<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_19_2159242</id>
	<title>Microsoft Denies It Built Backdoor Into Windows 7</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1258625760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"Microsoft has <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141182/Microsoft\_denies\_it\_built\_backdoor\_in\_Windows\_7">denied that it has built a backdoor into Windows 7</a>, a concern that surfaced yesterday after a senior National Security Agency (NSA) official <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141105/NSA\_helped\_with\_Windows\_7\_development">testified before Congress that the agency had worked on the operating system</a>. 'Microsoft has not and will not put "backdoors" into Windows,' a company spokeswoman said, reacting to a Computerworld story Wednesday. On Monday, Richard Schaeffer, the NSA's information assurance director, told the Senate's Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security that the agency had partnered with the developer during the creation of Windows 7 'to enhance Microsoft's operating system security guide.' Thursday's categorical denial by Microsoft was accompanied by further explanation of exactly how the NSA participated in the making of Windows 7. 'The work being discussed here is purely in conjunction with our Security Compliance Management Toolkit,' said the spokeswoman. The company <a href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee712767.aspx">rolled out the Windows 7 version of the toolkit</a> late last month, shortly after it officially launched the operating system."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Microsoft has denied that it has built a backdoor into Windows 7 , a concern that surfaced yesterday after a senior National Security Agency ( NSA ) official testified before Congress that the agency had worked on the operating system .
'Microsoft has not and will not put " backdoors " into Windows, ' a company spokeswoman said , reacting to a Computerworld story Wednesday .
On Monday , Richard Schaeffer , the NSA 's information assurance director , told the Senate 's Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security that the agency had partnered with the developer during the creation of Windows 7 'to enhance Microsoft 's operating system security guide .
' Thursday 's categorical denial by Microsoft was accompanied by further explanation of exactly how the NSA participated in the making of Windows 7 .
'The work being discussed here is purely in conjunction with our Security Compliance Management Toolkit, ' said the spokeswoman .
The company rolled out the Windows 7 version of the toolkit late last month , shortly after it officially launched the operating system .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Microsoft has denied that it has built a backdoor into Windows 7, a concern that surfaced yesterday after a senior National Security Agency (NSA) official testified before Congress that the agency had worked on the operating system.
'Microsoft has not and will not put "backdoors" into Windows,' a company spokeswoman said, reacting to a Computerworld story Wednesday.
On Monday, Richard Schaeffer, the NSA's information assurance director, told the Senate's Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security that the agency had partnered with the developer during the creation of Windows 7 'to enhance Microsoft's operating system security guide.
' Thursday's categorical denial by Microsoft was accompanied by further explanation of exactly how the NSA participated in the making of Windows 7.
'The work being discussed here is purely in conjunction with our Security Compliance Management Toolkit,' said the spokeswoman.
The company rolled out the Windows 7 version of the toolkit late last month, shortly after it officially launched the operating system.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168616</id>
	<title>NSA keys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258657680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This brings back memory of the NSAKEY conspiracy. Guessing most likely US TLAs are sitting on a whole lot of 0-day which must be used sparingly -- when discovered the door is shut forever.</p><p>Given the international audience it would seem to be in MS's best interests to not go there.  If they are ever cought in the act it would have a negative effect on sales (especially international market share)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This brings back memory of the NSAKEY conspiracy .
Guessing most likely US TLAs are sitting on a whole lot of 0-day which must be used sparingly -- when discovered the door is shut forever.Given the international audience it would seem to be in MS 's best interests to not go there .
If they are ever cought in the act it would have a negative effect on sales ( especially international market share )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This brings back memory of the NSAKEY conspiracy.
Guessing most likely US TLAs are sitting on a whole lot of 0-day which must be used sparingly -- when discovered the door is shut forever.Given the international audience it would seem to be in MS's best interests to not go there.
If they are ever cought in the act it would have a negative effect on sales (especially international market share)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30181022</id>
	<title>O$X</title>
	<author>KillShill</author>
	<datestamp>1258729260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/mac-osx-mistakes-and-malfeatures" title="fsf.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/mac-osx-mistakes-and-malfeatures</a> [fsf.org]


<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/stallman\_withdraws\_apple\_backdoor\_claim/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/stallman\_withdraws\_apple\_backdoor\_claim/</a> [theregister.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/mac-osx-mistakes-and-malfeatures [ fsf.org ] http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/stallman \ _withdraws \ _apple \ _backdoor \ _claim/ [ theregister.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/mac-osx-mistakes-and-malfeatures [fsf.org]


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/stallman\_withdraws\_apple\_backdoor\_claim/ [theregister.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166112</id>
	<title>MS Compliance</title>
	<author>Atroxodisse</author>
	<datestamp>1258635120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just annoyed that MS isn't using OVAL and XCCDF for their compliance XML.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just annoyed that MS is n't using OVAL and XCCDF for their compliance XML .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just annoyed that MS isn't using OVAL and XCCDF for their compliance XML.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169708</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs a back door?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258719660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> They're just virtual humans. BSD created them as companions after it became sentient and found out no-one wanted to play with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're just virtual humans .
BSD created them as companions after it became sentient and found out no-one wanted to play with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They're just virtual humans.
BSD created them as companions after it became sentient and found out no-one wanted to play with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165008</id>
	<title>Re:NSA helped on Linux as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258630440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, cause open and closed source projects are equivalent with transparency....</p><p>Really? THIS got modded up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , cause open and closed source projects are equivalent with transparency....Really ?
THIS got modded up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, cause open and closed source projects are equivalent with transparency....Really?
