they own the "rights" to all of the employee emails as well.
But to me, that's rather like an owner of an apartment complex claiming he/she can legally go through any of the tenants' physical mailboxes at will, because he/she owns the panel of mailboxes in the wall that it all gets put in!
(Even in my apartment scenario though, the landlord could possibly get away with opening people's individual mailboxes, if all he/she was doing was counting the number of envelopes a tenant received each day, or was just reading the postcards before putting them back.
The fact that most mail is inside an envelope that can't be opened without leaving behind evidence it was opened/tampered with adds another layer of security for the tenant.
That's where our current email infrastructure is lacking.
The law is effectively saying "Everything's written on the equivalent of postcards that anyone can see as they handle it, anyway - so why should we grant it any legal privacy rights?
")</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558</id>
	<title>One flaw</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1257179460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One flaw in this argument: ISP employees <i>do</i> in fact have access to your e-mail. Hopefully it's only a small number, sysadmins and others with root access, and ISPs usually promise not to use that access except in limited ways without the customer's permission, but that doesn't change whether they have access or not. And the courts are concerned with whether the ISP has access, not whether or not he's promised to use it.</p><p>A good analogy would be ordinary bank records vs. the contents of a safe-deposit box. The first the bank has access to, and the customer has limited expectation of privacy regarding them. The second the bank <i>does not</i> have access to, their key physically can't open the box alone, and the customer has a higher expectation of privacy about the contents. If you want an expectation of privacy in your e-mail, you need to insure that your ISP literally cannot access it's contents. A promise from them that they won't isn't sufficient if they can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One flaw in this argument : ISP employees do in fact have access to your e-mail .
Hopefully it 's only a small number , sysadmins and others with root access , and ISPs usually promise not to use that access except in limited ways without the customer 's permission , but that does n't change whether they have access or not .
And the courts are concerned with whether the ISP has access , not whether or not he 's promised to use it.A good analogy would be ordinary bank records vs. the contents of a safe-deposit box .
The first the bank has access to , and the customer has limited expectation of privacy regarding them .
The second the bank does not have access to , their key physically ca n't open the box alone , and the customer has a higher expectation of privacy about the contents .
If you want an expectation of privacy in your e-mail , you need to insure that your ISP literally can not access it 's contents .
A promise from them that they wo n't is n't sufficient if they can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One flaw in this argument: ISP employees do in fact have access to your e-mail.
Hopefully it's only a small number, sysadmins and others with root access, and ISPs usually promise not to use that access except in limited ways without the customer's permission, but that doesn't change whether they have access or not.
And the courts are concerned with whether the ISP has access, not whether or not he's promised to use it.A good analogy would be ordinary bank records vs. the contents of a safe-deposit box.
The first the bank has access to, and the customer has limited expectation of privacy regarding them.
The second the bank does not have access to, their key physically can't open the box alone, and the customer has a higher expectation of privacy about the contents.
If you want an expectation of privacy in your e-mail, you need to insure that your ISP literally cannot access it's contents.
A promise from them that they won't isn't sufficient if they can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950680</id>
	<title>Not Just E-Mail.  Anything in the "cloud"</title>
	<author>wiredog</author>
	<datestamp>1257179940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As James Fallows asks in The Atlantic <a href="http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/are\_we\_naked\_in\_the.php" title="theatlantic.com">Are we naked in the cloud?</a> [theatlantic.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>But the reader's point is less about the ins and outs of this ruling than about the broader legal/privacy implications of storing information "in the cloud." When you're working in Google Docs, as opposed to using a spreadsheet or document that lives on your computer, have you essentially surrendered custody and control of that information? What if you rely on online "cloud" systems -- Carbonite, SugarSync -- to back up or sync your files? Have you given up custody of those files too?</p></div></blockquote><p>The answer he supplies is "yes" you have given up custody.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As James Fallows asks in The Atlantic Are we naked in the cloud ?
[ theatlantic.com ] But the reader 's point is less about the ins and outs of this ruling than about the broader legal/privacy implications of storing information " in the cloud .
" When you 're working in Google Docs , as opposed to using a spreadsheet or document that lives on your computer , have you essentially surrendered custody and control of that information ?
What if you rely on online " cloud " systems -- Carbonite , SugarSync -- to back up or sync your files ?
Have you given up custody of those files too ? The answer he supplies is " yes " you have given up custody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As James Fallows asks in The Atlantic Are we naked in the cloud?
[theatlantic.com] But the reader's point is less about the ins and outs of this ruling than about the broader legal/privacy implications of storing information "in the cloud.
" When you're working in Google Docs, as opposed to using a spreadsheet or document that lives on your computer, have you essentially surrendered custody and control of that information?
What if you rely on online "cloud" systems -- Carbonite, SugarSync -- to back up or sync your files?
Have you given up custody of those files too?The answer he supplies is "yes" you have given up custody.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955044</id>
	<title>Re:safe-deposit box</title>
	<author>Ken\_g6</author>
	<datestamp>1257156780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess if the US government insists on snooping in your safe-deposit-box-like email account...the next step is to get a Swiss Email Account.</p><p>I wonder if Swiss banks would actually provide such accounts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess if the US government insists on snooping in your safe-deposit-box-like email account...the next step is to get a Swiss Email Account.I wonder if Swiss banks would actually provide such accounts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess if the US government insists on snooping in your safe-deposit-box-like email account...the next step is to get a Swiss Email Account.I wonder if Swiss banks would actually provide such accounts?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950750</id>
	<title>encryption is always an option</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257180360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think, with all this laws and rulings, it should become clear to more and more people,<br>that the mail exchange containing relatively private data should be encrypted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think , with all this laws and rulings , it should become clear to more and more people,that the mail exchange containing relatively private data should be encrypted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think, with all this laws and rulings, it should become clear to more and more people,that the mail exchange containing relatively private data should be encrypted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950796</id>
	<title>/. may need to change the category name...</title>
	<author>No Grand Plan</author>
	<datestamp>1257180540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>... because pretty soon we're not going to <i>have</i> any rights online.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... because pretty soon we 're not going to have any rights online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... because pretty soon we're not going to have any rights online.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951218</id>
	<title>Not Secure, even using ssl.</title>
	<author>cpattersonv1</author>
	<datestamp>1257182340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you download email from Google, it's still cached on the local machine so you can view it. When you're downloading email from your own POP account, it has to be transferred across a firewall, switches, and so forth, some of which might cache the information. They would not have to contact <em>you</em> in order to obtain access to your email, and they would not have to contact your email provider or someone who you have entered into a secure agreement with. They would simply have to contact the person who controls the router between you and your email server. (Some of which are already controlled by the government.) In regard to SSL, some corporate firewalls are using the client key to decrypt the emails and web pages to transfer them more quickly through their networks since SSL is a huge taxing process on the system.<br> <br>
Whatever you do on the internet or in email is trackable and traceable. They don't have to touch your computer to find out what you are doing. Also since you are <em>licensing</em> your operating system from a company that makes operating systems, I'm sure there's another loophole there as well.<br>
<br>
If you aren't doing anything wrong, then there is nothing to worry about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you download email from Google , it 's still cached on the local machine so you can view it .
When you 're downloading email from your own POP account , it has to be transferred across a firewall , switches , and so forth , some of which might cache the information .
They would not have to contact you in order to obtain access to your email , and they would not have to contact your email provider or someone who you have entered into a secure agreement with .
They would simply have to contact the person who controls the router between you and your email server .
( Some of which are already controlled by the government .
) In regard to SSL , some corporate firewalls are using the client key to decrypt the emails and web pages to transfer them more quickly through their networks since SSL is a huge taxing process on the system .
Whatever you do on the internet or in email is trackable and traceable .
They do n't have to touch your computer to find out what you are doing .
Also since you are licensing your operating system from a company that makes operating systems , I 'm sure there 's another loophole there as well .
If you are n't doing anything wrong , then there is nothing to worry about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you download email from Google, it's still cached on the local machine so you can view it.
When you're downloading email from your own POP account, it has to be transferred across a firewall, switches, and so forth, some of which might cache the information.
They would not have to contact you in order to obtain access to your email, and they would not have to contact your email provider or someone who you have entered into a secure agreement with.
They would simply have to contact the person who controls the router between you and your email server.
(Some of which are already controlled by the government.
) In regard to SSL, some corporate firewalls are using the client key to decrypt the emails and web pages to transfer them more quickly through their networks since SSL is a huge taxing process on the system.
Whatever you do on the internet or in email is trackable and traceable.
They don't have to touch your computer to find out what you are doing.
Also since you are licensing your operating system from a company that makes operating systems, I'm sure there's another loophole there as well.
If you aren't doing anything wrong, then there is nothing to worry about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951304</id>
	<title>This kind of ruling simply impedes tech advanc</title>
	<author>giladpn</author>
	<datestamp>1257182700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the people here - including the author of the article - are not legal experts. Lets talk of <i>public interest</i> rather than about legalities. Once the <i>public interest</i> is clarified - either case law and appeals will get us to the right place, or if necessary laws can be changed.
<br> <br>
The internet has certainly made life easier for everybody. And sadly that includes the bad guys. The benefits we all enjoy - instant communication, enormous growth in available information, enormous improvement in the timeliness of information, ability to get answers to many questions, unprecedented marketing and advertising possibilities - help the bad guys just as much.
<br> <br>
Want a recent example? See this somewhat self-serving article by a "reformed" advertising scammer: <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/01/how-to-spam-facebook-like-a-pro-an-insiders-confession/" title="techcrunch.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/01/how-to-spam-facebook-like-a-pro-an-insiders-confession/</a> [techcrunch.com]
<br> <br>
And I am not even talking of terrorists, pedophiles, and the like...
<br> <br>
Having said that - its <b>not</b> repeat <b>not</b> enough of an argument to justify a policy of unrestricted search and seizure when data is stored at a third party. Some reasons:
<p>the bad guys are clever at gaming the system; for example THEY do know how to encrypt their sensitive emails. So the damage will hit ordinary folks disproportionally while the crooks will often be able to evade
</p><p>we all benefit from the growth of the internet, for example the recent surge in cloud computing. Do we really want to dampen this progress with legal concerns about privacy?
<br> <br>
This is not to say that we should let the bad guys off the hook entirely. It may be new laws are needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the people here - including the author of the article - are not legal experts .
Lets talk of public interest rather than about legalities .
Once the public interest is clarified - either case law and appeals will get us to the right place , or if necessary laws can be changed .
The internet has certainly made life easier for everybody .
And sadly that includes the bad guys .
The benefits we all enjoy - instant communication , enormous growth in available information , enormous improvement in the timeliness of information , ability to get answers to many questions , unprecedented marketing and advertising possibilities - help the bad guys just as much .
Want a recent example ?
See this somewhat self-serving article by a " reformed " advertising scammer : http : //www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/01/how-to-spam-facebook-like-a-pro-an-insiders-confession/ [ techcrunch.com ] And I am not even talking of terrorists , pedophiles , and the like.. . Having said that - its not repeat not enough of an argument to justify a policy of unrestricted search and seizure when data is stored at a third party .
Some reasons : the bad guys are clever at gaming the system ; for example THEY do know how to encrypt their sensitive emails .
So the damage will hit ordinary folks disproportionally while the crooks will often be able to evade we all benefit from the growth of the internet , for example the recent surge in cloud computing .
Do we really want to dampen this progress with legal concerns about privacy ?
This is not to say that we should let the bad guys off the hook entirely .
It may be new laws are needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the people here - including the author of the article - are not legal experts.
Lets talk of public interest rather than about legalities.
Once the public interest is clarified - either case law and appeals will get us to the right place, or if necessary laws can be changed.
The internet has certainly made life easier for everybody.
And sadly that includes the bad guys.
The benefits we all enjoy - instant communication, enormous growth in available information, enormous improvement in the timeliness of information, ability to get answers to many questions, unprecedented marketing and advertising possibilities - help the bad guys just as much.
Want a recent example?
See this somewhat self-serving article by a "reformed" advertising scammer: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/01/how-to-spam-facebook-like-a-pro-an-insiders-confession/ [techcrunch.com]
 
And I am not even talking of terrorists, pedophiles, and the like...
 
Having said that - its not repeat not enough of an argument to justify a policy of unrestricted search and seizure when data is stored at a third party.
Some reasons:
the bad guys are clever at gaming the system; for example THEY do know how to encrypt their sensitive emails.
So the damage will hit ordinary folks disproportionally while the crooks will often be able to evade
we all benefit from the growth of the internet, for example the recent surge in cloud computing.
Do we really want to dampen this progress with legal concerns about privacy?
This is not to say that we should let the bad guys off the hook entirely.
It may be new laws are needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952040</id>
	<title>Re:Caveat Lector</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1257186000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>One does not need to be a lawyer to understand what this means. It is absolutely clear that email DOES apply to this. The constitution is not a complicated document, and it is not designed to require a modern law degree to understand.</i>
<br>
<br>
Where in the Amendment you quoted does it say the warrant has to be served on the person who has ownership but not custody of the papers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>One does not need to be a lawyer to understand what this means .
It is absolutely clear that email DOES apply to this .
The constitution is not a complicated document , and it is not designed to require a modern law degree to understand .
Where in the Amendment you quoted does it say the warrant has to be served on the person who has ownership but not custody of the papers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One does not need to be a lawyer to understand what this means.
It is absolutely clear that email DOES apply to this.
The constitution is not a complicated document, and it is not designed to require a modern law degree to understand.
Where in the Amendment you quoted does it say the warrant has to be served on the person who has ownership but not custody of the papers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951778</id>
	<title>Re:Email is not private unless encrypted.</title>
	<author>edible\_seaweed</author>
	<datestamp>1257184800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes it is.  The fact that the employees might be fired for reading the mail does not alter the fact that they have the opportunity to do so.  Unencrypted email is no more private than a postcard.</p></div><p>It's a very different situation. People doing things that would get them fired seems very different than the "Ordinary course of business" mentioned in the article.

In addition to threats of firing, a good e-mail provider will have some security implemented...unencrypted e-mail *when stored on the mail server* therefore *is* more private than a postcard -- the threat of punishment matters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes it is .
The fact that the employees might be fired for reading the mail does not alter the fact that they have the opportunity to do so .
Unencrypted email is no more private than a postcard.It 's a very different situation .
People doing things that would get them fired seems very different than the " Ordinary course of business " mentioned in the article .
In addition to threats of firing , a good e-mail provider will have some security implemented...unencrypted e-mail * when stored on the mail server * therefore * is * more private than a postcard -- the threat of punishment matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes it is.
The fact that the employees might be fired for reading the mail does not alter the fact that they have the opportunity to do so.
Unencrypted email is no more private than a postcard.It's a very different situation.
People doing things that would get them fired seems very different than the "Ordinary course of business" mentioned in the article.
In addition to threats of firing, a good e-mail provider will have some security implemented...unencrypted e-mail *when stored on the mail server* therefore *is* more private than a postcard -- the threat of punishment matters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950522</id>
	<title>Decision Formalizes What Already Happens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257179220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This decision doesn't really change the common practice of law-enforcement agencies does it?  Haven't we all already known that the government (and gmail/yahoo/hotmail/your boss etc.) is scanning our email pretty much whenever it wants to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This decision does n't really change the common practice of law-enforcement agencies does it ?
Have n't we all already known that the government ( and gmail/yahoo/hotmail/your boss etc .
) is scanning our email pretty much whenever it wants to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This decision doesn't really change the common practice of law-enforcement agencies does it?
Haven't we all already known that the government (and gmail/yahoo/hotmail/your boss etc.
) is scanning our email pretty much whenever it wants to?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951930</id>
	<title>How is this changing anything?</title>
	<author>fluffernutter</author>
	<datestamp>1257185460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You already had your email on a server you do not control.. Didja think no one else would read it??</htmltext>
<tokenext>You already had your email on a server you do not control.. Didja think no one else would read it ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You already had your email on a server you do not control.. Didja think no one else would read it?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952512</id>
	<title>Re:Makes me glad I run my own mail server</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1257188400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or you can delete it and no one can read it. A place I worked at had that requirement to reduce liabilities during lawsuits. If you own the mail server they can still see it when they give you the warrant. If you use a third party copy or print it off once you get then they have to talk to you to get it again. There are tonnes of ways to circumvent this issue if you feel the need to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you can delete it and no one can read it .
A place I worked at had that requirement to reduce liabilities during lawsuits .
If you own the mail server they can still see it when they give you the warrant .
If you use a third party copy or print it off once you get then they have to talk to you to get it again .
There are tonnes of ways to circumvent this issue if you feel the need to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you can delete it and no one can read it.
A place I worked at had that requirement to reduce liabilities during lawsuits.
If you own the mail server they can still see it when they give you the warrant.
If you use a third party copy or print it off once you get then they have to talk to you to get it again.
There are tonnes of ways to circumvent this issue if you feel the need to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952212</id>
	<title>Re:Makes me glad I run my own mail server</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257186900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First, you can't easily have webmail, which is important for many people.</p></div><p>apt-get install squirrelmail.</p><p>For me, running mutt via ssh is more accessible/important.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , you ca n't easily have webmail , which is important for many people.apt-get install squirrelmail.For me , running mutt via ssh is more accessible/important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, you can't easily have webmail, which is important for many people.apt-get install squirrelmail.For me, running mutt via ssh is more accessible/important.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951890</id>
	<title>Re:One flaw</title>
	<author>http</author>
	<datestamp>1257185280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you want an expectation of privacy in your e-mail, you need to insure that your ISP literally cannot access it's contents. A promise from them that they won't isn't sufficient if they can.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
You need to look up the word 'expectation'.  Yes, the courts are concerned with capability, not ordinary course.  That's part of the problem, and makes me very glad I'm not in the USA.
<br>
You seem to share this misunderstanding with the judge.*  Yes, I have 'access' to some email accounts, but if I looked at them without a warrant (or customer permission) and didn't get fired right away, I'd be fired at the same time as my boss was (for not firing me).  I can't even grep ^Date: without the customer's permission, and even then I still feel dirty.<br>
.
<br>
* Also, sysadmins have root access, it's like saying gardeners have shears.  There are no 'others' on staff with root access, though some might have a sudo entry or two.<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.<br>
Note: I'm not a lawyer in the USA, so my opinion probably doesn't count for more than yours on this, despite any delusions of grandeur I might have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want an expectation of privacy in your e-mail , you need to insure that your ISP literally can not access it 's contents .
A promise from them that they wo n't is n't sufficient if they can .
You need to look up the word 'expectation' .
Yes , the courts are concerned with capability , not ordinary course .
That 's part of the problem , and makes me very glad I 'm not in the USA .
You seem to share this misunderstanding with the judge .
* Yes , I have 'access ' to some email accounts , but if I looked at them without a warrant ( or customer permission ) and did n't get fired right away , I 'd be fired at the same time as my boss was ( for not firing me ) .
I ca n't even grep ^ Date : without the customer 's permission , and even then I still feel dirty .
. * Also , sysadmins have root access , it 's like saying gardeners have shears .
There are no 'others ' on staff with root access , though some might have a sudo entry or two .
. Note : I 'm not a lawyer in the USA , so my opinion probably does n't count for more than yours on this , despite any delusions of grandeur I might have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want an expectation of privacy in your e-mail, you need to insure that your ISP literally cannot access it's contents.
A promise from them that they won't isn't sufficient if they can.
You need to look up the word 'expectation'.
Yes, the courts are concerned with capability, not ordinary course.
That's part of the problem, and makes me very glad I'm not in the USA.
You seem to share this misunderstanding with the judge.
*  Yes, I have 'access' to some email accounts, but if I looked at them without a warrant (or customer permission) and didn't get fired right away, I'd be fired at the same time as my boss was (for not firing me).
I can't even grep ^Date: without the customer's permission, and even then I still feel dirty.
.

* Also, sysadmins have root access, it's like saying gardeners have shears.
There are no 'others' on staff with root access, though some might have a sudo entry or two.
.
Note: I'm not a lawyer in the USA, so my opinion probably doesn't count for more than yours on this, despite any delusions of grandeur I might have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29954364</id>
	<title>Best news I've heard all day really.</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1257153540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So when media companies store their movies, music, book, on third party servers or data center the content no longer belongs to them and they give up their ownership of the content.  I love this judge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So when media companies store their movies , music , book , on third party servers or data center the content no longer belongs to them and they give up their ownership of the content .
I love this judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when media companies store their movies, music, book, on third party servers or data center the content no longer belongs to them and they give up their ownership of the content.
I love this judge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951690</id>
	<title>Expectations?</title>
	<author>starfarer42</author>
	<datestamp>1257184380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is the law based on what a person expects? Which person are we talking about here? I think it's fair to say that the average computer user considers e-mail to be like regular mail, where reading the contents requires that you "open" the e-mail. Heck, every e-mail program I can think of uses that metaphor! But I know that e-mail is more like a post-card, with the contents right out there in the open for anyone to see. Because of that, I don't expect a whole lot of privacy. Does that mean I deserve less protection under the law?</p><p>This shows the flaw in the idea that some information (to and from addresses, etc) is on the "outside" of the envelope while the contents are on the "inside". There is no "inside" when it comes to e-mail! Anyone who has access to the "outside" information has access to everything. What does it matter if the average user <em>expects</em> their e-mail to behave like regular mail when the reality is more like a postcard? Making the law fit people's perceptions seems like trying to impose some kind of schizophrenic world-view on our law-enforcement officers. They can't both read the e-mail headers and ignore the contents, that's a recipe that's just asking for abuse.</p><p>We need a reality check, people, and the solution seems painfully obvious to me: if you want privacy then use end-to-end encryption. It's the only way to be (reasonably) sure that no-one is reading your mail except for the intended recipient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is the law based on what a person expects ?
Which person are we talking about here ?
I think it 's fair to say that the average computer user considers e-mail to be like regular mail , where reading the contents requires that you " open " the e-mail .
Heck , every e-mail program I can think of uses that metaphor !
But I know that e-mail is more like a post-card , with the contents right out there in the open for anyone to see .
Because of that , I do n't expect a whole lot of privacy .
Does that mean I deserve less protection under the law ? This shows the flaw in the idea that some information ( to and from addresses , etc ) is on the " outside " of the envelope while the contents are on the " inside " .
There is no " inside " when it comes to e-mail !
Anyone who has access to the " outside " information has access to everything .
What does it matter if the average user expects their e-mail to behave like regular mail when the reality is more like a postcard ?
Making the law fit people 's perceptions seems like trying to impose some kind of schizophrenic world-view on our law-enforcement officers .
They ca n't both read the e-mail headers and ignore the contents , that 's a recipe that 's just asking for abuse.We need a reality check , people , and the solution seems painfully obvious to me : if you want privacy then use end-to-end encryption .
It 's the only way to be ( reasonably ) sure that no-one is reading your mail except for the intended recipient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is the law based on what a person expects?
Which person are we talking about here?
I think it's fair to say that the average computer user considers e-mail to be like regular mail, where reading the contents requires that you "open" the e-mail.
Heck, every e-mail program I can think of uses that metaphor!
But I know that e-mail is more like a post-card, with the contents right out there in the open for anyone to see.
Because of that, I don't expect a whole lot of privacy.
Does that mean I deserve less protection under the law?This shows the flaw in the idea that some information (to and from addresses, etc) is on the "outside" of the envelope while the contents are on the "inside".
There is no "inside" when it comes to e-mail!
Anyone who has access to the "outside" information has access to everything.
What does it matter if the average user expects their e-mail to behave like regular mail when the reality is more like a postcard?
Making the law fit people's perceptions seems like trying to impose some kind of schizophrenic world-view on our law-enforcement officers.
They can't both read the e-mail headers and ignore the contents, that's a recipe that's just asking for abuse.We need a reality check, people, and the solution seems painfully obvious to me: if you want privacy then use end-to-end encryption.
It's the only way to be (reasonably) sure that no-one is reading your mail except for the intended recipient.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951920</id>
	<title>Re:Makes me glad I run my own mail server</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1257185400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, there's some disadvantages to having your own mail server.  First, you can't easily have webmail, which is important for many people.  Email wouldn't be nearly as useful to me if I could only read it at home after I get home from work, and didn't have access to it from work at all.  If you work at home, this might not be an issue for you.</p><p>Even if you could implement webmail on your home mail server (I haven't checked, but maybe there's some open-source webmail programs out there), it won't be nearly as good as the Gmail interface.  I've used other webmail services, and Gmail simply blows them all away.  Sorry if I sound like a fanboy, but after using Gmail, there's no way I'd switch to using something like Yahoo or Hotmail; they're just crap in comparison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , there 's some disadvantages to having your own mail server .
First , you ca n't easily have webmail , which is important for many people .
Email would n't be nearly as useful to me if I could only read it at home after I get home from work , and did n't have access to it from work at all .
If you work at home , this might not be an issue for you.Even if you could implement webmail on your home mail server ( I have n't checked , but maybe there 's some open-source webmail programs out there ) , it wo n't be nearly as good as the Gmail interface .
I 've used other webmail services , and Gmail simply blows them all away .
Sorry if I sound like a fanboy , but after using Gmail , there 's no way I 'd switch to using something like Yahoo or Hotmail ; they 're just crap in comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, there's some disadvantages to having your own mail server.
First, you can't easily have webmail, which is important for many people.
Email wouldn't be nearly as useful to me if I could only read it at home after I get home from work, and didn't have access to it from work at all.
If you work at home, this might not be an issue for you.Even if you could implement webmail on your home mail server (I haven't checked, but maybe there's some open-source webmail programs out there), it won't be nearly as good as the Gmail interface.
I've used other webmail services, and Gmail simply blows them all away.
Sorry if I sound like a fanboy, but after using Gmail, there's no way I'd switch to using something like Yahoo or Hotmail; they're just crap in comparison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.30034484</id>
	<title>Re:One flaw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257788880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you really think it is likely the NSA is building datacenters that can store Yottabytes of data? That's 1 trillion terrabytes, assuming a very cheap estimate of $50 per terrabyte for storage, they would need 50 trillion dollars just for raw storage, in reality it would cost a hell of a lot more because you need more than the raw storage. So if that is what you believe, can I have some of what you're smoking, please?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really think it is likely the NSA is building datacenters that can store Yottabytes of data ?
That 's 1 trillion terrabytes , assuming a very cheap estimate of $ 50 per terrabyte for storage , they would need 50 trillion dollars just for raw storage , in reality it would cost a hell of a lot more because you need more than the raw storage .
So if that is what you believe , can I have some of what you 're smoking , please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really think it is likely the NSA is building datacenters that can store Yottabytes of data?
That's 1 trillion terrabytes, assuming a very cheap estimate of $50 per terrabyte for storage, they would need 50 trillion dollars just for raw storage, in reality it would cost a hell of a lot more because you need more than the raw storage.
So if that is what you believe, can I have some of what you're smoking, please?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951292</id>
	<title>During ordinary course of business</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1257182640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if the contents of your inbox were revealed during the ordinary course of business, that doesn't mean they aren't private.  During the ordinary course of business at the hospital I work in, people's medical information is "revealed" (to staff that have valid need of it).  This doesn't mean that those staff members go into the local McDonald's and whisper to their friends: "You see Jim Smith there ordering the Egg McMuffin with extra sausage and bacon?  He had a heart attack and a triple bypass just six months ago and his cholesterol was through the roof!"  (And if they do say that, they'll be risking their jobs to do so.)</p><p>The information is revealed during the normal course of "business" and yet it is still considered private information.  Why can't inbox contents be thought of the same way?  Sure, the contents of your inbox might be revealed during a normal course of business (not sure what this normal business would be, but let's let that slide for the moment), but that doesn't make the contents any less private.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the contents of your inbox were revealed during the ordinary course of business , that does n't mean they are n't private .
During the ordinary course of business at the hospital I work in , people 's medical information is " revealed " ( to staff that have valid need of it ) .
This does n't mean that those staff members go into the local McDonald 's and whisper to their friends : " You see Jim Smith there ordering the Egg McMuffin with extra sausage and bacon ?
He had a heart attack and a triple bypass just six months ago and his cholesterol was through the roof !
" ( And if they do say that , they 'll be risking their jobs to do so .
) The information is revealed during the normal course of " business " and yet it is still considered private information .
Why ca n't inbox contents be thought of the same way ?
Sure , the contents of your inbox might be revealed during a normal course of business ( not sure what this normal business would be , but let 's let that slide for the moment ) , but that does n't make the contents any less private .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the contents of your inbox were revealed during the ordinary course of business, that doesn't mean they aren't private.
During the ordinary course of business at the hospital I work in, people's medical information is "revealed" (to staff that have valid need of it).
This doesn't mean that those staff members go into the local McDonald's and whisper to their friends: "You see Jim Smith there ordering the Egg McMuffin with extra sausage and bacon?
He had a heart attack and a triple bypass just six months ago and his cholesterol was through the roof!
"  (And if they do say that, they'll be risking their jobs to do so.
)The information is revealed during the normal course of "business" and yet it is still considered private information.
Why can't inbox contents be thought of the same way?
Sure, the contents of your inbox might be revealed during a normal course of business (not sure what this normal business would be, but let's let that slide for the moment), but that doesn't make the contents any less private.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952104</id>
	<title>It's GMail's long-term storage that;s the problem</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1257186240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It's not an inbox problem.  It's a GMail long-term storage problem.
It was settled in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_v.\_Councilman" title="wikipedia.org">United States v. Councilman</a> [wikipedia.org] that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act applied to messages in "temporary storage".
This <a href="http://volokh.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Mosman.pdf" title="volokh.com">decision</a> [volokh.com]
</p><p>
Also, this was a search with a court-issued search warrant.  The question being litigated is whether the service provider has to tell the customer about the warrant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not an inbox problem .
It 's a GMail long-term storage problem .
It was settled in United States v. Councilman [ wikipedia.org ] that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act applied to messages in " temporary storage " .
This decision [ volokh.com ] Also , this was a search with a court-issued search warrant .
The question being litigated is whether the service provider has to tell the customer about the warrant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's not an inbox problem.
It's a GMail long-term storage problem.
It was settled in United States v. Councilman [wikipedia.org] that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act applied to messages in "temporary storage".
This decision [volokh.com]