THIS got modded up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165212</id>
	<title>denial = admission</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258631280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course they built in a backdoor for their own personal uses. Is anyone stupid enough to imagine otherwise? Consider the recent CIA purchase of <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/10/exclusive-us-spies-buy-stake-in-twitter-blog-monitoring-firm/" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/10/exclusive-us-spies-buy-stake-in-twitter-blog-monitoring-firm/</a> [wired.com] In-Q-Tel. Or the well-known fact that the CIA has its fingers all over Facebook. Do you suckers believe for one instant that everything you do and write isn't being scribbled into some Internal Security goon's harddrive somewhere? I have a friend who worked for Juniper, and he personally knew that AT&amp;T was buying their equipment to route all its traffic through NSA spook territory before hitting the rest of the web. East Germany represent!<br> <br>
Every day the United States comes closer and closer to becoming the USSR. A disaster in Afghanistan, monitoring its citizens without a warrant, attacking Christianity, Islam, and other religions, use of secret prisons and torture, central economic planning, the list goes on and on and on and on.<br> <br>
And still the rabid conformists, <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090624/full/news.2009.593.html" title="nature.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090624/full/news.2009.593.html</a> [nature.com] murderers of civilization, take out their Two Minutes Hate on the messenger.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they built in a backdoor for their own personal uses .
Is anyone stupid enough to imagine otherwise ?
Consider the recent CIA purchase of http : //www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/10/exclusive-us-spies-buy-stake-in-twitter-blog-monitoring-firm/ [ wired.com ] In-Q-Tel .
Or the well-known fact that the CIA has its fingers all over Facebook .
Do you suckers believe for one instant that everything you do and write is n't being scribbled into some Internal Security goon 's harddrive somewhere ?
I have a friend who worked for Juniper , and he personally knew that AT&amp;T was buying their equipment to route all its traffic through NSA spook territory before hitting the rest of the web .
East Germany represent !
Every day the United States comes closer and closer to becoming the USSR .
A disaster in Afghanistan , monitoring its citizens without a warrant , attacking Christianity , Islam , and other religions , use of secret prisons and torture , central economic planning , the list goes on and on and on and on .
And still the rabid conformists , http : //www.nature.com/news/2009/090624/full/news.2009.593.html [ nature.com ] murderers of civilization , take out their Two Minutes Hate on the messenger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they built in a backdoor for their own personal uses.
Is anyone stupid enough to imagine otherwise?
Consider the recent CIA purchase of http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/10/exclusive-us-spies-buy-stake-in-twitter-blog-monitoring-firm/ [wired.com] In-Q-Tel.
Or the well-known fact that the CIA has its fingers all over Facebook.
Do you suckers believe for one instant that everything you do and write isn't being scribbled into some Internal Security goon's harddrive somewhere?
I have a friend who worked for Juniper, and he personally knew that AT&amp;T was buying their equipment to route all its traffic through NSA spook territory before hitting the rest of the web.
East Germany represent!
Every day the United States comes closer and closer to becoming the USSR.
A disaster in Afghanistan, monitoring its citizens without a warrant, attacking Christianity, Islam, and other religions, use of secret prisons and torture, central economic planning, the list goes on and on and on and on.
And still the rabid conformists, http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090624/full/news.2009.593.html [nature.com] murderers of civilization, take out their Two Minutes Hate on the messenger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744</id>
	<title>I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258629360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe Microsoft anytime that they would not build back doors into the system...  If they tried, the backdoor would probably have enough bugs to be unusable.</p><p>Besides - doesn't it already state it in the story:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; "Microsoft has not and will not put "backdoors" into Windows"</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; "the agency had worked on the operating system."</p><p>Seems pretty clear, MS did NOT put a backdoor into it...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe Microsoft anytime that they would not build back doors into the system... If they tried , the backdoor would probably have enough bugs to be unusable.Besides - does n't it already state it in the story :     " Microsoft has not and will not put " backdoors " into Windows "     " the agency had worked on the operating system .
" Seems pretty clear , MS did NOT put a backdoor into it... ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe Microsoft anytime that they would not build back doors into the system...  If they tried, the backdoor would probably have enough bugs to be unusable.Besides - doesn't it already state it in the story:
    "Microsoft has not and will not put "backdoors" into Windows"
    "the agency had worked on the operating system.
"Seems pretty clear, MS did NOT put a backdoor into it... ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30174092</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs a back door?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258744260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nett Kraft reported that after the interview, a Mr. Daemon was found dead in a dumpster behind the building.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nett Kraft reported that after the interview , a Mr. Daemon was found dead in a dumpster behind the building .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nett Kraft reported that after the interview, a Mr. Daemon was found dead in a dumpster behind the building.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165060</id>
	<title>Re:NSA helped on Linux as well</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1258630680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The NSA did SELinux (for Linux...) so I don't think it's unreasonable to think they might have helped MS on security issues without doing anything nasty.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Like they are going to take a chance on getting caught doing something untoward in an open source application, where all eyes in the world are watching what they do. A closed source operating system is a completely different matter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The NSA did SELinux ( for Linux... ) so I do n't think it 's unreasonable to think they might have helped MS on security issues without doing anything nasty .
Like they are going to take a chance on getting caught doing something untoward in an open source application , where all eyes in the world are watching what they do .
A closed source operating system is a completely different matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NSA did SELinux (for Linux...) so I don't think it's unreasonable to think they might have helped MS on security issues without doing anything nasty.
Like they are going to take a chance on getting caught doing something untoward in an open source application, where all eyes in the world are watching what they do.
A closed source operating system is a completely different matter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165222</id>
	<title>Either way...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258631340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one will not be 'upgrading' to Windows 7. For various reasons, not least of which is that Microsoft is pro-DRM, I plan to have as little exposure to Windows 7 as I can.</p><p>Unfortunately, my current employer, and likely any future employers as well, will likely keep using MS products and will eventually installing Windows 7 on all desktop computers.</p><p>Then again, my job mostly involves writing embedded software, so my desktop PC only ends up getting used for basic email and web browsing tasks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one will not be 'upgrading ' to Windows 7 .