Also, this was a search with a court-issued search warrant.
The question being litigated is whether the service provider has to tell the customer about the warrant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950832</id>
	<title>Caveat Lector</title>
	<author>Grond</author>
	<datestamp>1257180660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the essay: "Now, most of us don't have the expertise to comment on the legal technicalities"</p><p>Mr. Haselton is, as far as I can determine, not an attorney and has no formal legal education.  So bear in mind that the above statement applies to the author of this essay as well.</p><p>You know how Slashdot contributors often bemoan poor science journalism written by reporters who obviously don't understand the subject matter?  The same danger exists when people like Mr. Haselton, who is a freelance programmer, try to analyze and report on legal issues.</p><p>Again, from the essay: "But in the game of analogies, we're all experts, insofar as we're qualified to comment on...whether our "expectations of privacy" in the two areas are similar."</p><p>The expectation of privacy is a legal term of art.  It does not simply refer to the individual's subjective feeling about whether he or she, personally, expects that a given communication, act, etc will or should be private.  So, no, we are not all necessarily qualified to comment on the similarity of the expectation of privacy in two areas because there is a second, objective component of the expectation of privacy.  The objective component is highly context-dependent, and its contours have been defined over the years by numerous court cases, none of which Mr. Haselton has cited, distinguished, or applied here.</p><p>And this is the glaring issue with Mr. Haselton's essay: he has analyzed the opinion in a vacuum.  He does not cite or apply any supporting precedent or statutes, nor does he distinguish the facts of the case from the precedents that the judge cited.  This kind of reasoning is not legal reasoning, and it can easily lead to all kinds of errors.</p><p>Note that I have, apart from the meaning of 'expectation of privacy,' refrained from critiquing the substance of Mr. Haselton's argument.  It is possible that his argument could well win the day in an appeal; on the other hand, perhaps it is hogwash.  I merely want the readers here not to be mislead into thinking that this is a rigorous legal argument or that Mr. Haselton is some kind of expert on the subject matter.  Indeed, his lack of citations or argument from precedent would probably get him laughed out of court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the essay : " Now , most of us do n't have the expertise to comment on the legal technicalities " Mr. Haselton is , as far as I can determine , not an attorney and has no formal legal education .
So bear in mind that the above statement applies to the author of this essay as well.You know how Slashdot contributors often bemoan poor science journalism written by reporters who obviously do n't understand the subject matter ?
The same danger exists when people like Mr. Haselton , who is a freelance programmer , try to analyze and report on legal issues.Again , from the essay : " But in the game of analogies , we 're all experts , insofar as we 're qualified to comment on...whether our " expectations of privacy " in the two areas are similar .
" The expectation of privacy is a legal term of art .
It does not simply refer to the individual 's subjective feeling about whether he or she , personally , expects that a given communication , act , etc will or should be private .
So , no , we are not all necessarily qualified to comment on the similarity of the expectation of privacy in two areas because there is a second , objective component of the expectation of privacy .
The objective component is highly context-dependent , and its contours have been defined over the years by numerous court cases , none of which Mr. Haselton has cited , distinguished , or applied here.And this is the glaring issue with Mr. Haselton 's essay : he has analyzed the opinion in a vacuum .
He does not cite or apply any supporting precedent or statutes , nor does he distinguish the facts of the case from the precedents that the judge cited .
This kind of reasoning is not legal reasoning , and it can easily lead to all kinds of errors.Note that I have , apart from the meaning of 'expectation of privacy, ' refrained from critiquing the substance of Mr. Haselton 's argument .
It is possible that his argument could well win the day in an appeal ; on the other hand , perhaps it is hogwash .
I merely want the readers here not to be mislead into thinking that this is a rigorous legal argument or that Mr. Haselton is some kind of expert on the subject matter .
Indeed , his lack of citations or argument from precedent would probably get him laughed out of court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the essay: "Now, most of us don't have the expertise to comment on the legal technicalities"Mr. Haselton is, as far as I can determine, not an attorney and has no formal legal education.
So bear in mind that the above statement applies to the author of this essay as well.You know how Slashdot contributors often bemoan poor science journalism written by reporters who obviously don't understand the subject matter?
The same danger exists when people like Mr. Haselton, who is a freelance programmer, try to analyze and report on legal issues.Again, from the essay: "But in the game of analogies, we're all experts, insofar as we're qualified to comment on...whether our "expectations of privacy" in the two areas are similar.
"The expectation of privacy is a legal term of art.
It does not simply refer to the individual's subjective feeling about whether he or she, personally, expects that a given communication, act, etc will or should be private.
So, no, we are not all necessarily qualified to comment on the similarity of the expectation of privacy in two areas because there is a second, objective component of the expectation of privacy.
The objective component is highly context-dependent, and its contours have been defined over the years by numerous court cases, none of which Mr. Haselton has cited, distinguished, or applied here.And this is the glaring issue with Mr. Haselton's essay: he has analyzed the opinion in a vacuum.
He does not cite or apply any supporting precedent or statutes, nor does he distinguish the facts of the case from the precedents that the judge cited.
This kind of reasoning is not legal reasoning, and it can easily lead to all kinds of errors.Note that I have, apart from the meaning of 'expectation of privacy,' refrained from critiquing the substance of Mr. Haselton's argument.
It is possible that his argument could well win the day in an appeal; on the other hand, perhaps it is hogwash.
I merely want the readers here not to be mislead into thinking that this is a rigorous legal argument or that Mr. Haselton is some kind of expert on the subject matter.
Indeed, his lack of citations or argument from precedent would probably get him laughed out of court.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951246</id>
	<title>Re:One flaw</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1257182400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My landlord has keys to my apartment.  Does that mean I have no expectation of privacy in my own apartment, just because a third party theoretically has access to it?  Even if I haven't given permission for my landlord to enter my apartment?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My landlord has keys to my apartment .
Does that mean I have no expectation of privacy in my own apartment , just because a third party theoretically has access to it ?
Even if I have n't given permission for my landlord to enter my apartment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My landlord has keys to my apartment.
Does that mean I have no expectation of privacy in my own apartment, just because a third party theoretically has access to it?
Even if I haven't given permission for my landlord to enter my apartment?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953406</id>
	<title>Uh-oh.  Taxes!</title>
	<author>Polo</author>
	<datestamp>1257192660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean the IRS will find out about the MILLIONS of dollars people in Nigeria have for me??</p><p>My taxes will go through the roof!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean the IRS will find out about the MILLIONS of dollars people in Nigeria have for me ?
? My taxes will go through the roof !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean the IRS will find out about the MILLIONS of dollars people in Nigeria have for me?
?My taxes will go through the roof!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951312</id>
	<title>Re:The #1 Lesson</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1257182760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Email is the equivalent of postcards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Email is the equivalent of postcards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email is the equivalent of postcards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951358</id>
	<title>Clueless Judges</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257182880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another bad ruling that demonstrates that an average judge doesn't have enough technical knowledge to make a good ruling. They all make the same mistake: because they don't understand the tech, they try to force physical-world paradigms already familiar to them onto the digital world, regardless of the fact that its a terrible fit and causes massively incorrect conclusions to be made.</p><p>We can't continue to leave these vitally important infrastructure decisions to have-a-go judges. The damage already caused is massive. There needs to be a special court set up to hear technical cases, where the issue gets decided by technical experts, not some old duffer who is probably scared of computers and has secretaries for that sort of thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another bad ruling that demonstrates that an average judge does n't have enough technical knowledge to make a good ruling .
They all make the same mistake : because they do n't understand the tech , they try to force physical-world paradigms already familiar to them onto the digital world , regardless of the fact that its a terrible fit and causes massively incorrect conclusions to be made.We ca n't continue to leave these vitally important infrastructure decisions to have-a-go judges .
The damage already caused is massive .
There needs to be a special court set up to hear technical cases , where the issue gets decided by technical experts , not some old duffer who is probably scared of computers and has secretaries for that sort of thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another bad ruling that demonstrates that an average judge doesn't have enough technical knowledge to make a good ruling.
They all make the same mistake: because they don't understand the tech, they try to force physical-world paradigms already familiar to them onto the digital world, regardless of the fact that its a terrible fit and causes massively incorrect conclusions to be made.We can't continue to leave these vitally important infrastructure decisions to have-a-go judges.
The damage already caused is massive.
There needs to be a special court set up to hear technical cases, where the issue gets decided by technical experts, not some old duffer who is probably scared of computers and has secretaries for that sort of thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953566</id>
	<title>Re:US Mail is handle by a Third Party too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257193320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So how is it any different if I give an envelope to a USPS employee?</p></div><p>I'm 99\% sure my mailman is watching my Netflix DVDs before I get them, he'd be more than happy to turn my mail over to anyone with a badge, warrant or not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how is it any different if I give an envelope to a USPS employee ? I 'm 99 \ % sure my mailman is watching my Netflix DVDs before I get them , he 'd be more than happy to turn my mail over to anyone with a badge , warrant or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how is it any different if I give an envelope to a USPS employee?I'm 99\% sure my mailman is watching my Netflix DVDs before I get them, he'd be more than happy to turn my mail over to anyone with a badge, warrant or not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951022</id>
	<title>I actually fail to see the point</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1257181380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- e-mail is like snail mail: it transits through others to get to me. i DO have an expectation that my mail, and my email, is private<br>- I park my car on someone else's property daily. This does NOT mean I'm giving my car away, or I don't care what happens to it.<br>- In any case, blanket invasion of privacy without even having to go though a judge for each specific instance, or at least each specific individual for a certain time period, is unacceptable. I don't trust judges much more than politicians, but just needing 2 snoops instead of just one makes snooping exponentially harder.</p><p>Idiot and crooked politicians certainly cost us more money, and quite possibly more lives, than terrorism and drug gangs. Time to rein them in... and snoop on them. The public actually has much less reason to trust them than they have to trust the public. How about we put them under 24x7 public scrutiny ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- e-mail is like snail mail : it transits through others to get to me .
i DO have an expectation that my mail , and my email , is private- I park my car on someone else 's property daily .
This does NOT mean I 'm giving my car away , or I do n't care what happens to it.- In any case , blanket invasion of privacy without even having to go though a judge for each specific instance , or at least each specific individual for a certain time period , is unacceptable .
I do n't trust judges much more than politicians , but just needing 2 snoops instead of just one makes snooping exponentially harder.Idiot and crooked politicians certainly cost us more money , and quite possibly more lives , than terrorism and drug gangs .
Time to rein them in... and snoop on them .
The public actually has much less reason to trust them than they have to trust the public .
How about we put them under 24x7 public scrutiny ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- e-mail is like snail mail: it transits through others to get to me.
i DO have an expectation that my mail, and my email, is private- I park my car on someone else's property daily.
This does NOT mean I'm giving my car away, or I don't care what happens to it.- In any case, blanket invasion of privacy without even having to go though a judge for each specific instance, or at least each specific individual for a certain time period, is unacceptable.
I don't trust judges much more than politicians, but just needing 2 snoops instead of just one makes snooping exponentially harder.Idiot and crooked politicians certainly cost us more money, and quite possibly more lives, than terrorism and drug gangs.
Time to rein them in... and snoop on them.
The public actually has much less reason to trust them than they have to trust the public.
How about we put them under 24x7 public scrutiny ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29956156</id>
	<title>I love spam!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257161760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even more reason to inundate your email inbox with spam.  Get some associates to send similar messages a few bytes at a time.</p><p>Uh, no, I'm not involved in a terrorist organization...<br>I just love my<br>Vi.A,gra1!<br>Free mor.T,age es.T,imates!2<br>Ci.A,li3s<br>Ba.CK, door<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.A,n4l slu.T,s<br>Hot<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.DA,te5 to Night!<br>Lotto<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.W,i.N,in6s</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even more reason to inundate your email inbox with spam .
Get some associates to send similar messages a few bytes at a time.Uh , no , I 'm not involved in a terrorist organization...I just love myVi.A,gra1 ! Free mor.T,age es.T,imates ! 2Ci.A,li3sBa.CK , door .A,n4l slu.T,sHot .DA,te5 to Night ! Lotto .W,i.N,in6s</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even more reason to inundate your email inbox with spam.
Get some associates to send similar messages a few bytes at a time.Uh, no, I'm not involved in a terrorist organization...I just love myVi.A,gra1!Free mor.T,age es.T,imates!2Ci.A,li3sBa.CK, door .A,n4l slu.T,sHot .DA,te5 to Night!Lotto .W,i.N,in6s</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952230</id>
	<title>Re:Not Just E-Mail. Anything in the "cloud"</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1257186960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're about the third post in this thread to mention homes, and the answers in your case are:<br>1. Yes, and it's actually done quite frequently.<br>2. Technically yes, although it's been done mostly in some limited cases under laws such as RICO, and 20 states have some protections for some other possible abuses.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Without sweeping legal reforms, the same bullshit that lets them make this call on e-mail has already let them get your financial information - they just use the same argument that banking info is handled by a third party and notify the bank, not you, of what they'd like to see. If you look at how the federal government has treated those eminent domain cases where a mortgage is involved, the situation is analogous there unless you live in one of the 20 states that have state constitutional protections that exceed the federal rules. (And there are similar risks even for fully owned property where no mortgage is in effect, although those don't involve the government using this third party trick for eminent domain).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Just think of how broad, nebulous 3rd party rules can be used in home privacy law. Either you rent, and the landlord is a third party, or you own with payments, and a financial institution becomes the third party, or it's all paid off, but you still have local taxes, and local governments or private property assessors can be used as third parties. Then there's meter readers, repairpersons, and such.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The RICO act lets various justice departments make fertile use of 3rd party access - for example, there was an obscenity case in the 90s where the police agency determined through financial institution records that a speedboat existed among the person's assets, and then used the boat as an excuse to extend a home search warrant to the separate property where that boat was kept. (That is, the written justification for searching the boathouse at a marina owned by the accused and located about 40 miles from the main business offices or the accused's home, wasn't that they had reason to believe obscene material had been either filmed or stored there, but that they had reason to believe obscene materials were produced or stored at other locations, and that an asset which might qualify to be seized under RICO was there and they needed to determine its condition. In other words, they searched the boathouse to see how much they could likely get for the boat at auction.).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're about the third post in this thread to mention homes , and the answers in your case are : 1 .
Yes , and it 's actually done quite frequently.2 .
Technically yes , although it 's been done mostly in some limited cases under laws such as RICO , and 20 states have some protections for some other possible abuses .
      Without sweeping legal reforms , the same bullshit that lets them make this call on e-mail has already let them get your financial information - they just use the same argument that banking info is handled by a third party and notify the bank , not you , of what they 'd like to see .
If you look at how the federal government has treated those eminent domain cases where a mortgage is involved , the situation is analogous there unless you live in one of the 20 states that have state constitutional protections that exceed the federal rules .
( And there are similar risks even for fully owned property where no mortgage is in effect , although those do n't involve the government using this third party trick for eminent domain ) .
      Just think of how broad , nebulous 3rd party rules can be used in home privacy law .
Either you rent , and the landlord is a third party , or you own with payments , and a financial institution becomes the third party , or it 's all paid off , but you still have local taxes , and local governments or private property assessors can be used as third parties .
Then there 's meter readers , repairpersons , and such .
        The RICO act lets various justice departments make fertile use of 3rd party access - for example , there was an obscenity case in the 90s where the police agency determined through financial institution records that a speedboat existed among the person 's assets , and then used the boat as an excuse to extend a home search warrant to the separate property where that boat was kept .
( That is , the written justification for searching the boathouse at a marina owned by the accused and located about 40 miles from the main business offices or the accused 's home , was n't that they had reason to believe obscene material had been either filmed or stored there , but that they had reason to believe obscene materials were produced or stored at other locations , and that an asset which might qualify to be seized under RICO was there and they needed to determine its condition .
In other words , they searched the boathouse to see how much they could likely get for the boat at auction .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're about the third post in this thread to mention homes, and the answers in your case are:1.
Yes, and it's actually done quite frequently.2.
Technically yes, although it's been done mostly in some limited cases under laws such as RICO, and 20 states have some protections for some other possible abuses.
      Without sweeping legal reforms, the same bullshit that lets them make this call on e-mail has already let them get your financial information - they just use the same argument that banking info is handled by a third party and notify the bank, not you, of what they'd like to see.
If you look at how the federal government has treated those eminent domain cases where a mortgage is involved, the situation is analogous there unless you live in one of the 20 states that have state constitutional protections that exceed the federal rules.
(And there are similar risks even for fully owned property where no mortgage is in effect, although those don't involve the government using this third party trick for eminent domain).
      Just think of how broad, nebulous 3rd party rules can be used in home privacy law.