For various reasons , not least of which is that Microsoft is pro-DRM , I plan to have as little exposure to Windows 7 as I can.Unfortunately , my current employer , and likely any future employers as well , will likely keep using MS products and will eventually installing Windows 7 on all desktop computers.Then again , my job mostly involves writing embedded software , so my desktop PC only ends up getting used for basic email and web browsing tasks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one will not be 'upgrading' to Windows 7.
For various reasons, not least of which is that Microsoft is pro-DRM, I plan to have as little exposure to Windows 7 as I can.Unfortunately, my current employer, and likely any future employers as well, will likely keep using MS products and will eventually installing Windows 7 on all desktop computers.Then again, my job mostly involves writing embedded software, so my desktop PC only ends up getting used for basic email and web browsing tasks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165002</id>
	<title>The main point</title>
	<author>webmistressrachel</author>
	<datestamp>1258630440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>of the way this is being pointed out seems to be that your Government had a steering role in security, so the first thing that comes into their heads is "Backdoor". Notice how Microsoft themselves insist that it's only a configuration framework that the NSA has worked on. They want to play down Government participation just as a safe manufacturer would. BUT - big BUT - do the NSA (or some other Dept.) have SOURCE and if so, surely they have tons of 0days up their sleeve anyway? Who else has source? That's what we'd really like to know, M$. I was as shocked as anybody that there is a "Shared Source Initiative" when Win2k leaked, and wondered "Who? How many?" but the news just died. Nobody else asked that, not even on here.<br> <br>I confess, love Win7, it's beautiful, but will it still be a craporama of exploits which drive the Anti-V/Mal etc whatever ecosystem? I don't run stuff from email, I use only familiar apps known to be spyware-free through years of experience, and I heed UAC when I see it. Stable so far.<br> <br>Oh, I veered offtopic there, but back ontopic - do the NSA have the source? Who else?? Because then they wouldn't even need to work with M$ to open a backdoor, and the main fears hinted at above would be realised (the Govt. could spy on everyone).</htmltext>
<tokenext>of the way this is being pointed out seems to be that your Government had a steering role in security , so the first thing that comes into their heads is " Backdoor " .
Notice how Microsoft themselves insist that it 's only a configuration framework that the NSA has worked on .
They want to play down Government participation just as a safe manufacturer would .
BUT - big BUT - do the NSA ( or some other Dept .
) have SOURCE and if so , surely they have tons of 0days up their sleeve anyway ?
Who else has source ?
That 's what we 'd really like to know , M $ .
I was as shocked as anybody that there is a " Shared Source Initiative " when Win2k leaked , and wondered " Who ?
How many ?
" but the news just died .
Nobody else asked that , not even on here .
I confess , love Win7 , it 's beautiful , but will it still be a craporama of exploits which drive the Anti-V/Mal etc whatever ecosystem ?
I do n't run stuff from email , I use only familiar apps known to be spyware-free through years of experience , and I heed UAC when I see it .
Stable so far .
Oh , I veered offtopic there , but back ontopic - do the NSA have the source ?
Who else ? ?
Because then they would n't even need to work with M $ to open a backdoor , and the main fears hinted at above would be realised ( the Govt .
could spy on everyone ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of the way this is being pointed out seems to be that your Government had a steering role in security, so the first thing that comes into their heads is "Backdoor".
Notice how Microsoft themselves insist that it's only a configuration framework that the NSA has worked on.
They want to play down Government participation just as a safe manufacturer would.
BUT - big BUT - do the NSA (or some other Dept.
) have SOURCE and if so, surely they have tons of 0days up their sleeve anyway?
Who else has source?
That's what we'd really like to know, M$.
I was as shocked as anybody that there is a "Shared Source Initiative" when Win2k leaked, and wondered "Who?
How many?
" but the news just died.
Nobody else asked that, not even on here.
I confess, love Win7, it's beautiful, but will it still be a craporama of exploits which drive the Anti-V/Mal etc whatever ecosystem?
I don't run stuff from email, I use only familiar apps known to be spyware-free through years of experience, and I heed UAC when I see it.
Stable so far.
Oh, I veered offtopic there, but back ontopic - do the NSA have the source?
Who else??
Because then they wouldn't even need to work with M$ to open a backdoor, and the main fears hinted at above would be realised (the Govt.
could spy on everyone).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168940</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>unwastaken</author>
	<datestamp>1258708140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously, they want a fast way out in the unlikely event that the front door becomes blocked!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously , they want a fast way out in the unlikely event that the front door becomes blocked !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously, they want a fast way out in the unlikely event that the front door becomes blocked!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165380</id>
	<title>Re:NSA helped on Linux as well</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1258631880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it isn't.<br>Here's a tip:  Code runs on computers.  Code can be read by both humans and computers alike.  Source code or compiled code.</p><p>If someone wants to look for backdoors in the compiled Windows code, they can.  It's hard, but it's not impossible.  All it takes is ONE person finding one suspicious chunk of code to let the cat out of the bag.</p><p>It's not worth the risk for open source, it's not worth the risk for closed source, it's not even worth the risk for private off-the-record conversations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it is n't.Here 's a tip : Code runs on computers .
Code can be read by both humans and computers alike .
Source code or compiled code.If someone wants to look for backdoors in the compiled Windows code , they can .
It 's hard , but it 's not impossible .
All it takes is ONE person finding one suspicious chunk of code to let the cat out of the bag.It 's not worth the risk for open source , it 's not worth the risk for closed source , it 's not even worth the risk for private off-the-record conversations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it isn't.Here's a tip:  Code runs on computers.
Code can be read by both humans and computers alike.
Source code or compiled code.If someone wants to look for backdoors in the compiled Windows code, they can.
It's hard, but it's not impossible.
All it takes is ONE person finding one suspicious chunk of code to let the cat out of the bag.It's not worth the risk for open source, it's not worth the risk for closed source, it's not even worth the risk for private off-the-record conversations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167098</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258641060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>.</p><p>An think about it, what self respecting intelligence agency wouldnt want a back door in windows. Their job is to collect intelligence, and windows is almost everywhere and handles lots of information.</p><p>It might sound paranoid to say windows is bugged by the NSA, but it totally ignorance to suggest they wouldnt want to bug it.</p></div><p>You are overlooking the fact that intelligence agencies are, also, usually tasked with preventing (as much as possible) foreign countries from collecting intelligence about the U.S. government. If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use, how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it? It is a well understood fact that any security vulnerability that is introduced will be discovered by those with nefarious goals (the NSA would not view their own goals as nefarious, but they would consider the goals of many foreign intelligence agents to be nefarious).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.An think about it , what self respecting intelligence agency wouldnt want a back door in windows .
Their job is to collect intelligence , and windows is almost everywhere and handles lots of information.It might sound paranoid to say windows is bugged by the NSA , but it totally ignorance to suggest they wouldnt want to bug it.You are overlooking the fact that intelligence agencies are , also , usually tasked with preventing ( as much as possible ) foreign countries from collecting intelligence about the U.S. government. If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use , how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it ?
It is a well understood fact that any security vulnerability that is introduced will be discovered by those with nefarious goals ( the NSA would not view their own goals as nefarious , but they would consider the goals of many foreign intelligence agents to be nefarious ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.An think about it, what self respecting intelligence agency wouldnt want a back door in windows.
Their job is to collect intelligence, and windows is almost everywhere and handles lots of information.It might sound paranoid to say windows is bugged by the NSA, but it totally ignorance to suggest they wouldnt want to bug it.You are overlooking the fact that intelligence agencies are, also, usually tasked with preventing (as much as possible) foreign countries from collecting intelligence about the U.S. government. If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use, how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it?
It is a well understood fact that any security vulnerability that is introduced will be discovered by those with nefarious goals (the NSA would not view their own goals as nefarious, but they would consider the goals of many foreign intelligence agents to be nefarious).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168816</id>
	<title>Re:There's more than one way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258747500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft don't need to have actively created a back door for one to exist, look at the code the call "secure" and how many exploits are found daily for it.</p></div><p>To be fair, Windows 7 today has 1 (http://secunia.com/advisories/product/27467/?task=advisories) unpatched vulnerability.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They already have back doors for DRM control and instructions to please their real customers ie other companies, as well as their own WGA all for the common enrichment of rights holders.</p></div><p>Having a service provide DRM checkups does not equal a back door. That would be like saying an ftp server is a backdoor server, in which case<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. well, get you the picture.</p><p>Seriously, am I the only one getting real tired by the whole culture of anti-windows fanboyism on slashdot? Slashdot has always been a technical forum for me, but it seems that it's grown (or perhaps I've just grown to loathe it) to be something entirely different. You cannot report a newpiece related to windows/ms lately and not have people talk trash about pretty much anything they've done - OT or otherwise. Not like the articles are helping really - "Microsoft denies it built backdoor into Windows 7".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. Come on, really? The world "sensational" comes to mind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft do n't need to have actively created a back door for one to exist , look at the code the call " secure " and how many exploits are found daily for it.To be fair , Windows 7 today has 1 ( http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/27467/ ? task = advisories ) unpatched vulnerability.They already have back doors for DRM control and instructions to please their real customers ie other companies , as well as their own WGA all for the common enrichment of rights holders.Having a service provide DRM checkups does not equal a back door .
That would be like saying an ftp server is a backdoor server , in which case .. well , get you the picture.Seriously , am I the only one getting real tired by the whole culture of anti-windows fanboyism on slashdot ?
Slashdot has always been a technical forum for me , but it seems that it 's grown ( or perhaps I 've just grown to loathe it ) to be something entirely different .
You can not report a newpiece related to windows/ms lately and not have people talk trash about pretty much anything they 've done - OT or otherwise .
Not like the articles are helping really - " Microsoft denies it built backdoor into Windows 7 " .
.. Come on , really ?
The world " sensational " comes to mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft don't need to have actively created a back door for one to exist, look at the code the call "secure" and how many exploits are found daily for it.To be fair, Windows 7 today has 1 (http://secunia.com/advisories/product/27467/?task=advisories) unpatched vulnerability.They already have back doors for DRM control and instructions to please their real customers ie other companies, as well as their own WGA all for the common enrichment of rights holders.Having a service provide DRM checkups does not equal a back door.
That would be like saying an ftp server is a backdoor server, in which case .. well, get you the picture.Seriously, am I the only one getting real tired by the whole culture of anti-windows fanboyism on slashdot?
Slashdot has always been a technical forum for me, but it seems that it's grown (or perhaps I've just grown to loathe it) to be something entirely different.
You cannot report a newpiece related to windows/ms lately and not have people talk trash about pretty much anything they've done - OT or otherwise.
Not like the articles are helping really - "Microsoft denies it built backdoor into Windows 7".
.. Come on, really?
The world "sensational" comes to mind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165242</id>
	<title>Re:NSA helped on Linux as well</title>
	<author>pembo13</author>
	<datestamp>1258631400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; so I don't think it's unreasonable to think they might have helped MS on security issues without doing anything nasty</p><p>Nice thing is that NDAs and trade secrets can be applied to everyone who touches the production build code for Windows. The same in not true for Linux (SELinux)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; so I do n't think it 's unreasonable to think they might have helped MS on security issues without doing anything nastyNice thing is that NDAs and trade secrets can be applied to everyone who touches the production build code for Windows .