Either you rent, and the landlord is a third party, or you own with payments, and a financial institution becomes the third party, or it's all paid off, but you still have local taxes, and local governments or private property assessors can be used as third parties.
Then there's meter readers, repairpersons, and such.
        The RICO act lets various justice departments make fertile use of 3rd party access - for example, there was an obscenity case in the 90s where the police agency determined through financial institution records that a speedboat existed among the person's assets, and then used the boat as an excuse to extend a home search warrant to the separate property where that boat was kept.
(That is, the written justification for searching the boathouse at a marina owned by the accused and located about 40 miles from the main business offices or the accused's home, wasn't that they had reason to believe obscene material had been either filmed or stored there, but that they had reason to believe obscene materials were produced or stored at other locations, and that an asset which might qualify to be seized under RICO was there and they needed to determine its condition.
In other words, they searched the boathouse to see how much they could likely get for the boat at auction.
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951886</id>
	<title>GnuPG Anyone?</title>
	<author>mcoon</author>
	<datestamp>1257185280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder how many more of these events will occur before the public starts using GPG? I have a feeling it will have to be a campaign similar in scope to what RIAA and MPAA did, which might never happen. Perhaps this could be a good thing in the long run if it does move the public in the detection of more secure communications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how many more of these events will occur before the public starts using GPG ?
I have a feeling it will have to be a campaign similar in scope to what RIAA and MPAA did , which might never happen .
Perhaps this could be a good thing in the long run if it does move the public in the detection of more secure communications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how many more of these events will occur before the public starts using GPG?
I have a feeling it will have to be a campaign similar in scope to what RIAA and MPAA did, which might never happen.
Perhaps this could be a good thing in the long run if it does move the public in the detection of more secure communications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950590</id>
	<title>As an UNIX admin...</title>
	<author>taskiss</author>
	<datestamp>1257179520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> "Fortunately for everybody, this is not true &mdash; most ISPs do not allow their employees to read customer e-mails 'in the ordinary course of business' "</p><p>I disagree. When something starts filling<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/var/spool/mqueue it's common that customer e-mail get read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Fortunately for everybody , this is not true    most ISPs do not allow their employees to read customer e-mails 'in the ordinary course of business ' " I disagree .
When something starts filling /var/spool/mqueue it 's common that customer e-mail get read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Fortunately for everybody, this is not true — most ISPs do not allow their employees to read customer e-mails 'in the ordinary course of business' "I disagree.
When something starts filling /var/spool/mqueue it's common that customer e-mail get read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951662</id>
	<title>Re:Caveat Lector</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1257184260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  lack of citations or argument from precedent would probably get him laughed out of court</p></div><p>Since ignoring precedent is itself precedent, it's more appropriate to laugh while going into court.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>lack of citations or argument from precedent would probably get him laughed out of courtSince ignoring precedent is itself precedent , it 's more appropriate to laugh while going into court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  lack of citations or argument from precedent would probably get him laughed out of courtSince ignoring precedent is itself precedent, it's more appropriate to laugh while going into court.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950580</id>
	<title>Warrant</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1257179520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm just happy to see them actually realizing that it should require a warrant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just happy to see them actually realizing that it should require a warrant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just happy to see them actually realizing that it should require a warrant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951170</id>
	<title>Re:Makes me glad I run my own mail server</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1257182160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am the admin my mail server. But my mail server is a virtual server in a datacenter. I lease that space, so presumably as far as notification goes, it is just as much mine as an apartment I may rent or a car I may lease.</p><p>Will the judge see it this way?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am the admin my mail server .
But my mail server is a virtual server in a datacenter .
I lease that space , so presumably as far as notification goes , it is just as much mine as an apartment I may rent or a car I may lease.Will the judge see it this way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am the admin my mail server.
But my mail server is a virtual server in a datacenter.
I lease that space, so presumably as far as notification goes, it is just as much mine as an apartment I may rent or a car I may lease.Will the judge see it this way?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951952</id>
	<title>Re:US Mail is handle by a Third Party too</title>
	<author>xouumalperxe</author>
	<datestamp>1257185520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> So how is it any different if I give an envelope to a USPS employee? It's no longer under my control, but I expect it to be private.</p> </div><p>Or, to keep it even closer to the original comparison with bank reports, what should my expectation of privacy be for bank safe deposit boxes?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how is it any different if I give an envelope to a USPS employee ?
It 's no longer under my control , but I expect it to be private .
Or , to keep it even closer to the original comparison with bank reports , what should my expectation of privacy be for bank safe deposit boxes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So how is it any different if I give an envelope to a USPS employee?
It's no longer under my control, but I expect it to be private.
Or, to keep it even closer to the original comparison with bank reports, what should my expectation of privacy be for bank safe deposit boxes?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950766</id>
	<title>Email is not private unless encrypted.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1257180420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...the decision hinges on the assertion that ISP customers have lowered<br>&gt; privacy interests in e-mail because they 'expose to the ISP's employees in<br>&gt; the ordinary course of business the contents of their e-mails.' Fortunately<br>&gt; for everybody, this is not true...</p><p>Yes it is.  The fact that the employees might be fired for reading the mail does not alter the fact that they have the opportunity to do so.  Unencrypted email is no more private than a postcard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...the decision hinges on the assertion that ISP customers have lowered &gt; privacy interests in e-mail because they 'expose to the ISP 's employees in &gt; the ordinary course of business the contents of their e-mails .
' Fortunately &gt; for everybody , this is not true...Yes it is .
The fact that the employees might be fired for reading the mail does not alter the fact that they have the opportunity to do so .
Unencrypted email is no more private than a postcard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ...the decision hinges on the assertion that ISP customers have lowered&gt; privacy interests in e-mail because they 'expose to the ISP's employees in&gt; the ordinary course of business the contents of their e-mails.
' Fortunately&gt; for everybody, this is not true...Yes it is.
The fact that the employees might be fired for reading the mail does not alter the fact that they have the opportunity to do so.
Unencrypted email is no more private than a postcard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952728</id>
	<title>Re:One flaw</title>
	<author>Dark\_Gravity</author>
	<datestamp>1257189600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My landlord has keys to my apartment.  Does that mean I have no expectation of privacy in my own apartment, just because a third party theoretically has access to it?  Even if I haven't given permission for my landlord to enter my apartment?</p></div><p>In Tennessee a <a href="http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/10/28/landlords-can-ban-tenants-from-having-guns/" title="nashvillepost.com" rel="nofollow">landlord can override your 2nd Amendment rights,</a> [nashvillepost.com] so what you suggest may not be that far fetched.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My landlord has keys to my apartment .
Does that mean I have no expectation of privacy in my own apartment , just because a third party theoretically has access to it ?
Even if I have n't given permission for my landlord to enter my apartment ? In Tennessee a landlord can override your 2nd Amendment rights , [ nashvillepost.com ] so what you suggest may not be that far fetched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My landlord has keys to my apartment.
Does that mean I have no expectation of privacy in my own apartment, just because a third party theoretically has access to it?
Even if I haven't given permission for my landlord to enter my apartment?In Tennessee a landlord can override your 2nd Amendment rights, [nashvillepost.com] so what you suggest may not be that far fetched.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953622</id>
	<title>Re:Caveat Lector</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257193560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You know how Slashdot contributors often bemoan poor science journalism written by reporters who obviously don't understand the subject matter? The same danger exists when people like Mr. Haselton, who is a freelance programmer, try to analyze and report on legal issues.</p></div><p>i'd rather bemoan the fact that we live in a world where the very rules we are all expected to live by (and follow with grave consequences if we don't) require someone to be a highly trained expert just to understand that "do you expect this to be private" does not mean the same thing as "do you have an expectation of privacy".</p><p>the fact that law is so convoluted and byzantine that one must be the equivalent of a PhD astrophysicist in order to make sense of it offends my sensibilities far more than the fact that some poor, naive layman presumed to interject some common sense into the argument.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know how Slashdot contributors often bemoan poor science journalism written by reporters who obviously do n't understand the subject matter ?
The same danger exists when people like Mr. Haselton , who is a freelance programmer , try to analyze and report on legal issues.i 'd rather bemoan the fact that we live in a world where the very rules we are all expected to live by ( and follow with grave consequences if we do n't ) require someone to be a highly trained expert just to understand that " do you expect this to be private " does not mean the same thing as " do you have an expectation of privacy " .the fact that law is so convoluted and byzantine that one must be the equivalent of a PhD astrophysicist in order to make sense of it offends my sensibilities far more than the fact that some poor , naive layman presumed to interject some common sense into the argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know how Slashdot contributors often bemoan poor science journalism written by reporters who obviously don't understand the subject matter?
The same danger exists when people like Mr. Haselton, who is a freelance programmer, try to analyze and report on legal issues.i'd rather bemoan the fact that we live in a world where the very rules we are all expected to live by (and follow with grave consequences if we don't) require someone to be a highly trained expert just to understand that "do you expect this to be private" does not mean the same thing as "do you have an expectation of privacy".the fact that law is so convoluted and byzantine that one must be the equivalent of a PhD astrophysicist in order to make sense of it offends my sensibilities far more than the fact that some poor, naive layman presumed to interject some common sense into the argument.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29954734</id>
	<title>Safe deposit box rather than normal bank account</title>
	<author>Burning Plastic</author>
	<datestamp>1257155220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a perfect analogy, but it does fit a little better ie.</p><p>Email - most employees won't have direct access to it, but the ISP can shut down your access...</p><p>Safe deposit box  - user's key is required, but you still need to get into the bank vault or some similar room...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a perfect analogy , but it does fit a little better ie.Email - most employees wo n't have direct access to it , but the ISP can shut down your access...Safe deposit box - user 's key is required , but you still need to get into the bank vault or some similar room.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a perfect analogy, but it does fit a little better ie.Email - most employees won't have direct access to it, but the ISP can shut down your access...Safe deposit box  - user's key is required, but you still need to get into the bank vault or some similar room...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951114</id>
	<title>Re:One flaw</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1257181920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A good analogy would be ordinary bank records vs. the contents of a safe-deposit box. The first the bank has access to, and the customer has limited expectation of privacy regarding them. The second the bank does not have access to, their key physically can't open the box alone, and the customer has a higher expectation of privacy about the contents.</p></div></blockquote><p>Up until the 1970s, you're bankrecords were, in fact, confidential and the customer had as much expectation to privacy there as with his health records entrusted to his doctor.</p><p>Then this was assaulted by the "Right to Financial Privacy Act" in 1978, which "let federal agents write their own search warrants, but limited the subjects of those warrants to financial institutions."<br><a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/napolitano2.html" title="lewrockwell.com">http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/napolitano2.html</a> [lewrockwell.com] (I don't respect Lew Rockwell so much, but Judge Napolitano seems to know what he is talking about, and this was in a speech of his as well here: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8</a> [youtube.com])</p><p>I heard various things about Government unwarranted snooping and seizure on safety deposit boxes, but I can't find a credible link about that at the moment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A good analogy would be ordinary bank records vs. the contents of a safe-deposit box .
The first the bank has access to , and the customer has limited expectation of privacy regarding them .
The second the bank does not have access to , their key physically ca n't open the box alone , and the customer has a higher expectation of privacy about the contents.Up until the 1970s , you 're bankrecords were , in fact , confidential and the customer had as much expectation to privacy there as with his health records entrusted to his doctor.Then this was assaulted by the " Right to Financial Privacy Act " in 1978 , which " let federal agents write their own search warrants , but limited the subjects of those warrants to financial institutions .
" http : //www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/napolitano2.html [ lewrockwell.com ] ( I do n't respect Lew Rockwell so much , but Judge Napolitano seems to know what he is talking about , and this was in a speech of his as well here : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = t8QwTKKSvR8 [ youtube.com ] ) I heard various things about Government unwarranted snooping and seizure on safety deposit boxes , but I ca n't find a credible link about that at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good analogy would be ordinary bank records vs. the contents of a safe-deposit box.
The first the bank has access to, and the customer has limited expectation of privacy regarding them.
The second the bank does not have access to, their key physically can't open the box alone, and the customer has a higher expectation of privacy about the contents.Up until the 1970s, you're bankrecords were, in fact, confidential and the customer had as much expectation to privacy there as with his health records entrusted to his doctor.Then this was assaulted by the "Right to Financial Privacy Act" in 1978, which "let federal agents write their own search warrants, but limited the subjects of those warrants to financial institutions.
"http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/napolitano2.html [lewrockwell.com] (I don't respect Lew Rockwell so much, but Judge Napolitano seems to know what he is talking about, and this was in a speech of his as well here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8 [youtube.com])I heard various things about Government unwarranted snooping and seizure on safety deposit boxes, but I can't find a credible link about that at the moment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952200</id>
	<title>Re:Clueless Judges</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1257186840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't just the judge.  Complex court cases often involve tens of people in associated areas, including law schools.  If it is not possible to take the technical aspects out of a case so that people not trained in the technology can understand it, you are setting up for some sort of "high court of tech" that is excluded from review.</p><p>What is being attempted is to remove the technology from the issues of law so that everyone can review matters.  This is the same thing that happens with medical malpractice - the judge does not have to be a doctor, the prosecutor doesn't have to be a doctor and outside consultants on matters of law do not have to be doctors.  Becase in the end the facts of the case and the law can be separated.</p><p>The alternative is that there would need to be dozens of specialized courts and the idea of a jury would be thrown out - no jury could possibly be seated that was (a) impartial and (b) knowledgeable about the subject matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't just the judge .
Complex court cases often involve tens of people in associated areas , including law schools .
If it is not possible to take the technical aspects out of a case so that people not trained in the technology can understand it , you are setting up for some sort of " high court of tech " that is excluded from review.What is being attempted is to remove the technology from the issues of law so that everyone can review matters .
This is the same thing that happens with medical malpractice - the judge does not have to be a doctor , the prosecutor does n't have to be a doctor and outside consultants on matters of law do not have to be doctors .
Becase in the end the facts of the case and the law can be separated.The alternative is that there would need to be dozens of specialized courts and the idea of a jury would be thrown out - no jury could possibly be seated that was ( a ) impartial and ( b ) knowledgeable about the subject matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't just the judge.
Complex court cases often involve tens of people in associated areas, including law schools.
If it is not possible to take the technical aspects out of a case so that people not trained in the technology can understand it, you are setting up for some sort of "high court of tech" that is excluded from review.What is being attempted is to remove the technology from the issues of law so that everyone can review matters.
This is the same thing that happens with medical malpractice - the judge does not have to be a doctor, the prosecutor doesn't have to be a doctor and outside consultants on matters of law do not have to be doctors.
Becase in the end the facts of the case and the law can be separated.The alternative is that there would need to be dozens of specialized courts and the idea of a jury would be thrown out - no jury could possibly be seated that was (a) impartial and (b) knowledgeable about the subject matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951082</id>
	<title>Gmail should encrypt my mail on their servers</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1257181800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After indexing it for search and ad-serving purposes, it should then be encrypted on their disks.<br>This would circumvent the judge's argument.</p><p>If this sort of encryption is not done, all people and businesses that use software as a service to<br>for example write and store their intended-private documents are in legal jeopardy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After indexing it for search and ad-serving purposes , it should then be encrypted on their disks.This would circumvent the judge 's argument.If this sort of encryption is not done , all people and businesses that use software as a service tofor example write and store their intended-private documents are in legal jeopardy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After indexing it for search and ad-serving purposes, it should then be encrypted on their disks.This would circumvent the judge's argument.If this sort of encryption is not done, all people and businesses that use software as a service tofor example write and store their intended-private documents are in legal jeopardy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953416</id>
	<title>UPS and the Phone</title>
	<author>smbell</author>
	<datestamp>1257192720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems to me that the proper analogy lies with UPS and a phone company.  I'm not fully up to speed on the law, but IMHO you should have to pass the same legal barriers as if you were to get phone records and open a package from UPS.

Basically it should work like this.  I need to use the same legal hurdles as if I were getting phone records.  This gets me the all the email header info that falls within the applicable warrant (all correspondence between Mr X and me during November and December for example).  Then you can take that one step further and get a warrant for the contents of one or many of those specific emails.

That would seem perfectly reasonable to me.  I'm sorry, but you have entrusted your data with a third party.  I don't think you can really claim a privacy issue if a proper warrant has been obtained and served at the location the data exists.  Of course there is always the possibility that the third party in question is perfectly happy to hand over all your emails without a warrant, and that (in the best of my understanding) would not break any laws.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that the proper analogy lies with UPS and a phone company .
I 'm not fully up to speed on the law , but IMHO you should have to pass the same legal barriers as if you were to get phone records and open a package from UPS .
Basically it should work like this .
I need to use the same legal hurdles as if I were getting phone records .
This gets me the all the email header info that falls within the applicable warrant ( all correspondence between Mr X and me during November and December for example ) .
Then you can take that one step further and get a warrant for the contents of one or many of those specific emails .
That would seem perfectly reasonable to me .
I 'm sorry , but you have entrusted your data with a third party .
I do n't think you can really claim a privacy issue if a proper warrant has been obtained and served at the location the data exists .
Of course there is always the possibility that the third party in question is perfectly happy to hand over all your emails without a warrant , and that ( in the best of my understanding ) would not break any laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that the proper analogy lies with UPS and a phone company.
I'm not fully up to speed on the law, but IMHO you should have to pass the same legal barriers as if you were to get phone records and open a package from UPS.
Basically it should work like this.
I need to use the same legal hurdles as if I were getting phone records.
This gets me the all the email header info that falls within the applicable warrant (all correspondence between Mr X and me during November and December for example).
Then you can take that one step further and get a warrant for the contents of one or many of those specific emails.
That would seem perfectly reasonable to me.
I'm sorry, but you have entrusted your data with a third party.
I don't think you can really claim a privacy issue if a proper warrant has been obtained and served at the location the data exists.
Of course there is always the possibility that the third party in question is perfectly happy to hand over all your emails without a warrant, and that (in the best of my understanding) would not break any laws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955596</id>
	<title>Re:Decision Formalizes What Already Happens</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1257159300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My mx records point to a server in my basement.  How to law enforcement agencies view such arrangements?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My mx records point to a server in my basement .
How to law enforcement agencies view such arrangements ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My mx records point to a server in my basement.
How to law enforcement agencies view such arrangements?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950990</id>
	<title>Good thing everyone ENCRYPTS their private email!</title>
	<author>mikelieman</author>
	<datestamp>1257181260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrap that thing in an envelope for Cripe's Sake!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrap that thing in an envelope for Cripe 's Sake !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrap that thing in an envelope for Cripe's Sake!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952312</id>
	<title>Re:The #1 Lesson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257187440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This begs the questions:<br>
&nbsp; - is a letter private?<br>
&nbsp; - does this augment the legitimacy of encrypting your e-mail, even if you having nothing to hide?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This begs the questions :   - is a letter private ?
  - does this augment the legitimacy of encrypting your e-mail , even if you having nothing to hide ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This begs the questions:
  - is a letter private?
  - does this augment the legitimacy of encrypting your e-mail, even if you having nothing to hide?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950720</id>
	<title>Nothing changed for me.</title>
	<author>daid303</author>
	<datestamp>1257180180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because I use hotmail...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because I use hotmail.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because I use hotmail...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951356</id>
	<title>Glove Compartment Server</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1257182880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thankfully, I run my own mail server *and* I keep it in the glove compartment of my car...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thankfully , I run my own mail server * and * I keep it in the glove compartment of my car.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thankfully, I run my own mail server *and* I keep it in the glove compartment of my car...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951538</id>
	<title>Any implications for me?</title>
	<author>DdJ</author>
	<datestamp>1257183780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run my own IMAP server in my own basement.  I can go and touch the machine that the mail is actually stored on.</p><p>Does this ruling have any implications for me?  It looks to me like it doesn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run my own IMAP server in my own basement .
I can go and touch the machine that the mail is actually stored on.Does this ruling have any implications for me ?
It looks to me like it does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run my own IMAP server in my own basement.
I can go and touch the machine that the mail is actually stored on.Does this ruling have any implications for me?
It looks to me like it doesn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952024</id>
	<title>Next Step Cloud Computing and Colo's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257185940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is then to stop an agency from executing a search warrent on servers located in colo's or cloud computing services?  Since these are not on site, the argument could be made that these are no longer private and the expectation of privacy is no longer there since they are out of you constant watch.  I dislike how the laws of yesterday are constantly trying to be shoehorned to fit the problems of today.  The other thing about shared computing in regards to cloud or hosted solutions is still the problem in that if they hardware you are on gets siezed due to the activity of another user (say you are on a shared host and one of the other clients is under investigation) who is to say your data will remain private or is not in the path of the search since it is technically all on the same machine they got the warrent for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is then to stop an agency from executing a search warrent on servers located in colo 's or cloud computing services ?
Since these are not on site , the argument could be made that these are no longer private and the expectation of privacy is no longer there since they are out of you constant watch .
I dislike how the laws of yesterday are constantly trying to be shoehorned to fit the problems of today .
The other thing about shared computing in regards to cloud or hosted solutions is still the problem in that if they hardware you are on gets siezed due to the activity of another user ( say you are on a shared host and one of the other clients is under investigation ) who is to say your data will remain private or is not in the path of the search since it is technically all on the same machine they got the warrent for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is then to stop an agency from executing a search warrent on servers located in colo's or cloud computing services?
Since these are not on site, the argument could be made that these are no longer private and the expectation of privacy is no longer there since they are out of you constant watch.
I dislike how the laws of yesterday are constantly trying to be shoehorned to fit the problems of today.
The other thing about shared computing in regards to cloud or hosted solutions is still the problem in that if they hardware you are on gets siezed due to the activity of another user (say you are on a shared host and one of the other clients is under investigation) who is to say your data will remain private or is not in the path of the search since it is technically all on the same machine they got the warrent for?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29956412</id>
	<title>Re:One flaw</title>
	<author>redstar427</author>
	<datestamp>1257163020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A landlord can enter the property, even without waiting for permission, to inspect it, as long as they have given the tenant at least 24 hours notice in writing.  Laws vary per state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A landlord can enter the property , even without waiting for permission , to inspect it , as long as they have given the tenant at least 24 hours notice in writing .
Laws vary per state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A landlord can enter the property, even without waiting for permission, to inspect it, as long as they have given the tenant at least 24 hours notice in writing.
Laws vary per state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953472</id>
	<title>Re:One flaw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257193020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you do a car analogy please?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you do a car analogy please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you do a car analogy please?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952466</id>
	<title>Re:One flaw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257188160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um...yes...yes it does.  Landlord = Owner = Whatever the hell (except steal of course) they want to do.  It's there dwelling.....they are just letting you stay in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um...yes...yes it does .
Landlord = Owner = Whatever the hell ( except steal of course ) they want to do .
It 's there dwelling.....they are just letting you stay in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um...yes...yes it does.
Landlord = Owner = Whatever the hell (except steal of course) they want to do.
It's there dwelling.....they are just letting you stay in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950874</id>
	<title>Re:Decision Formalizes What Already Happens</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1257180780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government does have to notify Google/Yahoo/etc., it doesn't just scan all correspondence without warrant. What it does mean, is that it can read your e-mail by issuing a warrant to Google without ever notifying you. Google complies promptly with all warrants issued but is not in the habit of forwarding correspondence to the FBI just for fun.</p><p>The key here is not to treat any information stored on remote servers as belonging to you. Anything on your computer is in your possession but the moment you send it into the aether it is potentially in the possession of a third party that can do whatever they want with it (read the privacy policies!). If you want to keep your e-mails secure, encrypt them; try gnuPG.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government does have to notify Google/Yahoo/etc. , it does n't just scan all correspondence without warrant .
What it does mean , is that it can read your e-mail by issuing a warrant to Google without ever notifying you .
Google complies promptly with all warrants issued but is not in the habit of forwarding correspondence to the FBI just for fun.The key here is not to treat any information stored on remote servers as belonging to you .
Anything on your computer is in your possession but the moment you send it into the aether it is potentially in the possession of a third party that can do whatever they want with it ( read the privacy policies ! ) .
If you want to keep your e-mails secure , encrypt them ; try gnuPG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government does have to notify Google/Yahoo/etc., it doesn't just scan all correspondence without warrant.
What it does mean, is that it can read your e-mail by issuing a warrant to Google without ever notifying you.
Google complies promptly with all warrants issued but is not in the habit of forwarding correspondence to the FBI just for fun.The key here is not to treat any information stored on remote servers as belonging to you.
Anything on your computer is in your possession but the moment you send it into the aether it is potentially in the possession of a third party that can do whatever they want with it (read the privacy policies!).
If you want to keep your e-mails secure, encrypt them; try gnuPG.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29956258</id>
	<title>Re:As an UNIX admin...</title>
	<author>Sabriel</author>
	<datestamp>1257162180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I take "in the ordinary course of business" to mean "the machines are doing their job and coping with the mail". And when they don't, as admins we still have a professional/ethical/legal obligation not to disclose the contents to third parties, yes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I take " in the ordinary course of business " to mean " the machines are doing their job and coping with the mail " .
And when they do n't , as admins we still have a professional/ethical/legal obligation not to disclose the contents to third parties , yes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take "in the ordinary course of business" to mean "the machines are doing their job and coping with the mail".
And when they don't, as admins we still have a professional/ethical/legal obligation not to disclose the contents to third parties, yes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952882</id>
	<title>Re:The #1 Lesson</title>
	<author>L0rdJedi</author>
	<datestamp>1257190320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know companies like to claim that because they own the servers and the Internet connections the corporate emails travel over and get stored on, they own the "rights" to all of the employee emails as well.  But to me, that's rather like an owner of an apartment complex claiming he/she can legally go through any of the tenants' physical mailboxes at will, because he/she owns the panel of mailboxes in the wall that it all gets put in!</p></div><p>And the computer and the network cabling and the software.  This is exactly why people should not handle personal business on their company email account.  The computer you use at work is given to you for work purposes.  Most companies generally allow you to do a few extra things (shopping, vacation planning, etc) during breaks and lunch, but just because they allow it, doesn't mean you can use it just like it's "yours".  Your work computer is your work computer.  The difference between the company and the apartment complex owner is that the company pays you to do a job.  The apartment owner typically provides a place of residence in exchange for payment, so 4th amendment protections would still apply ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects").  Do you see workplace in there anywhere?  I don't.  Yes, the apartment complex owner is simply providing a storage location for your mail.  You can even get as much mail as you want put into it (provided it'll all fit).  Contrast that with a company that uses mailbox quotas.  When you hit your limit, that's it.  They are under no obligation to provide you with additional storage.  The apartment complex owner isn't either if there's a box that's to big to fit in your mail box, but they generally will allow the box to be left (someone else may pick it up, but that isn't their problem).  Even your workplace can search your desk for any reason (again, most won't, but they can if they want).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know companies like to claim that because they own the servers and the Internet connections the corporate emails travel over and get stored on , they own the " rights " to all of the employee emails as well .
But to me , that 's rather like an owner of an apartment complex claiming he/she can legally go through any of the tenants ' physical mailboxes at will , because he/she owns the panel of mailboxes in the wall that it all gets put in ! And the computer and the network cabling and the software .
This is exactly why people should not handle personal business on their company email account .
The computer you use at work is given to you for work purposes .
Most companies generally allow you to do a few extra things ( shopping , vacation planning , etc ) during breaks and lunch , but just because they allow it , does n't mean you can use it just like it 's " yours " .
Your work computer is your work computer .
The difference between the company and the apartment complex owner is that the company pays you to do a job .
The apartment owner typically provides a place of residence in exchange for payment , so 4th amendment protections would still apply ( " The right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses , papers , and effects " ) .
Do you see workplace in there anywhere ?
I do n't .
Yes , the apartment complex owner is simply providing a storage location for your mail .
You can even get as much mail as you want put into it ( provided it 'll all fit ) .
Contrast that with a company that uses mailbox quotas .
When you hit your limit , that 's it .
They are under no obligation to provide you with additional storage .
The apartment complex owner is n't either if there 's a box that 's to big to fit in your mail box , but they generally will allow the box to be left ( someone else may pick it up , but that is n't their problem ) .
Even your workplace can search your desk for any reason ( again , most wo n't , but they can if they want ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know companies like to claim that because they own the servers and the Internet connections the corporate emails travel over and get stored on, they own the "rights" to all of the employee emails as well.
But to me, that's rather like an owner of an apartment complex claiming he/she can legally go through any of the tenants' physical mailboxes at will, because he/she owns the panel of mailboxes in the wall that it all gets put in!And the computer and the network cabling and the software.
This is exactly why people should not handle personal business on their company email account.
The computer you use at work is given to you for work purposes.
Most companies generally allow you to do a few extra things (shopping, vacation planning, etc) during breaks and lunch, but just because they allow it, doesn't mean you can use it just like it's "yours".
Your work computer is your work computer.
The difference between the company and the apartment complex owner is that the company pays you to do a job.
The apartment owner typically provides a place of residence in exchange for payment, so 4th amendment protections would still apply ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects").
Do you see workplace in there anywhere?
I don't.
Yes, the apartment complex owner is simply providing a storage location for your mail.
You can even get as much mail as you want put into it (provided it'll all fit).
Contrast that with a company that uses mailbox quotas.
When you hit your limit, that's it.
They are under no obligation to provide you with additional storage.
The apartment complex owner isn't either if there's a box that's to big to fit in your mail box, but they generally will allow the box to be left (someone else may pick it up, but that isn't their problem).
Even your workplace can search your desk for any reason (again, most won't, but they can if they want).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950728</id>
	<title>First they came for your emails . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257180240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"[T]he defendants voluntarily conveyed to the ISPs and exposed to the ISP's employees in the ordinary course of business the contents of their e-mails."</p><p>What if we changed the third-party statements to the following:</p><p>"[T]he defendants voluntarily conveyed to the healthcare provider and exposed to the healthcare provider's employees in the ordinary course of business the contents of their medical records."</p><p>"[T]he defendants voluntarily conveyed to the financial institution and exposed to the financial institution's employees in the ordinary course of business the contents of their finances."</p><p>"[T]he defendants voluntarily conveyed to the landlord and exposed to the landlord's employees in the ordinary course of business the contents of their apartments."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" [ T ] he defendants voluntarily conveyed to the ISPs and exposed to the ISP 's employees in the ordinary course of business the contents of their e-mails .
" What if we changed the third-party statements to the following : " [ T ] he defendants voluntarily conveyed to the healthcare provider and exposed to the healthcare provider 's employees in the ordinary course of business the contents of their medical records .
" " [ T ] he defendants voluntarily conveyed to the financial institution and exposed to the financial institution 's employees in the ordinary course of business the contents of their finances .
" " [ T ] he defendants voluntarily conveyed to the landlord and exposed to the landlord 's employees in the ordinary course of business the contents of their apartments .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"[T]he defendants voluntarily conveyed to the ISPs and exposed to the ISP's employees in the ordinary course of business the contents of their e-mails.
"What if we changed the third-party statements to the following:"[T]he defendants voluntarily conveyed to the healthcare provider and exposed to the healthcare provider's employees in the ordinary course of business the contents of their medical records.
""[T]he defendants voluntarily conveyed to the financial institution and exposed to the financial institution's employees in the ordinary course of business the contents of their finances.
""[T]he defendants voluntarily conveyed to the landlord and exposed to the landlord's employees in the ordinary course of business the contents of their apartments.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952172</id>
	<title>Re:One flaw</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1257186720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, that's not true.  The bank does have access to your safe deposit box even without you present.  Surely you don't think that they continue to keep your stuff in that box if you fail to pay the rent.  How, then, if they don't have access to the box, do they do so?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>So the question is whether notification of the owner is required for a safe deposit box search.  I think that the answer is probably "no", in which case it's not that shocking for email to be treated in the same way---not that this treatment is right, mind you, but that it is consistent.  If the law should be changed, it should be changed for everything similar, not just for email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that 's not true .
The bank does have access to your safe deposit box even without you present .
Surely you do n't think that they continue to keep your stuff in that box if you fail to pay the rent .
How , then , if they do n't have access to the box , do they do so ?
: - ) So the question is whether notification of the owner is required for a safe deposit box search .
I think that the answer is probably " no " , in which case it 's not that shocking for email to be treated in the same way---not that this treatment is right , mind you , but that it is consistent .
If the law should be changed , it should be changed for everything similar , not just for email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, that's not true.
The bank does have access to your safe deposit box even without you present.
Surely you don't think that they continue to keep your stuff in that box if you fail to pay the rent.
How, then, if they don't have access to the box, do they do so?
:-)So the question is whether notification of the owner is required for a safe deposit box search.
I think that the answer is probably "no", in which case it's not that shocking for email to be treated in the same way---not that this treatment is right, mind you, but that it is consistent.
If the law should be changed, it should be changed for everything similar, not just for email.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952726</id>
	<title>Re:First they came for your emails . . .</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1257189600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For #2, as the judge noted, doing that does in fact remove the expectation of privacy. As for #1 and #3, note that in both cases the law sets limits on how and when health-care providers can reveal the contents of your records and on how and when the landlord may access your apartment. The courts give force to legal limits on access that they don't give to self-imposed limits. If I promise not to do something that doesn't have the legal force that a law saying I may not legally do something does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For # 2 , as the judge noted , doing that does in fact remove the expectation of privacy .
As for # 1 and # 3 , note that in both cases the law sets limits on how and when health-care providers can reveal the contents of your records and on how and when the landlord may access your apartment .
The courts give force to legal limits on access that they do n't give to self-imposed limits .
If I promise not to do something that does n't have the legal force that a law saying I may not legally do something does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For #2, as the judge noted, doing that does in fact remove the expectation of privacy.
As for #1 and #3, note that in both cases the law sets limits on how and when health-care providers can reveal the contents of your records and on how and when the landlord may access your apartment.
The courts give force to legal limits on access that they don't give to self-imposed limits.
If I promise not to do something that doesn't have the legal force that a law saying I may not legally do something does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955030</id>
	<title>Re:One flaw</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1257156720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's different.</p><p>There's what's known as an "implied warranty of habitability", which includes the right to enjoy privacy from landlordly intrusions.  Not to mention that by signing a lease or otherwise making an agreement, you are PAYING for the privilege of having a private pad.</p><p>That, in turn, grants you a reasonable expectation of privacy from your landlord.  After all, if your landlord went snooping around in your pad they could get in big trouble, as that's usually against the law.</p><p>On the other hand, signing up for an email service usually requires you to agree to a TOS that gives the hosting company all the usual ass covering privileges and stamps out your rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's different.There 's what 's known as an " implied warranty of habitability " , which includes the right to enjoy privacy from landlordly intrusions .
Not to mention that by signing a lease or otherwise making an agreement , you are PAYING for the privilege of having a private pad.That , in turn , grants you a reasonable expectation of privacy from your landlord .
After all , if your landlord went snooping around in your pad they could get in big trouble , as that 's usually against the law.On the other hand , signing up for an email service usually requires you to agree to a TOS that gives the hosting company all the usual ass covering privileges and stamps out your rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's different.There's what's known as an "implied warranty of habitability", which includes the right to enjoy privacy from landlordly intrusions.
Not to mention that by signing a lease or otherwise making an agreement, you are PAYING for the privilege of having a private pad.That, in turn, grants you a reasonable expectation of privacy from your landlord.
After all, if your landlord went snooping around in your pad they could get in big trouble, as that's usually against the law.On the other hand, signing up for an email service usually requires you to agree to a TOS that gives the hosting company all the usual ass covering privileges and stamps out your rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955702</id>
	<title>Expectation of privacy?</title>
	<author>fugue</author>
	<datestamp>1257159780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Email never had an expectation of privacy anyway.  Not that I think the government is doing the Right Thing here, but if you use email for communications that should remain private, you're an idiot if you don't encrypt.

</p><p>Fortunately, strong encryption has been fairly easy for many years.  I'm fairly aghast at how often this is forgotten.  And I'd like to see a judge rule that cracking a GPG-encrypted email doesn't violate an expectation of privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Email never had an expectation of privacy anyway .
Not that I think the government is doing the Right Thing here , but if you use email for communications that should remain private , you 're an idiot if you do n't encrypt .
Fortunately , strong encryption has been fairly easy for many years .
I 'm fairly aghast at how often this is forgotten .
And I 'd like to see a judge rule that cracking a GPG-encrypted email does n't violate an expectation of privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email never had an expectation of privacy anyway.
Not that I think the government is doing the Right Thing here, but if you use email for communications that should remain private, you're an idiot if you don't encrypt.
Fortunately, strong encryption has been fairly easy for many years.
I'm fairly aghast at how often this is forgotten.
And I'd like to see a judge rule that cracking a GPG-encrypted email doesn't violate an expectation of privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951850</id>
	<title>Surely the mailbox host can notify you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257185100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My host may have to allow warranted government searches of my data, but can Uncle Sam stop them from informing me that a search took place?</p><p>I wouldn't be nearly so worried about these searches if Google forwarded the warrants to me, ideally complete with search queries so I can see what they found.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My host may have to allow warranted government searches of my data , but can Uncle Sam stop them from informing me that a search took place ? I would n't be nearly so worried about these searches if Google forwarded the warrants to me , ideally complete with search queries so I can see what they found .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My host may have to allow warranted government searches of my data, but can Uncle Sam stop them from informing me that a search took place?I wouldn't be nearly so worried about these searches if Google forwarded the warrants to me, ideally complete with search queries so I can see what they found.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955492</id>
	<title>Re:Makes me glad I run my own mail server</title>
	<author>HeronBlademaster</author>
	<datestamp>1257158760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but you'll know about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but you 'll know about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but you'll know about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951308</id>
	<title>Re:Email is not private unless encrypted.</title>
	<author>QuantumPete</author>
	<datestamp>1257182760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that we don't have the option of writing a letter instead and sealing it in an envelope. Or does Amazon send you e-mail in encrypted form, with a properly authenticated public key?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that we do n't have the option of writing a letter instead and sealing it in an envelope .
Or does Amazon send you e-mail in encrypted form , with a properly authenticated public key ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that we don't have the option of writing a letter instead and sealing it in an envelope.
Or does Amazon send you e-mail in encrypted form, with a properly authenticated public key?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955482</id>
	<title>Re:Public Storage</title>
	<author>freedomseven</author>
	<datestamp>1257158700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would go further to say that if I rent an apartment. It is my space. Under the terms of the lease, the landlord and his employees have the right to periodically enter the apartment for the purpose of conducting maintenance and inspection of the property. Even still, the landlord cannot give the police permission to search my apartment without a warrant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would go further to say that if I rent an apartment .
It is my space .
Under the terms of the lease , the landlord and his employees have the right to periodically enter the apartment for the purpose of conducting maintenance and inspection of the property .
Even still , the landlord can not give the police permission to search my apartment without a warrant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would go further to say that if I rent an apartment.
It is my space.
Under the terms of the lease, the landlord and his employees have the right to periodically enter the apartment for the purpose of conducting maintenance and inspection of the property.
Even still, the landlord cannot give the police permission to search my apartment without a warrant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953424</id>
	<title>Better analogy</title>
	<author>stapedium</author>
	<datestamp>1257192720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A better analogy than those presented would be the expectation of privacy for post cards sent to a PO box.  This is exactly what is going on with email sent without encryption over the internet.</p><p>Since, IANAL I don't know what the limits are for searching a PO box, but I'm sure there are precedents for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A better analogy than those presented would be the expectation of privacy for post cards sent to a PO box .
This is exactly what is going on with email sent without encryption over the internet.Since , IANAL I do n't know what the limits are for searching a PO box , but I 'm sure there are precedents for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A better analogy than those presented would be the expectation of privacy for post cards sent to a PO box.
This is exactly what is going on with email sent without encryption over the internet.Since, IANAL I don't know what the limits are for searching a PO box, but I'm sure there are precedents for this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29954732</id>
	<title>ppl are only "experts" if they independently agree</title>
	<author>bennetthaselton</author>
	<datestamp>1257155220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that "experts" in a field can only really be called "experts" if they independently agree (at least more often than random chance) on their given conclusions.  In other words, in this case, if you took 10 different federal judges and put them in separate rooms and asked them to decide this particular legal question, would most of them agree?  Probably not.   In that sense, they're not really "experts" so much as "designated decision makers".  That's fine, we need designated decision makers in order to settle legal questions and move on.  But that's not the same as true "expertise".<br> <br>

I think expertise is defined by the correctness of the conclusion that you reach, not by the memorized knowledge or credentials that you display on the way toward reaching that conclusion.  And a good test of the correctness of the conclusion is whether similar credentialed experts reach the same conclusion.<br> <br>

So for example when I said that ISP employees do not "routinely", "in the ordinary course of business" read their customers' e-mails as a matter of company policy, and I'm citing credentials as an "Internet expert" in support of that statement, I mean that if you were to take 10 Internet experts and ask them independently, probably at least 8 of them would agree that was a true statement.<br> <br>