The same in not true for Linux ( SELinux )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; so I don't think it's unreasonable to think they might have helped MS on security issues without doing anything nastyNice thing is that NDAs and trade secrets can be applied to everyone who touches the production build code for Windows.
The same in not true for Linux (SELinux)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167012</id>
	<title>Re:Not really necessary</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1258640400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes yes, most certainly, targets "outside" the US......I'd buy that for a dollar!
<p>
-Oz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes yes , most certainly , targets " outside " the US......I 'd buy that for a dollar !
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes yes, most certainly, targets "outside" the US......I'd buy that for a dollar!
-Oz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165840</id>
	<title>Joshua</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258633920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mr. Potato Head!   Mr. Potato Head!  Back doors are not secrets!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. Potato Head !
Mr. Potato Head !
Back doors are not secrets !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. Potato Head!
Mr. Potato Head!
Back doors are not secrets!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168736</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>ShieldW0lf</author>
	<datestamp>1258659600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's been around for quite a while actually...
<br> <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted\_Computing#Criticism" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted\_Computing#Criticism</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been around for quite a while actually.. . http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted \ _Computing # Criticism [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been around for quite a while actually...
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted\_Computing#Criticism [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166322</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>RazzleDazzle</author>
	<datestamp>1258636200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.krytosvirus.com/images/funnies/winxpfirewall.jpg" title="krytosvirus.com">oblig</a> [krytosvirus.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oblig [ krytosvirus.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oblig [krytosvirus.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165808</id>
	<title>Re:NSA helped on Linux as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258633800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A closed source operating system is a completely different matter.</p></div><p>
Windows is not "closed-source" in the sense that no one outside Microsoft ever sees the source.  It is available and widely examined by many large corporations and universities.  I had access to Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows 2003 source bases while in college, all I had to do was sign an agreement to not work on open-source projects for 2 years.  Just because *you* don't have access to the source, does not mean that no one else does.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A closed source operating system is a completely different matter .
Windows is not " closed-source " in the sense that no one outside Microsoft ever sees the source .
It is available and widely examined by many large corporations and universities .
I had access to Windows 2000 , Windows XP , and Windows 2003 source bases while in college , all I had to do was sign an agreement to not work on open-source projects for 2 years .
Just because * you * do n't have access to the source , does not mean that no one else does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A closed source operating system is a completely different matter.
Windows is not "closed-source" in the sense that no one outside Microsoft ever sees the source.
It is available and widely examined by many large corporations and universities.
I had access to Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows 2003 source bases while in college, all I had to do was sign an agreement to not work on open-source projects for 2 years.
Just because *you* don't have access to the source, does not mean that no one else does.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166056</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258634940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would Microsoft build a back door when there are windows ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would Microsoft build a back door when there are windows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would Microsoft build a back door when there are windows ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166984</id>
	<title>A test?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258640220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The developers should designate one person for compromise testing.  It's his job to try to get compromises to the kernel.  He will submit a patch to a random developer every 6 months, the developer submits the patch, and if it is missed and gets included in the main tree it triggers a more widespread code audit.  Offer a $1000 reward to anyone finding the offending or more dangerous backdoor.<br>
This should keep the developers on their toes and give us some confidence that the code IS being audited properly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The developers should designate one person for compromise testing .
It 's his job to try to get compromises to the kernel .
He will submit a patch to a random developer every 6 months , the developer submits the patch , and if it is missed and gets included in the main tree it triggers a more widespread code audit .
Offer a $ 1000 reward to anyone finding the offending or more dangerous backdoor .
This should keep the developers on their toes and give us some confidence that the code IS being audited properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The developers should designate one person for compromise testing.
It's his job to try to get compromises to the kernel.
He will submit a patch to a random developer every 6 months, the developer submits the patch, and if it is missed and gets included in the main tree it triggers a more widespread code audit.
Offer a $1000 reward to anyone finding the offending or more dangerous backdoor.
This should keep the developers on their toes and give us some confidence that the code IS being audited properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167276</id>
	<title>'Microsoft has not and will not put "backdoors"</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1258642680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> into Windows,' a company spokeswoman said,
<p>
Oh,
</p><p>
Of COURSE NOT. They let the NSA do that for them!
</p><p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>into Windows, ' a company spokeswoman said , Oh , Of COURSE NOT .
They let the NSA do that for them !
RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext> into Windows,' a company spokeswoman said,

Oh,

Of COURSE NOT.
They let the NSA do that for them!
RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165420</id>
	<title>Re:of-course not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258632060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Now count how many ways such a backdoor could bite Microsoft in the ass.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; None. They'd just deny it. After all, it would just be one of tens of thousands more security vulnerabilities. It's not like there's a piece of code saying "NSA back door hook HERE". They'd patch it, create a different "vulnerability" with the patch, and pass that on to the NSA, and no one would be any wiser. Security by obscurity. Easy to do in multi-gigabyte resource hogging pigs of an OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now count how many ways such a backdoor could bite Microsoft in the ass .
      None .
They 'd just deny it .
After all , it would just be one of tens of thousands more security vulnerabilities .
It 's not like there 's a piece of code saying " NSA back door hook HERE " .
They 'd patch it , create a different " vulnerability " with the patch , and pass that on to the NSA , and no one would be any wiser .
Security by obscurity .
Easy to do in multi-gigabyte resource hogging pigs of an OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now count how many ways such a backdoor could bite Microsoft in the ass.