There is an alternative point of view, that "expertise" really is defined by your credentials and by the knowledge that you display while making an argument, not by the correctness of your answer.  If that's your point of view, then you're absolutely right, there is no point in me critiquing a judge's decision.  Of course in that sense there's no point in *any* non-lawyer *ever* critiquing anything in a judge's decision, no matter how absurd it seems to a layperson, so the whole issue is moot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that " experts " in a field can only really be called " experts " if they independently agree ( at least more often than random chance ) on their given conclusions .
In other words , in this case , if you took 10 different federal judges and put them in separate rooms and asked them to decide this particular legal question , would most of them agree ?
Probably not .
In that sense , they 're not really " experts " so much as " designated decision makers " .
That 's fine , we need designated decision makers in order to settle legal questions and move on .
But that 's not the same as true " expertise " .
I think expertise is defined by the correctness of the conclusion that you reach , not by the memorized knowledge or credentials that you display on the way toward reaching that conclusion .
And a good test of the correctness of the conclusion is whether similar credentialed experts reach the same conclusion .
So for example when I said that ISP employees do not " routinely " , " in the ordinary course of business " read their customers ' e-mails as a matter of company policy , and I 'm citing credentials as an " Internet expert " in support of that statement , I mean that if you were to take 10 Internet experts and ask them independently , probably at least 8 of them would agree that was a true statement .
There is an alternative point of view , that " expertise " really is defined by your credentials and by the knowledge that you display while making an argument , not by the correctness of your answer .
If that 's your point of view , then you 're absolutely right , there is no point in me critiquing a judge 's decision .
Of course in that sense there 's no point in * any * non-lawyer * ever * critiquing anything in a judge 's decision , no matter how absurd it seems to a layperson , so the whole issue is moot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that "experts" in a field can only really be called "experts" if they independently agree (at least more often than random chance) on their given conclusions.
In other words, in this case, if you took 10 different federal judges and put them in separate rooms and asked them to decide this particular legal question, would most of them agree?
Probably not.
In that sense, they're not really "experts" so much as "designated decision makers".
That's fine, we need designated decision makers in order to settle legal questions and move on.
But that's not the same as true "expertise".
I think expertise is defined by the correctness of the conclusion that you reach, not by the memorized knowledge or credentials that you display on the way toward reaching that conclusion.
And a good test of the correctness of the conclusion is whether similar credentialed experts reach the same conclusion.
So for example when I said that ISP employees do not "routinely", "in the ordinary course of business" read their customers' e-mails as a matter of company policy, and I'm citing credentials as an "Internet expert" in support of that statement, I mean that if you were to take 10 Internet experts and ask them independently, probably at least 8 of them would agree that was a true statement.
There is an alternative point of view, that "expertise" really is defined by your credentials and by the knowledge that you display while making an argument, not by the correctness of your answer.
If that's your point of view, then you're absolutely right, there is no point in me critiquing a judge's decision.
Of course in that sense there's no point in *any* non-lawyer *ever* critiquing anything in a judge's decision, no matter how absurd it seems to a layperson, so the whole issue is moot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29971840</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing changed for me.</title>
	<author>dlanod</author>
	<datestamp>1257256680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've found Hotmail to be one of the most secure.  At least I'm assuming so since often not even I can access my own email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found Hotmail to be one of the most secure .
At least I 'm assuming so since often not even I can access my own email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found Hotmail to be one of the most secure.
At least I'm assuming so since often not even I can access my own email.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951126</id>
	<title>Re:Caveat Lector</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257181980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, this is not a rigorous legal argument.  It is a layperson's argument, based on human perception and standards of privacy and all those good things that law is supposed to be based on.</p><p>Maybe the law supports this ruling.  But if it does, it's wrong.  That's the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this is not a rigorous legal argument .
It is a layperson 's argument , based on human perception and standards of privacy and all those good things that law is supposed to be based on.Maybe the law supports this ruling .
But if it does , it 's wrong .
That 's the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this is not a rigorous legal argument.
It is a layperson's argument, based on human perception and standards of privacy and all those good things that law is supposed to be based on.Maybe the law supports this ruling.
But if it does, it's wrong.
That's the point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955226</id>
	<title>I don't care about the legalese</title>
	<author>johncandale</author>
	<datestamp>1257157560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>or the controlling doctrine, case law, etc.   'People Should be secure their persons, houses, papers and effects' IS the 4th amendment.  It's been a part of common law for 500 years.   A email is just a electronic letter,  once again, a email is just a electronic letter, and they have no more right to it on am ISP server then they do reading letters at the post office.</htmltext>
<tokenext>or the controlling doctrine , case law , etc .
'People Should be secure their persons , houses , papers and effects ' IS the 4th amendment .
It 's been a part of common law for 500 years .
A email is just a electronic letter , once again , a email is just a electronic letter , and they have no more right to it on am ISP server then they do reading letters at the post office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or the controlling doctrine, case law, etc.
'People Should be secure their persons, houses, papers and effects' IS the 4th amendment.
It's been a part of common law for 500 years.
A email is just a electronic letter,  once again, a email is just a electronic letter, and they have no more right to it on am ISP server then they do reading letters at the post office.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952484</id>
	<title>Re:Clueless Judges</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1257188220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Yet another bad ruling that demonstrates that an average judge doesn't have enough technical knowledge to make a good ruling. They all make the same mistake: because they don't understand the tech, they try to force physical-world paradigms already familiar to them onto the digital world, regardless of the fact that its a terrible fit and causes massively incorrect conclusions to be made.</i>
<br>
<br>
Have you read the ruling?  Which specific part do you disagree with?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another bad ruling that demonstrates that an average judge does n't have enough technical knowledge to make a good ruling .
They all make the same mistake : because they do n't understand the tech , they try to force physical-world paradigms already familiar to them onto the digital world , regardless of the fact that its a terrible fit and causes massively incorrect conclusions to be made .
Have you read the ruling ?
Which specific part do you disagree with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another bad ruling that demonstrates that an average judge doesn't have enough technical knowledge to make a good ruling.
They all make the same mistake: because they don't understand the tech, they try to force physical-world paradigms already familiar to them onto the digital world, regardless of the fact that its a terrible fit and causes massively incorrect conclusions to be made.
Have you read the ruling?
Which specific part do you disagree with?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951948</id>
	<title>Re:One flaw</title>
	<author>MikeS2k</author>
	<datestamp>1257185520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was an ordinary helpdesk drone and I had access to all of my customers e-mails. I worked for a large UK DSL ISP.<br>Infact, I would semi-regularly have customers phoning me up asking me to read out their e-mails, as if I was some sort of human "speaking clock".</p><p>"Do I have any e-mails from 'sonnyjim'? Oh, could you read it out to me? See, I'm not at my computer and sonnyjim is my son who's in Australia..."</p><p>I would do so if I was happy with the customers identity.<br>I don't recall anyone ever abusing this facility. From what I saw, the contents of every mailbox I went into wouldn't make riveting reading - it's not all "carry on" affairs in there. We had better things to do, like browsing BBC news and reading Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was an ordinary helpdesk drone and I had access to all of my customers e-mails .
I worked for a large UK DSL ISP.Infact , I would semi-regularly have customers phoning me up asking me to read out their e-mails , as if I was some sort of human " speaking clock " .
" Do I have any e-mails from 'sonnyjim ' ?
Oh , could you read it out to me ?
See , I 'm not at my computer and sonnyjim is my son who 's in Australia... " I would do so if I was happy with the customers identity.I do n't recall anyone ever abusing this facility .
From what I saw , the contents of every mailbox I went into would n't make riveting reading - it 's not all " carry on " affairs in there .
We had better things to do , like browsing BBC news and reading Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was an ordinary helpdesk drone and I had access to all of my customers e-mails.
I worked for a large UK DSL ISP.Infact, I would semi-regularly have customers phoning me up asking me to read out their e-mails, as if I was some sort of human "speaking clock".
"Do I have any e-mails from 'sonnyjim'?
Oh, could you read it out to me?
See, I'm not at my computer and sonnyjim is my son who's in Australia..."I would do so if I was happy with the customers identity.I don't recall anyone ever abusing this facility.
From what I saw, the contents of every mailbox I went into wouldn't make riveting reading - it's not all "carry on" affairs in there.
We had better things to do, like browsing BBC news and reading Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951048</id>
	<title>Re: No flaw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257181560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"One flaw in this argument: ISP employees do in fact have access to your e-mail."</p><p>In the same way that a landlord has access to the rented homes (has keys): it does not mean you have any less right to privacy in your (rented) home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" One flaw in this argument : ISP employees do in fact have access to your e-mail .
" In the same way that a landlord has access to the rented homes ( has keys ) : it does not mean you have any less right to privacy in your ( rented ) home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"One flaw in this argument: ISP employees do in fact have access to your e-mail.
"In the same way that a landlord has access to the rented homes (has keys): it does not mean you have any less right to privacy in your (rented) home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951192</id>
	<title>What about the post office?</title>
	<author>Gonzodoggy</author>
	<datestamp>1257182280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on this argument, then, the govt. could seize your snail mail with out a warrant on the same basis. i.e. you're putting your correspondence in the hands of a third party. If anything, e-mail should be more inviolate because, it's not in any type of physical format that's "passing through the hands of a third party"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on this argument , then , the govt .
could seize your snail mail with out a warrant on the same basis .
i.e. you 're putting your correspondence in the hands of a third party .
If anything , e-mail should be more inviolate because , it 's not in any type of physical format that 's " passing through the hands of a third party "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on this argument, then, the govt.
could seize your snail mail with out a warrant on the same basis.
i.e. you're putting your correspondence in the hands of a third party.
If anything, e-mail should be more inviolate because, it's not in any type of physical format that's "passing through the hands of a third party"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952090</id>
	<title>Re:The #1 Lesson</title>
	<author>realityimpaired</author>
	<datestamp>1257186180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Umm... let me get this straight then? You believe it's an undeniable *fact* that email not only IS not private as it currently stands, but SHOULD not ever be considered private?</p></div></blockquote><p>I think you misinterpret what he's saying... It's not that you don't have a right to expect a reasonable amount of privacy with e-mail communications, it's that you'd be naive to think that information you're sending through the Internet can't be read by somebody else without your knowing. If it's absolutely critical that it not be read by somebody else, deliver a hard copy in person, stand there while they read it, and then watch them eat the paper that contained the message. E-mail, by definition, passes through computers that you don't have control over, and you have way of knowing what those systems will do with the data you're sending before delivering it. With modern spam filters, it's pretty much guaranteed that the e-mail will be read by a computer before it gets to your inbox. If you absolutely have to send sensitive data via e-mail, do not assume that something sent in plaintext via e-mail is going to be secure... encrypt it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm... let me get this straight then ?
You believe it 's an undeniable * fact * that email not only IS not private as it currently stands , but SHOULD not ever be considered private ? I think you misinterpret what he 's saying... It 's not that you do n't have a right to expect a reasonable amount of privacy with e-mail communications , it 's that you 'd be naive to think that information you 're sending through the Internet ca n't be read by somebody else without your knowing .
If it 's absolutely critical that it not be read by somebody else , deliver a hard copy in person , stand there while they read it , and then watch them eat the paper that contained the message .
E-mail , by definition , passes through computers that you do n't have control over , and you have way of knowing what those systems will do with the data you 're sending before delivering it .
With modern spam filters , it 's pretty much guaranteed that the e-mail will be read by a computer before it gets to your inbox .
If you absolutely have to send sensitive data via e-mail , do not assume that something sent in plaintext via e-mail is going to be secure... encrypt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm... let me get this straight then?
You believe it's an undeniable *fact* that email not only IS not private as it currently stands, but SHOULD not ever be considered private?I think you misinterpret what he's saying... It's not that you don't have a right to expect a reasonable amount of privacy with e-mail communications, it's that you'd be naive to think that information you're sending through the Internet can't be read by somebody else without your knowing.
If it's absolutely critical that it not be read by somebody else, deliver a hard copy in person, stand there while they read it, and then watch them eat the paper that contained the message.
E-mail, by definition, passes through computers that you don't have control over, and you have way of knowing what those systems will do with the data you're sending before delivering it.
With modern spam filters, it's pretty much guaranteed that the e-mail will be read by a computer before it gets to your inbox.
If you absolutely have to send sensitive data via e-mail, do not assume that something sent in plaintext via e-mail is going to be secure... encrypt it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951536</id>
	<title>So and how does this apply to foreign customers?</title>
	<author>meist3r</author>
	<datestamp>1257183780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I understand Google is an American company. This is American legislation. I can't take anything from the article which would tell me anything about the access to non-US citizen email. Anyone dare to speculate? I'd say "We're reading everything<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand Google is an American company .
This is American legislation .
I ca n't take anything from the article which would tell me anything about the access to non-US citizen email .
Anyone dare to speculate ?
I 'd say " We 're reading everything ... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand Google is an American company.
This is American legislation.
I can't take anything from the article which would tell me anything about the access to non-US citizen email.
Anyone dare to speculate?
I'd say "We're reading everything ..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953026</id>
	<title>Re:Makes me glad I run my own mail server</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1257190920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If the government wants access to my inbox they'll need to talk to me since I'm the admin of my mail server.
</i>
<br>
<br>
So they'll just serve the warrant on you instead of your ISP.  Same result; they have your e-mail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the government wants access to my inbox they 'll need to talk to me since I 'm the admin of my mail server .
So they 'll just serve the warrant on you instead of your ISP .
Same result ; they have your e-mail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the government wants access to my inbox they'll need to talk to me since I'm the admin of my mail server.
So they'll just serve the warrant on you instead of your ISP.
Same result; they have your e-mail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955174</id>
	<title>Re:Not Just E-Mail. Anything in the "cloud"</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1257157380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bank does not own your house. If somebody slips on your front driveway, who is liable? Who pays the property tax? When's the last time you asked your bank for permission before doing home improvements? When's the last time an officer of the bank came into your home because hey, it's his property?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bank does not own your house .
If somebody slips on your front driveway , who is liable ?
Who pays the property tax ?
When 's the last time you asked your bank for permission before doing home improvements ?
When 's the last time an officer of the bank came into your home because hey , it 's his property ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bank does not own your house.
If somebody slips on your front driveway, who is liable?
Who pays the property tax?
When's the last time you asked your bank for permission before doing home improvements?
When's the last time an officer of the bank came into your home because hey, it's his property?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952158</id>
	<title>Re:Gmail should encrypt my mail on their servers</title>
	<author>AusIV</author>
	<datestamp>1257186600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You'd lose a lot of functionality that way. The only way Gmail could encrypt e-mails in such a way they couldn't produce them later would be to use asymmetric encryption, and only the recipient has the decryption key. That means you'd have to make sure you never lost your key, and you'd have to put it on every computer you wanted to check e-mail from. You'd lose the major benefits of having a web-mail client. You wouldn't be able to search the e-mail, unless Gmail indexed it before encrypting it, in which case they'd just use the indexes as evidence instead of the plaintext e-mails.<p>
If you need to make sure you have legal control over your data, your best bet is to keep your data out of the cloud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd lose a lot of functionality that way .
The only way Gmail could encrypt e-mails in such a way they could n't produce them later would be to use asymmetric encryption , and only the recipient has the decryption key .
That means you 'd have to make sure you never lost your key , and you 'd have to put it on every computer you wanted to check e-mail from .
You 'd lose the major benefits of having a web-mail client .
You would n't be able to search the e-mail , unless Gmail indexed it before encrypting it , in which case they 'd just use the indexes as evidence instead of the plaintext e-mails .
If you need to make sure you have legal control over your data , your best bet is to keep your data out of the cloud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd lose a lot of functionality that way.
The only way Gmail could encrypt e-mails in such a way they couldn't produce them later would be to use asymmetric encryption, and only the recipient has the decryption key.
That means you'd have to make sure you never lost your key, and you'd have to put it on every computer you wanted to check e-mail from.
You'd lose the major benefits of having a web-mail client.
You wouldn't be able to search the e-mail, unless Gmail indexed it before encrypting it, in which case they'd just use the indexes as evidence instead of the plaintext e-mails.
If you need to make sure you have legal control over your data, your best bet is to keep your data out of the cloud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951182</id>
	<title>Re:Makes me glad I run my own mail server</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1257182220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the government wants access to my inbox they'll need to talk to me since I'm the admin of my mail server.</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Security\_Letter" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Security\_Letter</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Until recently, if you got an NSL to disclose information about one of your users, that user being yourself, it would have been illegal to disclose to yourself that the jackboots were requesting information about yourself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the government wants access to my inbox they 'll need to talk to me since I 'm the admin of my mail server .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National \ _Security \ _Letter [ wikipedia.org ] Until recently , if you got an NSL to disclose information about one of your users , that user being yourself , it would have been illegal to disclose to yourself that the jackboots were requesting information about yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the government wants access to my inbox they'll need to talk to me since I'm the admin of my mail server.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Security\_Letter [wikipedia.org]Until recently, if you got an NSL to disclose information about one of your users, that user being yourself, it would have been illegal to disclose to yourself that the jackboots were requesting information about yourself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950490</id>
	<title>My computer is in the glove box</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257179040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>you insensitive clod!</htmltext>
<tokenext>you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29954696</id>
	<title>Re:One flaw</title>
	<author>vanyel</author>
	<datestamp>1257155040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of tech support has access, necessarily, in order to troubleshoot mail issues.  Granted, they're only supposed to do it when there's something to troubleshoot, but even that limited scope is very common.  And we have to regularly review legitimate mail that is reported as spam...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of tech support has access , necessarily , in order to troubleshoot mail issues .
Granted , they 're only supposed to do it when there 's something to troubleshoot , but even that limited scope is very common .
And we have to regularly review legitimate mail that is reported as spam.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of tech support has access, necessarily, in order to troubleshoot mail issues.
Granted, they're only supposed to do it when there's something to troubleshoot, but even that limited scope is very common.
And we have to regularly review legitimate mail that is reported as spam...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951826</id>
	<title>mod 3o3n</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257184980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">buuts are expOsed Users With Large</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>buuts are expOsed Users With Large [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>buuts are expOsed Users With Large [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951712</id>
	<title>Re:One flaw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257184500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Course of everyday business" seemed relevant here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Course of everyday business " seemed relevant here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Course of everyday business" seemed relevant here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950920</id>
	<title>Protection...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257180960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I shall then endevour to encrypt my napkins, tire gauge, pens, headphones, owners manual and the like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I shall then endevour to encrypt my napkins , tire gauge , pens , headphones , owners manual and the like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I shall then endevour to encrypt my napkins, tire gauge, pens, headphones, owners manual and the like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951484</id>
	<title>Re:Not Just E-Mail. Anything in the "cloud"</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1257183540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, not necessarily. A good backup client (I don't know about Carbonite or Sugarsync) should encrypt, with industry-standard algorithms, on the client side before sending it to the server.</p><p>In this case, you retain your data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , not necessarily .
A good backup client ( I do n't know about Carbonite or Sugarsync ) should encrypt , with industry-standard algorithms , on the client side before sending it to the server.In this case , you retain your data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, not necessarily.
A good backup client (I don't know about Carbonite or Sugarsync) should encrypt, with industry-standard algorithms, on the client side before sending it to the server.In this case, you retain your data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951848</id>
	<title>Re:As an UNIX admin...</title>
	<author>Akatosh</author>
	<datestamp>1257185100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also any message that double bounces to postmaster, gets marked as spam (by a human), or breaks webmail, outlook, or a mail server in any way. All of those get investigated. Delivery problems get forwarded with full content attached by customers to isp staff. Customers ask isp staff to rumage through their mail and delete large messages. As a sysadmin I see way more personal email than I ever wanted to (sexting and cams that use email == pine4life).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also any message that double bounces to postmaster , gets marked as spam ( by a human ) , or breaks webmail , outlook , or a mail server in any way .
All of those get investigated .
Delivery problems get forwarded with full content attached by customers to isp staff .
Customers ask isp staff to rumage through their mail and delete large messages .
As a sysadmin I see way more personal email than I ever wanted to ( sexting and cams that use email = = pine4life ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also any message that double bounces to postmaster, gets marked as spam (by a human), or breaks webmail, outlook, or a mail server in any way.
All of those get investigated.
Delivery problems get forwarded with full content attached by customers to isp staff.
Customers ask isp staff to rumage through their mail and delete large messages.
As a sysadmin I see way more personal email than I ever wanted to (sexting and cams that use email == pine4life).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950934</id>
	<title>Take my privacy (please).</title>
	<author>TheLeopardsAreComing</author>
	<datestamp>1257180960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Restraints on governmental power have their pros and cons, and many people who are targeted by government investigations really are evil." <br> <br>