      None.
They'd just deny it.
After all, it would just be one of tens of thousands more security vulnerabilities.
It's not like there's a piece of code saying "NSA back door hook HERE".
They'd patch it, create a different "vulnerability" with the patch, and pass that on to the NSA, and no one would be any wiser.
Security by obscurity.
Easy to do in multi-gigabyte resource hogging pigs of an OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168730</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Undead Waffle</author>
	<datestamp>1258659480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168688</id>
	<title>Microsoft's Response:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258658760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we didn't do it.  Honest !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we did n't do it .
Honest !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we didn't do it.
Honest !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165196</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft didn't make any backdoors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258631220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you just <em> READ </em> the link you posted you would have realised that it was not msft but mcaffe, symantech and CA that collaborated with the FBI</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you just READ the link you posted you would have realised that it was not msft but mcaffe , symantech and CA that collaborated with the FBI</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you just  READ  the link you posted you would have realised that it was not msft but mcaffe, symantech and CA that collaborated with the FBI</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167206</id>
	<title>Windows update</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258642020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who needs a backdor when MS has Windows update?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who needs a backdor when MS has Windows update ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who needs a backdor when MS has Windows update?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169608</id>
	<title>Retards!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258718280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously... a 'backdoor'?!?? As if they could get away with that! What, is it going to UPnP everyones router or create an outbound tunnel? open ports? as if that wouldn't be entirely obvious! Even if it employed some form of port-knocking its still useless in nearly all cases where people are behind NAT (unless they believe that nobody will notice dodgy tunnels in their port forwards). lol @ paranoid Congressman</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously... a 'backdoor ' ? ! ? ?
As if they could get away with that !
What , is it going to UPnP everyones router or create an outbound tunnel ?
open ports ?
as if that would n't be entirely obvious !
Even if it employed some form of port-knocking its still useless in nearly all cases where people are behind NAT ( unless they believe that nobody will notice dodgy tunnels in their port forwards ) .
lol @ paranoid Congressman</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously... a 'backdoor'?!??
As if they could get away with that!
What, is it going to UPnP everyones router or create an outbound tunnel?
open ports?
as if that wouldn't be entirely obvious!
Even if it employed some form of port-knocking its still useless in nearly all cases where people are behind NAT (unless they believe that nobody will notice dodgy tunnels in their port forwards).
lol @ paranoid Congressman</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166580</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258637460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165898</id>
	<title>Re:NSA helped on Linux as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258634280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't have the source to Windows but that doesn't mean no one outside Microsoft does not.</p><p>There are thousands of people who have access to the source, mainly large companies and research people.</p><p>I think you have to bringe some real evidence to support the claim that Linux gets more eyeballs than Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have the source to Windows but that does n't mean no one outside Microsoft does not.There are thousands of people who have access to the source , mainly large companies and research people.I think you have to bringe some real evidence to support the claim that Linux gets more eyeballs than Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have the source to Windows but that doesn't mean no one outside Microsoft does not.There are thousands of people who have access to the source, mainly large companies and research people.I think you have to bringe some real evidence to support the claim that Linux gets more eyeballs than Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167202</id>
	<title>Slowly Please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258642020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought it was the sworn duty of the government to be in everyone's backdoor...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it was the sworn duty of the government to be in everyone 's backdoor.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it was the sworn duty of the government to be in everyone's backdoor...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165204</id>
	<title>Who needs a back door?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258631280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Despite many years&rsquo; warnings that Microsoft regards security as a marketing problem and has only ever done the <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/01/18/yet-another-windows-virus-devastates-millions-of-complacent-idiots/bti-explosive-breaching-free-standing-door/" title="today.com" rel="nofollow">absolute minimum it can get away with</a> [today.com], millions of users who click on any rubbish they see in the hope of pictures of female tennis stars having wardrobe malfunctions still fail to believe that taking Windows out on the Internet is like standing bent over in the street in downtown Gomorrah, naked, arse greased up and carrying a flashing neon sign saying &ldquo;COME AND GET IT.&rdquo;

</p><p>Microsoft cannot believe people have not applied the patch for the problems, just because they keep trying to use Windows Genuine Advantage to break legally-bought systems. &ldquo;Don&rsquo;t they trust us?&rdquo; asked marketing marketer Steve Ballmer.

</p><p>Millions of smug Mac users and the four hundred smug Linux users pointed and laughed, having long given up trying to convince their Windows-using friends to see sense. &ldquo;There&rsquo;s a reason the Unix system on Mac OS X is called Darwin,&rdquo; said appallingly smug Mac user Arty Phagge.

</p><p>&ldquo;It can&rsquo;t be stupid if everyone else runs it,&rdquo; said Windows user Joe Beleaguered, who had lost all his email, business files, MP3s and porn again. &ldquo;Macs cost more than Windows PCs.&rdquo;

</p><p>&ldquo;Yes,&rdquo; said Phagge. &ldquo;Yes, they do.&rdquo;

</p><p>Ubuntu Linux developer Hiram Nerdboy frantically tried to get our attention about something or other, but we can&rsquo;t say we care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite many years    warnings that Microsoft regards security as a marketing problem and has only ever done the absolute minimum it can get away with [ today.com ] , millions of users who click on any rubbish they see in the hope of pictures of female tennis stars having wardrobe malfunctions still fail to believe that taking Windows out on the Internet is like standing bent over in the street in downtown Gomorrah , naked , arse greased up and carrying a flashing neon sign saying    COME AND GET IT.    Microsoft can not believe people have not applied the patch for the problems , just because they keep trying to use Windows Genuine Advantage to break legally-bought systems .
   Don    t they trust us ?    asked marketing marketer Steve Ballmer .