The argument is already flawed, assuming that mostly evil people will be targeted.  Now we have another loophole to be exploited.  This is yet another example of the bastardization of our legal system.
<br> <br>
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  -- Benjamin Franklin</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Restraints on governmental power have their pros and cons , and many people who are targeted by government investigations really are evil .
" The argument is already flawed , assuming that mostly evil people will be targeted .
Now we have another loophole to be exploited .
This is yet another example of the bastardization of our legal system .
" Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety , deserve neither Liberty nor Safety .
" -- Benjamin Franklin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Restraints on governmental power have their pros and cons, and many people who are targeted by government investigations really are evil.
"  

The argument is already flawed, assuming that mostly evil people will be targeted.
Now we have another loophole to be exploited.
This is yet another example of the bastardization of our legal system.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
"  -- Benjamin Franklin</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952660</id>
	<title>Re:One flaw</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1257189240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Landlord isn't a good analogy, because state law usually defines what access he can legally have to your apartment. The courts normally give force to limits imposed by the law that they don't give to self-imposed limits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Landlord is n't a good analogy , because state law usually defines what access he can legally have to your apartment .
The courts normally give force to limits imposed by the law that they do n't give to self-imposed limits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Landlord isn't a good analogy, because state law usually defines what access he can legally have to your apartment.
The courts normally give force to limits imposed by the law that they don't give to self-imposed limits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952114</id>
	<title>Re:Decision Formalizes What Already Happens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257186300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The OP's whole argument hinges on the idea that email do not regularly give employees access to customer's emails.   <i> <b>THIS IS WRONG</b> </i>.  Google employees regularly improve the data mining algorithms they use, and are given real life un-anonymized emails as test data.</p><p>You did read the terms of service, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The OP 's whole argument hinges on the idea that email do not regularly give employees access to customer 's emails .
THIS IS WRONG .
Google employees regularly improve the data mining algorithms they use , and are given real life un-anonymized emails as test data.You did read the terms of service , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The OP's whole argument hinges on the idea that email do not regularly give employees access to customer's emails.
THIS IS WRONG .
Google employees regularly improve the data mining algorithms they use, and are given real life un-anonymized emails as test data.You did read the terms of service, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951774</id>
	<title>Re:The #1 Lesson</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1257184740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should email not be private?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should email not be private ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should email not be private?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953534</id>
	<title>Re:Makes me glad I run my own mail server</title>
	<author>transwarp</author>
	<datestamp>1257193260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(I haven't checked, but maybe there's some open-source webmail programs out there),</p></div><ul> <li>Roundcube</li><li>Horde</li><li>Squirrelmail</li></ul><p>
I'm sure there are more. Horde even has a "display thread" mode, but you have to do a bit of work to get sent mail put in your inbox to be part of the thread.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( I have n't checked , but maybe there 's some open-source webmail programs out there ) , RoundcubeHordeSquirrelmail I 'm sure there are more .
Horde even has a " display thread " mode , but you have to do a bit of work to get sent mail put in your inbox to be part of the thread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I haven't checked, but maybe there's some open-source webmail programs out there), RoundcubeHordeSquirrelmail
I'm sure there are more.
Horde even has a "display thread" mode, but you have to do a bit of work to get sent mail put in your inbox to be part of the thread.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951124</id>
	<title>Re:Decision Formalizes What Already Happens</title>
	<author>Forge</author>
	<datestamp>1257181980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is what comes from deliberately inventing definition for what is really just new technology to perform an old function for which there is well established law.
<br> <br>
In this particular case, Email is still mail.  It just travels faster and as photons or electrons rather than as a collection of atoms.
<br> <br>
So all we had to do is transpose the rules which apply to snail mail over to email.  I.e. A postman is not allowed to open and read your mail.  He just has to pass it on to the destination address.  That same principle applies to private mail providers (FedEx, DHL etc...).
<br> <br>
That is what should have been done.  What has actually been done is quite different.  The authorities routinely go throgh email in circumstances where they would not have been allowed to go throgh snail mail.  They "ask" (read order) ISPs to do things that they dare not ask of FedEx.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what comes from deliberately inventing definition for what is really just new technology to perform an old function for which there is well established law .
In this particular case , Email is still mail .
It just travels faster and as photons or electrons rather than as a collection of atoms .
So all we had to do is transpose the rules which apply to snail mail over to email .
I.e. A postman is not allowed to open and read your mail .
He just has to pass it on to the destination address .
That same principle applies to private mail providers ( FedEx , DHL etc... ) .
That is what should have been done .
What has actually been done is quite different .
The authorities routinely go throgh email in circumstances where they would not have been allowed to go throgh snail mail .
They " ask " ( read order ) ISPs to do things that they dare not ask of FedEx .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what comes from deliberately inventing definition for what is really just new technology to perform an old function for which there is well established law.
In this particular case, Email is still mail.
It just travels faster and as photons or electrons rather than as a collection of atoms.
So all we had to do is transpose the rules which apply to snail mail over to email.
I.e. A postman is not allowed to open and read your mail.
He just has to pass it on to the destination address.
That same principle applies to private mail providers (FedEx, DHL etc...).
That is what should have been done.
What has actually been done is quite different.
The authorities routinely go throgh email in circumstances where they would not have been allowed to go throgh snail mail.
They "ask" (read order) ISPs to do things that they dare not ask of FedEx.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950538</id>
	<title>The mail to email analogy is almost perfect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257179340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mail to email analogy is almost perfect, which now frightens me. What does this judge know about the US Postal system that he isn't saying?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mail to email analogy is almost perfect , which now frightens me .
What does this judge know about the US Postal system that he is n't saying ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mail to email analogy is almost perfect, which now frightens me.
What does this judge know about the US Postal system that he isn't saying?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950596</id>
	<title>US Mail is handle by a Third Party too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257179580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how is it any different if I give an envelope to a USPS employee?  It's no longer under my control, but I expect it to be private.  Also the USPS has been know to open a package or two, so does that now mean all mail is no longer private? Like email, I have no choice but to let someone else handle my mail, IF I want it to be delivered.<br><br>Well there's really only one solution to all this government stupidity, <b>Encrypt Every Thing Every Time. </b><br><br>Now if we could just make it pretty hassle free, so everyone would encrypt every thing every time, without having to think about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how is it any different if I give an envelope to a USPS employee ?
It 's no longer under my control , but I expect it to be private .
Also the USPS has been know to open a package or two , so does that now mean all mail is no longer private ?
Like email , I have no choice but to let someone else handle my mail , IF I want it to be delivered.Well there 's really only one solution to all this government stupidity , Encrypt Every Thing Every Time .
Now if we could just make it pretty hassle free , so everyone would encrypt every thing every time , without having to think about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how is it any different if I give an envelope to a USPS employee?
It's no longer under my control, but I expect it to be private.
Also the USPS has been know to open a package or two, so does that now mean all mail is no longer private?
Like email, I have no choice but to let someone else handle my mail, IF I want it to be delivered.Well there's really only one solution to all this government stupidity, Encrypt Every Thing Every Time.
Now if we could just make it pretty hassle free, so everyone would encrypt every thing every time, without having to think about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951254</id>
	<title>Re:Not Just E-Mail. Anything in the "cloud"</title>
	<author>cawpin</author>
	<datestamp>1257182460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The entire basis for this case is illegitimate. They are saying, since email is handled by a third party, the actual owner doesn't need to be notified. This would widely apply to damned near everything we do nowadays. My money is under the control of a third party, my bank. Does this mean they can get my bank records without notifying me? Does it mean they can search my house without notifying me? After all, I don't actually own it yet, the bank does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire basis for this case is illegitimate .
They are saying , since email is handled by a third party , the actual owner does n't need to be notified .
This would widely apply to damned near everything we do nowadays .
My money is under the control of a third party , my bank .
Does this mean they can get my bank records without notifying me ?
Does it mean they can search my house without notifying me ?
After all , I do n't actually own it yet , the bank does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire basis for this case is illegitimate.
They are saying, since email is handled by a third party, the actual owner doesn't need to be notified.
This would widely apply to damned near everything we do nowadays.
My money is under the control of a third party, my bank.
Does this mean they can get my bank records without notifying me?
Does it mean they can search my house without notifying me?
After all, I don't actually own it yet, the bank does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950604</id>
	<title>ISP tech support DOES read user mail.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257179580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the hinge of the matter is that customer service/tech support *has* to when troubleshooting certain issues.  I've worked for several ISPs and it's generally the same procedure.  Verify but don't DO anything or leak anything out.  Customers SHOULD have a feeling of privacy from other users but not ISP staff.  Their email is sitting on OUR servers.  Don't like it?  Do it yourself.  Or don't use email.  Which is a better option.  Email sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the hinge of the matter is that customer service/tech support * has * to when troubleshooting certain issues .
I 've worked for several ISPs and it 's generally the same procedure .
Verify but do n't DO anything or leak anything out .
Customers SHOULD have a feeling of privacy from other users but not ISP staff .
Their email is sitting on OUR servers .
Do n't like it ?
Do it yourself .
Or do n't use email .
Which is a better option .
Email sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the hinge of the matter is that customer service/tech support *has* to when troubleshooting certain issues.
I've worked for several ISPs and it's generally the same procedure.
Verify but don't DO anything or leak anything out.
Customers SHOULD have a feeling of privacy from other users but not ISP staff.
Their email is sitting on OUR servers.
Don't like it?
Do it yourself.
Or don't use email.
Which is a better option.
Email sucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952966</id>
	<title>Public Storage</title>
	<author>DeanFox</author>
	<datestamp>1257190680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
So I rent space at a Public Storage facility that only I have the key to for $xx a month.  In this 20'x20' storage facility, locker, room, whatever you want to call it are my personal belongings including boxes and boxes of personal financial statements, letters, etc. no different than if I had them at home in the attic had I the space.
<br> <br>
Because I have my belongings stored with a "third party" they do not need a search warrant to search my off site storage facility?  I thought they did.  If they do, how is this different than me storing bits and bites in a storage facility owned by a third party?  Because they're bits and bytes rather than phyiscal boxes of documents?
<br> <br>
How is this different than my apartment? The storage facility labeled APT 2B in building six is owned by a third party.  So the apartment where I live can be searched without a warrant?  You know... My home is not paid for.  Technically it's still owned by the bank, a third party...
<br> <br>
As far as solving all this computer usage eavesdropping and abuse when (in the $@#\%@#) are we as programmers going to make encryption ubiquitous. Nothing is on a drive, sent via whatever protocol in the TCP/IP stack, email, P2P that isn't encrypted.  Upon OS installation, like the user password we ask for an user/OS passphrase or whatever it takes that nothing and I mean nothing is available in cleartext on the server, in the cloud or traveling over a wire?  When?  The ASCII standard is what should be made illegal.  This is one problem we CAN solve.
<br> <br>
JMHO
<br>
-[d]-</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I rent space at a Public Storage facility that only I have the key to for $ xx a month .
In this 20'x20 ' storage facility , locker , room , whatever you want to call it are my personal belongings including boxes and boxes of personal financial statements , letters , etc .
no different than if I had them at home in the attic had I the space .
Because I have my belongings stored with a " third party " they do not need a search warrant to search my off site storage facility ?
I thought they did .
If they do , how is this different than me storing bits and bites in a storage facility owned by a third party ?
Because they 're bits and bytes rather than phyiscal boxes of documents ?
How is this different than my apartment ?
The storage facility labeled APT 2B in building six is owned by a third party .
So the apartment where I live can be searched without a warrant ?
You know... My home is not paid for .
Technically it 's still owned by the bank , a third party.. . As far as solving all this computer usage eavesdropping and abuse when ( in the $ @ # \ % @ # ) are we as programmers going to make encryption ubiquitous .
Nothing is on a drive , sent via whatever protocol in the TCP/IP stack , email , P2P that is n't encrypted .
Upon OS installation , like the user password we ask for an user/OS passphrase or whatever it takes that nothing and I mean nothing is available in cleartext on the server , in the cloud or traveling over a wire ?
When ? The ASCII standard is what should be made illegal .
This is one problem we CAN solve .
JMHO - [ d ] -</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
So I rent space at a Public Storage facility that only I have the key to for $xx a month.
In this 20'x20' storage facility, locker, room, whatever you want to call it are my personal belongings including boxes and boxes of personal financial statements, letters, etc.
no different than if I had them at home in the attic had I the space.
Because I have my belongings stored with a "third party" they do not need a search warrant to search my off site storage facility?
I thought they did.
If they do, how is this different than me storing bits and bites in a storage facility owned by a third party?
Because they're bits and bytes rather than phyiscal boxes of documents?
How is this different than my apartment?
The storage facility labeled APT 2B in building six is owned by a third party.
So the apartment where I live can be searched without a warrant?
You know... My home is not paid for.
Technically it's still owned by the bank, a third party...
 
As far as solving all this computer usage eavesdropping and abuse when (in the $@#\%@#) are we as programmers going to make encryption ubiquitous.
Nothing is on a drive, sent via whatever protocol in the TCP/IP stack, email, P2P that isn't encrypted.
Upon OS installation, like the user password we ask for an user/OS passphrase or whatever it takes that nothing and I mean nothing is available in cleartext on the server, in the cloud or traveling over a wire?
When?  The ASCII standard is what should be made illegal.
This is one problem we CAN solve.
JMHO

-[d]-</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951424</id>
	<title>Safety Deposit Box</title>
	<author>sacker12345</author>
	<datestamp>1257183180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this been they only need to notify the bank if they want to look through a deposit box at a bank?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this been they only need to notify the bank if they want to look through a deposit box at a bank ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this been they only need to notify the bank if they want to look through a deposit box at a bank?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951670</id>
	<title>Incredible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257184320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Friend of mine used to work for Sympatico...
They would read Customer e-mails when they got bored...
Since Most mail now reside on the US side of the border, you can bet the OHS
is using data mining software on ANY e-mail from anyone that has mail even
remotely connected to a US server.
Does it make it right ? huh, no.
Fight the system ? Well I'm happy some people have the time to.
Heck, we're being fooled into Win7 with a no win scenario and we're worried about e-mails ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Friend of mine used to work for Sympatico.. . They would read Customer e-mails when they got bored.. . Since Most mail now reside on the US side of the border , you can bet the OHS is using data mining software on ANY e-mail from anyone that has mail even remotely connected to a US server .
Does it make it right ?
huh , no .
Fight the system ?
Well I 'm happy some people have the time to .
Heck , we 're being fooled into Win7 with a no win scenario and we 're worried about e-mails ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Friend of mine used to work for Sympatico...
They would read Customer e-mails when they got bored...
Since Most mail now reside on the US side of the border, you can bet the OHS
is using data mining software on ANY e-mail from anyone that has mail even
remotely connected to a US server.
Does it make it right ?
huh, no.
Fight the system ?
Well I'm happy some people have the time to.
Heck, we're being fooled into Win7 with a no win scenario and we're worried about e-mails ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951838</id>
	<title>Re:One flaw</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1257185040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big problem here is that chances are the NSA is directly tapping all the backbone fiber in the Internet already, and they are building giant new data centers in Utah and Texas to store Yettabytes of data which is 1,000,000,000,000,000GB.   Chances are the NSA is already and will certainly be in the future recording every email, IM, URL GET and POST and phone call flowing through every fiber they manage to tap and they will probably tap them all in this country, in all their allied countries like the UK and Australia, all the ones crossing the oceans, and of course have listened to all the RF bouncing around the planet for decades.  They started tapping Soviet undersea copper cables decades ago using submarines so if somehow a telecomm wont let them tap their cables they will probably just do it anyway.</p><p>As nearly as I can tell Joe Nacchio, the CEO of Qwest, is the only exec that said no when the Bush administration told the telecoms to let the NSA taps their backbones.  They responded with a dubious insider stock trading case against him and threw him in Federal prison to show what happens to people who don't "cooperate".  The beauty of American law is just about everyone has cheated on their taxes, traded on an insider stock tip, used illegal drugs, or done something else the government can use against you to force compliance and obedience.</p><p>Once they have total surveillance I kind of doubt the government will even need to go to an ISP or a warrant to get access to your inbox.  Its really messy for them to have to go to an ISP because telling the sysadmin who the target is risks compromising the "investigation".  It is much cleaner and simpler for them to just record EVERYTHING at the backbone so they can data mine it at will, and can hop in the way back machine to see in detail what someone did years ago without relying on an ISP to retain anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big problem here is that chances are the NSA is directly tapping all the backbone fiber in the Internet already , and they are building giant new data centers in Utah and Texas to store Yettabytes of data which is 1,000,000,000,000,000GB .
Chances are the NSA is already and will certainly be in the future recording every email , IM , URL GET and POST and phone call flowing through every fiber they manage to tap and they will probably tap them all in this country , in all their allied countries like the UK and Australia , all the ones crossing the oceans , and of course have listened to all the RF bouncing around the planet for decades .
They started tapping Soviet undersea copper cables decades ago using submarines so if somehow a telecomm wont let them tap their cables they will probably just do it anyway.As nearly as I can tell Joe Nacchio , the CEO of Qwest , is the only exec that said no when the Bush administration told the telecoms to let the NSA taps their backbones .
They responded with a dubious insider stock trading case against him and threw him in Federal prison to show what happens to people who do n't " cooperate " .
The beauty of American law is just about everyone has cheated on their taxes , traded on an insider stock tip , used illegal drugs , or done something else the government can use against you to force compliance and obedience.Once they have total surveillance I kind of doubt the government will even need to go to an ISP or a warrant to get access to your inbox .
Its really messy for them to have to go to an ISP because telling the sysadmin who the target is risks compromising the " investigation " .
It is much cleaner and simpler for them to just record EVERYTHING at the backbone so they can data mine it at will , and can hop in the way back machine to see in detail what someone did years ago without relying on an ISP to retain anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big problem here is that chances are the NSA is directly tapping all the backbone fiber in the Internet already, and they are building giant new data centers in Utah and Texas to store Yettabytes of data which is 1,000,000,000,000,000GB.
Chances are the NSA is already and will certainly be in the future recording every email, IM, URL GET and POST and phone call flowing through every fiber they manage to tap and they will probably tap them all in this country, in all their allied countries like the UK and Australia, all the ones crossing the oceans, and of course have listened to all the RF bouncing around the planet for decades.
They started tapping Soviet undersea copper cables decades ago using submarines so if somehow a telecomm wont let them tap their cables they will probably just do it anyway.As nearly as I can tell Joe Nacchio, the CEO of Qwest, is the only exec that said no when the Bush administration told the telecoms to let the NSA taps their backbones.
They responded with a dubious insider stock trading case against him and threw him in Federal prison to show what happens to people who don't "cooperate".
The beauty of American law is just about everyone has cheated on their taxes, traded on an insider stock tip, used illegal drugs, or done something else the government can use against you to force compliance and obedience.Once they have total surveillance I kind of doubt the government will even need to go to an ISP or a warrant to get access to your inbox.
Its really messy for them to have to go to an ISP because telling the sysadmin who the target is risks compromising the "investigation".
It is much cleaner and simpler for them to just record EVERYTHING at the backbone so they can data mine it at will, and can hop in the way back machine to see in detail what someone did years ago without relying on an ISP to retain anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951800</id>
	<title>Re:One flaw</title>
	<author>tlhIngan</author>
	<datestamp>1257184860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>My landlord has keys to my apartment. Does that mean I have no expectation of privacy in my own apartment, just because a third party theoretically has access to it? Even if I haven't given permission for my landlord to enter my apartment?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, outside of what the law and your agreement provide. You'll probably find that your landlord can enter your apartment (and depending on the legals, may have to provide some notice - 24 hours is common, but maybe not) to inspect. Near the end your agreement, your landlor might be able to let anyone into your apartment to show it around, again, possibly with or without notification. And of course, all liability for stolen items falls on you.</p><p>And if the police come by, the landlord may let them in without a warrant (though you may demand to see one if you're present at the door). Again, that's up to the agreement and the law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My landlord has keys to my apartment .
Does that mean I have no expectation of privacy in my own apartment , just because a third party theoretically has access to it ?
Even if I have n't given permission for my landlord to enter my apartment ? Yes , outside of what the law and your agreement provide .
You 'll probably find that your landlord can enter your apartment ( and depending on the legals , may have to provide some notice - 24 hours is common , but maybe not ) to inspect .
Near the end your agreement , your landlor might be able to let anyone into your apartment to show it around , again , possibly with or without notification .
And of course , all liability for stolen items falls on you.And if the police come by , the landlord may let them in without a warrant ( though you may demand to see one if you 're present at the door ) .
Again , that 's up to the agreement and the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My landlord has keys to my apartment.
Does that mean I have no expectation of privacy in my own apartment, just because a third party theoretically has access to it?
Even if I haven't given permission for my landlord to enter my apartment?Yes, outside of what the law and your agreement provide.
You'll probably find that your landlord can enter your apartment (and depending on the legals, may have to provide some notice - 24 hours is common, but maybe not) to inspect.
Near the end your agreement, your landlor might be able to let anyone into your apartment to show it around, again, possibly with or without notification.
And of course, all liability for stolen items falls on you.And if the police come by, the landlord may let them in without a warrant (though you may demand to see one if you're present at the door).
Again, that's up to the agreement and the law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951414</id>
	<title>Re:One flaw</title>
	<author>mariushm</author>
	<datestamp>1257183120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, people at the post office and customs can also open your packages on suspicion they contain drugs or other illegal materials and they could in theory read the letter but that doesn't mean they read the text of the letter.<br>The same way people at the ISP could read the mail but that doesn't mean they do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , people at the post office and customs can also open your packages on suspicion they contain drugs or other illegal materials and they could in theory read the letter but that does n't mean they read the text of the letter.The same way people at the ISP could read the mail but that does n't mean they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, people at the post office and customs can also open your packages on suspicion they contain drugs or other illegal materials and they could in theory read the letter but that doesn't mean they read the text of the letter.The same way people at the ISP could read the mail but that doesn't mean they do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952350</id>
	<title>Re:Not Just E-Mail. Anything in the "cloud"</title>
	<author>tom's a-cold</author>
	<datestamp>1257187560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're putting enterprise-critical data in the cloud without encrypting it first, you are a fool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're putting enterprise-critical data in the cloud without encrypting it first , you are a fool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're putting enterprise-critical data in the cloud without encrypting it first, you are a fool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952136</id>
	<title>Read on for the rest of Bennett's analysis.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257186480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol><li>Who the \%*!@ is Bennett Haselton?</li><li>If Bennett Haselton isn't a lawyer, why \%*!@ would post his analysis here?</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the \ % * !
@ is Bennett Haselton ? If Bennett Haselton is n't a lawyer , why \ % * !
@ would post his analysis here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the \%*!
@ is Bennett Haselton?If Bennett Haselton isn't a lawyer, why \%*!
@ would post his analysis here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950546</id>
	<title>The #1 Lesson</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1257179340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Email is not private.  The sooner you stop pretending it should be and do nothing, the more quickly the citizens of this country can have a legitimate conversation about this and other issues of national importance.</p><p>Moral outrage in 3....2....1....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Email is not private .
The sooner you stop pretending it should be and do nothing , the more quickly the citizens of this country can have a legitimate conversation about this and other issues of national importance.Moral outrage in 3....2....1... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email is not private.
The sooner you stop pretending it should be and do nothing, the more quickly the citizens of this country can have a legitimate conversation about this and other issues of national importance.Moral outrage in 3....2....1....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952286</id>
	<title>Embrace and Extend</title>
	<author>da007</author>
	<datestamp>1257187260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another analogy:<br>"lowered privacy interests in e-mail because they 'expose to the ISP's employees in the ordinary course of business the contents of their e-mails.'"</p><p>Could the government search my house without notification, because I 'expose to the insurance company's employees in the ordinary course of business the [high-value] contents of my residence'?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another analogy : " lowered privacy interests in e-mail because they 'expose to the ISP 's employees in the ordinary course of business the contents of their e-mails .
' " Could the government search my house without notification , because I 'expose to the insurance company 's employees in the ordinary course of business the [ high-value ] contents of my residence ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another analogy:"lowered privacy interests in e-mail because they 'expose to the ISP's employees in the ordinary course of business the contents of their e-mails.
'"Could the government search my house without notification, because I 'expose to the insurance company's employees in the ordinary course of business the [high-value] contents of my residence'?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951054</id>
	<title>Postal service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257181620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, they just rip open your mail and read it at their leisure all the time.  And they don't even need to know the account password to do so, just an ordinary letter opener.  A paper envelope doesn't offer much expectation of privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , they just rip open your mail and read it at their leisure all the time .
And they do n't even need to know the account password to do so , just an ordinary letter opener .
A paper envelope does n't offer much expectation of privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, they just rip open your mail and read it at their leisure all the time.
And they don't even need to know the account password to do so, just an ordinary letter opener.
A paper envelope doesn't offer much expectation of privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952074</id>
	<title>Re:Caveat Lector</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1257186120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think most cases get simpler if we forget the Internet. If I put some stuff in a bank vault and the police would like to take a look at it, must they serve me or just the bank? I might be wierd, but I actually thought the bank. Yes, the warrant must name me and the scope of the search is naturally limited to my box and not the entire vault, but I didn't think it was necessary to actually serve the suspect with the warrant. My impression was that with a warrant they could just serve it to whoever opened the door or just break down the door and search the place that way, if there's nobody to serve. Imagine if I was loaning power tools from all the neighbors, should then the police serve each of them with a warrant before searching them for drugs in my house because they each have their individual right to privacy that requires a warrant? No. Ah well, encryption is the better form of privacy anyway...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think most cases get simpler if we forget the Internet .
If I put some stuff in a bank vault and the police would like to take a look at it , must they serve me or just the bank ?
I might be wierd , but I actually thought the bank .
Yes , the warrant must name me and the scope of the search is naturally limited to my box and not the entire vault , but I did n't think it was necessary to actually serve the suspect with the warrant .
My impression was that with a warrant they could just serve it to whoever opened the door or just break down the door and search the place that way , if there 's nobody to serve .
Imagine if I was loaning power tools from all the neighbors , should then the police serve each of them with a warrant before searching them for drugs in my house because they each have their individual right to privacy that requires a warrant ?
No. Ah well , encryption is the better form of privacy anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think most cases get simpler if we forget the Internet.
If I put some stuff in a bank vault and the police would like to take a look at it, must they serve me or just the bank?
I might be wierd, but I actually thought the bank.
Yes, the warrant must name me and the scope of the search is naturally limited to my box and not the entire vault, but I didn't think it was necessary to actually serve the suspect with the warrant.
My impression was that with a warrant they could just serve it to whoever opened the door or just break down the door and search the place that way, if there's nobody to serve.
Imagine if I was loaning power tools from all the neighbors, should then the police serve each of them with a warrant before searching them for drugs in my house because they each have their individual right to privacy that requires a warrant?
No. Ah well, encryption is the better form of privacy anyway...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950594</id>
	<title>easy solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257179580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>encryption</htmltext>
<tokenext>encryption</tokentext>
<sentencetext>encryption</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952888</id>
	<title>Exactly like regular Mail?</title>
	<author>gbutler69</author>
	<datestamp>1257190320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't think investigators can get a warrant to intercept and search regular mail without you knowing about it? I'm fairly certain they can and do. Just like a wire-tap. A warrant to intercept your communications without notifying you. What's wrong with this? I fail to see.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't think investigators can get a warrant to intercept and search regular mail without you knowing about it ?
I 'm fairly certain they can and do .
Just like a wire-tap .
A warrant to intercept your communications without notifying you .
What 's wrong with this ?
I fail to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't think investigators can get a warrant to intercept and search regular mail without you knowing about it?
I'm fairly certain they can and do.
Just like a wire-tap.
A warrant to intercept your communications without notifying you.
What's wrong with this?
I fail to see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952042</id>
	<title>this is absurd....</title>
	<author>garynuman</author>
	<datestamp>1257186000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>how are these people federal judges, i feel if you cornered a child after a civics class they could offer a more reasonable opinion on this. Why emails wouldn't be afforded the same protections as, i dunno, physical mail is just beyond me.  looks like I get to learn how to set up a mail server on my current music server...</htmltext>
<tokenext>how are these people federal judges , i feel if you cornered a child after a civics class they could offer a more reasonable opinion on this .
Why emails would n't be afforded the same protections as , i dunno , physical mail is just beyond me .
looks like I get to learn how to set up a mail server on my current music server.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how are these people federal judges, i feel if you cornered a child after a civics class they could offer a more reasonable opinion on this.
Why emails wouldn't be afforded the same protections as, i dunno, physical mail is just beyond me.
looks like I get to learn how to set up a mail server on my current music server...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29954030</id>
	<title>wanky comma's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257195360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There may be cases where the government can only prevent harm from being done, by gaining access to someone's e-mail account, and by preventing the subscriber from finding out that their e-mails are being read.</p></div></blockquote><p>Learn to use comma's properly, you illiterate turdhounder.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There may be cases where the government can only prevent harm from being done , by gaining access to someone 's e-mail account , and by preventing the subscriber from finding out that their e-mails are being read.Learn to use comma 's properly , you illiterate turdhounder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There may be cases where the government can only prevent harm from being done, by gaining access to someone's e-mail account, and by preventing the subscriber from finding out that their e-mails are being read.Learn to use comma's properly, you illiterate turdhounder.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953928</id>
	<title>Re:I actually fail to see the point</title>
	<author>Mendoksou</author>
	<datestamp>1257194820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would love to see the how the case changes if a mail service provider like gmail or yahoo suddenly released all of some politian's emails. Think about it, if possession indicates ownership and responsibility, so that the fact that data is possessed on a third-party site means that you do not have the expectation of privacy, then it only stands to reason that the companies can release anyone's emails if they want to. It may be bad business practice, but it's legal appearently. Or at least it is until someone in power gets burned by it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to see the how the case changes if a mail service provider like gmail or yahoo suddenly released all of some politian 's emails .
Think about it , if possession indicates ownership and responsibility , so that the fact that data is possessed on a third-party site means that you do not have the expectation of privacy , then it only stands to reason that the companies can release anyone 's emails if they want to .
It may be bad business practice , but it 's legal appearently .
Or at least it is until someone in power gets burned by it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to see the how the case changes if a mail service provider like gmail or yahoo suddenly released all of some politian's emails.
Think about it, if possession indicates ownership and responsibility, so that the fact that data is possessed on a third-party site means that you do not have the expectation of privacy, then it only stands to reason that the companies can release anyone's emails if they want to.
It may be bad business practice, but it's legal appearently.
Or at least it is until someone in power gets burned by it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950892</id>
	<title>ugh</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1257180900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Read on for the rest of Bennett's analysis.</i>
<br>
<br>
Can't wait.  When I want serious legal analysis, I turn to programmers, because being only an attorney myself, I need their help in figuring this stuff out.<br>
<br>
<i>But as applied to ISPs, this is a statement of fact, not a statement of law, and as a statement of fact it's simply wrong. ISP employees, even the most highly placed ones, do not have access to customers' e-mails "in the ordinary course of business." </i>
<br>
<br>
Of course they do.  Why on earth would you think they didn't?<br>
<br>
<i>And even in the non-ordinary course of business, in the case where e-mails have to be inspected to satisfy a subpoena requirement or to investigate an abuse report, only employees with the proper business justification can read the e-mails. </i>
<br>
<br>
I am curious as to which law this is enshrined in.<br>
<br>
<br>
<i>Now, most of us don't have the expertise to comment on the legal technicalities.</i>
<br>
<br>
You'd think so...<br>
<br>
<i>There is a difference between leaving property in someone else's possession because you don't care very much about keeping it private, and leaving property in someone else's possession because you have no choice. </i>
<br>
<br>
There's a difference between storing apples and oranges; the question is really "is there a legal difference?"  First, you're not addressing that, and secondly, factually that's not true.  You have a choice to use gmail, just like you have a choice to use e-mail at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read on for the rest of Bennett 's analysis .
Ca n't wait .
When I want serious legal analysis , I turn to programmers , because being only an attorney myself , I need their help in figuring this stuff out .
But as applied to ISPs , this is a statement of fact , not a statement of law , and as a statement of fact it 's simply wrong .
ISP employees , even the most highly placed ones , do not have access to customers ' e-mails " in the ordinary course of business .
" Of course they do .
Why on earth would you think they did n't ?
And even in the non-ordinary course of business , in the case where e-mails have to be inspected to satisfy a subpoena requirement or to investigate an abuse report , only employees with the proper business justification can read the e-mails .
I am curious as to which law this is enshrined in .
Now , most of us do n't have the expertise to comment on the legal technicalities .
You 'd think so.. . There is a difference between leaving property in someone else 's possession because you do n't care very much about keeping it private , and leaving property in someone else 's possession because you have no choice .
There 's a difference between storing apples and oranges ; the question is really " is there a legal difference ?
" First , you 're not addressing that , and secondly , factually that 's not true .
You have a choice to use gmail , just like you have a choice to use e-mail at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read on for the rest of Bennett's analysis.
Can't wait.
When I want serious legal analysis, I turn to programmers, because being only an attorney myself, I need their help in figuring this stuff out.
But as applied to ISPs, this is a statement of fact, not a statement of law, and as a statement of fact it's simply wrong.
ISP employees, even the most highly placed ones, do not have access to customers' e-mails "in the ordinary course of business.
" 


Of course they do.
Why on earth would you think they didn't?
And even in the non-ordinary course of business, in the case where e-mails have to be inspected to satisfy a subpoena requirement or to investigate an abuse report, only employees with the proper business justification can read the e-mails.
I am curious as to which law this is enshrined in.
Now, most of us don't have the expertise to comment on the legal technicalities.
You'd think so...

There is a difference between leaving property in someone else's possession because you don't care very much about keeping it private, and leaving property in someone else's possession because you have no choice.
There's a difference between storing apples and oranges; the question is really "is there a legal difference?
"  First, you're not addressing that, and secondly, factually that's not true.
You have a choice to use gmail, just like you have a choice to use e-mail at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29956412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.30034484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29971840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29954732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29954696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29956258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1411252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29956412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.30034484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29954696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29956258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29971840
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29954732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29951920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29953026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29955492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29952512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1411252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1411252.29950604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