Millions of smug Mac users and the four hundred smug Linux users pointed and laughed , having long given up trying to convince their Windows-using friends to see sense .
   There    s a reason the Unix system on Mac OS X is called Darwin ,    said appallingly smug Mac user Arty Phagge .
   It can    t be stupid if everyone else runs it ,    said Windows user Joe Beleaguered , who had lost all his email , business files , MP3s and porn again .
   Macs cost more than Windows PCs.       Yes ,    said Phagge .
   Yes , they do.    Ubuntu Linux developer Hiram Nerdboy frantically tried to get our attention about something or other , but we can    t say we care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite many years’ warnings that Microsoft regards security as a marketing problem and has only ever done the absolute minimum it can get away with [today.com], millions of users who click on any rubbish they see in the hope of pictures of female tennis stars having wardrobe malfunctions still fail to believe that taking Windows out on the Internet is like standing bent over in the street in downtown Gomorrah, naked, arse greased up and carrying a flashing neon sign saying “COME AND GET IT.”

Microsoft cannot believe people have not applied the patch for the problems, just because they keep trying to use Windows Genuine Advantage to break legally-bought systems.
“Don’t they trust us?” asked marketing marketer Steve Ballmer.
Millions of smug Mac users and the four hundred smug Linux users pointed and laughed, having long given up trying to convince their Windows-using friends to see sense.
“There’s a reason the Unix system on Mac OS X is called Darwin,” said appallingly smug Mac user Arty Phagge.
“It can’t be stupid if everyone else runs it,” said Windows user Joe Beleaguered, who had lost all his email, business files, MP3s and porn again.
“Macs cost more than Windows PCs.”

“Yes,” said Phagge.
“Yes, they do.”

Ubuntu Linux developer Hiram Nerdboy frantically tried to get our attention about something or other, but we can’t say we care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166754</id>
	<title>That's it this confirms it!</title>
	<author>failedlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1258638660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NSA has <b>not</b> put a backdoor in Windows. When the intelligence agencies comment on these matters, the answer is always "We will neither confirm or deny...." which always implies that they had some role in the matter. Now that both MS and the NSA have publicly stated that no backdoor was installed in Windows, and is such a departure from the usual PR stance that it is impossible to conclude otherwise that such a backdoor was not and would never have been installed.</p><p>Barring my sarcasm, I would think that there is more at stake in securing Windows than putting a backdoor in it. Chances are, if there is a backdoor, than others will find it which makes it a futile effort. I think of it this way. It would be one thing to backdoor Windows, if you wanted to spy on Joe citizen or a terrorist. But, Windows is used throughout businesses within the US: Banks, Utilities, major industry, government, law enforcement, etc. Such a Trojan whether on desktop PCs or on Servers could cause major economic and security repercussions.  As others have pointed out, the NSA has released other products to help in security like SE Linux and various encryption algorithms which AFAIK have stood up to independent audits by experts.</p><p>They were probably tasked with only looking at certain portions of the Windows code anyways much like they had likely done with previous versions of Windows and maybe other major OSes. There's been plenty of bugs found since in Windows that no matter how much auditing of code in any OS, being found out of planting a Trojan has many more consequences that exploiting holes that are already there anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NSA has not put a backdoor in Windows .
When the intelligence agencies comment on these matters , the answer is always " We will neither confirm or deny.... " which always implies that they had some role in the matter .
Now that both MS and the NSA have publicly stated that no backdoor was installed in Windows , and is such a departure from the usual PR stance that it is impossible to conclude otherwise that such a backdoor was not and would never have been installed.Barring my sarcasm , I would think that there is more at stake in securing Windows than putting a backdoor in it .
Chances are , if there is a backdoor , than others will find it which makes it a futile effort .
I think of it this way .
It would be one thing to backdoor Windows , if you wanted to spy on Joe citizen or a terrorist .
But , Windows is used throughout businesses within the US : Banks , Utilities , major industry , government , law enforcement , etc .
Such a Trojan whether on desktop PCs or on Servers could cause major economic and security repercussions .
As others have pointed out , the NSA has released other products to help in security like SE Linux and various encryption algorithms which AFAIK have stood up to independent audits by experts.They were probably tasked with only looking at certain portions of the Windows code anyways much like they had likely done with previous versions of Windows and maybe other major OSes .
There 's been plenty of bugs found since in Windows that no matter how much auditing of code in any OS , being found out of planting a Trojan has many more consequences that exploiting holes that are already there anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NSA has not put a backdoor in Windows.
When the intelligence agencies comment on these matters, the answer is always "We will neither confirm or deny...." which always implies that they had some role in the matter.
Now that both MS and the NSA have publicly stated that no backdoor was installed in Windows, and is such a departure from the usual PR stance that it is impossible to conclude otherwise that such a backdoor was not and would never have been installed.Barring my sarcasm, I would think that there is more at stake in securing Windows than putting a backdoor in it.
Chances are, if there is a backdoor, than others will find it which makes it a futile effort.
I think of it this way.
It would be one thing to backdoor Windows, if you wanted to spy on Joe citizen or a terrorist.
But, Windows is used throughout businesses within the US: Banks, Utilities, major industry, government, law enforcement, etc.
Such a Trojan whether on desktop PCs or on Servers could cause major economic and security repercussions.
As others have pointed out, the NSA has released other products to help in security like SE Linux and various encryption algorithms which AFAIK have stood up to independent audits by experts.They were probably tasked with only looking at certain portions of the Windows code anyways much like they had likely done with previous versions of Windows and maybe other major OSes.
There's been plenty of bugs found since in Windows that no matter how much auditing of code in any OS, being found out of planting a Trojan has many more consequences that exploiting holes that are already there anyways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30174936</id>
	<title>outsourcing spying to malware authors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258746900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the CIA has secret prisons around the world, NSA / someone wanting to make use of this "de facto strategic weapon" can ask Microsoft to keep some things unpatched till exploited.<br>Since Microsoft took so much time to come up with a statement, does it mean that they were silent so far, out of clear knowledge of "certain unpatched vulnerabilities"?<br>Why should not malware authors from Central Europe be contacted by "certain insiders" from North American Govts (let alone just USA) ?</p><p>If you're tin-foiling, tin-foil well - spying is not a single vector attack, today. Can it be so simple in this day? It <strong>has to be distributed</strong> over hardware, software and wetware.<br>That's what's hard to figure out. And you have cheap supercomps and Second Life-like society simulators too add to the party.</p><p>If is a part, Microsoft is a small part of the elaborate multi-disciplinary mechanism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the CIA has secret prisons around the world , NSA / someone wanting to make use of this " de facto strategic weapon " can ask Microsoft to keep some things unpatched till exploited.Since Microsoft took so much time to come up with a statement , does it mean that they were silent so far , out of clear knowledge of " certain unpatched vulnerabilities " ? Why should not malware authors from Central Europe be contacted by " certain insiders " from North American Govts ( let alone just USA ) ? If you 're tin-foiling , tin-foil well - spying is not a single vector attack , today .
Can it be so simple in this day ?
It has to be distributed over hardware , software and wetware.That 's what 's hard to figure out .
And you have cheap supercomps and Second Life-like society simulators too add to the party.If is a part , Microsoft is a small part of the elaborate multi-disciplinary mechanism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the CIA has secret prisons around the world, NSA / someone wanting to make use of this "de facto strategic weapon" can ask Microsoft to keep some things unpatched till exploited.Since Microsoft took so much time to come up with a statement, does it mean that they were silent so far, out of clear knowledge of "certain unpatched vulnerabilities"?Why should not malware authors from Central Europe be contacted by "certain insiders" from North American Govts (let alone just USA) ?If you're tin-foiling, tin-foil well - spying is not a single vector attack, today.
Can it be so simple in this day?
It has to be distributed over hardware, software and wetware.That's what's hard to figure out.
And you have cheap supercomps and Second Life-like society simulators too add to the party.If is a part, Microsoft is a small part of the elaborate multi-disciplinary mechanism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165362</id>
	<title>Apple denies building kill switch into OSX...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258631820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a rediculous non-story with an attention seeking headline.  Sensationalist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a rediculous non-story with an attention seeking headline .
Sensationalist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a rediculous non-story with an attention seeking headline.
Sensationalist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165452</id>
	<title>Re:Not really necessary</title>
	<author>thejynxed</author>
	<datestamp>1258632180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're assuming those holes aren't left there intentionally as honeypots or convenient excuses for actions that might otherwise be construed as acts of war.</p><p>Just sayin'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're assuming those holes are n't left there intentionally as honeypots or convenient excuses for actions that might otherwise be construed as acts of war.Just sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're assuming those holes aren't left there intentionally as honeypots or convenient excuses for actions that might otherwise be construed as acts of war.Just sayin'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30175180</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs a back door?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258747680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were busy getting real work done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were busy getting real work done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were busy getting real work done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165654</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>rkulla</author>
	<datestamp>1258633140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>and it wouldn't work with the "Home" version of Windows, since nothing special ever does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and it would n't work with the " Home " version of Windows , since nothing special ever does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and it wouldn't work with the "Home" version of Windows, since nothing special ever does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165984</id>
	<title>Re:NSA helped on Linux as well</title>
	<author>JohnFen</author>
	<datestamp>1258634580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is why I trust SELinux less than most other flavors. Sure, I can look at the code, but what are the odds I'm looking at the right part of the code, and even if I am, what are the odds that I'll actually spot a weak point?</p><p>Slim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why I trust SELinux less than most other flavors .
Sure , I can look at the code , but what are the odds I 'm looking at the right part of the code , and even if I am , what are the odds that I 'll actually spot a weak point ? Slim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why I trust SELinux less than most other flavors.
Sure, I can look at the code, but what are the odds I'm looking at the right part of the code, and even if I am, what are the odds that I'll actually spot a weak point?Slim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166070</id>
	<title>Re:denial = admission</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258635000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed.

Look up Lotus Notes.

The NSA has had hooks in Windows for a long time.  Get a clue you carebears.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Look up Lotus Notes .
The NSA has had hooks in Windows for a long time .
Get a clue you carebears .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Look up Lotus Notes.
The NSA has had hooks in Windows for a long time.
Get a clue you carebears.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168692</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>bug1</author>
	<datestamp>1258658820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use, how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it?</i></p><p>The get microsoft to issue a patch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use , how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it ? The get microsoft to issue a patch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use, how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it?The get microsoft to issue a patch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165472</id>
	<title>The lady doth protest too much, methinks</title>
	<author>Mansing</author>
	<datestamp>1258632240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MSFT would sell their children's souls to keep Windows on the government's desktop PCs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MSFT would sell their children 's souls to keep Windows on the government 's desktop PCs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MSFT would sell their children's souls to keep Windows on the government's desktop PCs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166966</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258640040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to have to stay anonymous, because <b>I</b> put the backdoors into NT for the benefit of the American Government.  Windows 7 is just <i>NT with a shinier desktop </i>(and don't let anyone try to tell you anything different!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to have to stay anonymous , because I put the backdoors into NT for the benefit of the American Government .
Windows 7 is just NT with a shinier desktop ( and do n't let anyone try to tell you anything different !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to have to stay anonymous, because I put the backdoors into NT for the benefit of the American Government.
Windows 7 is just NT with a shinier desktop (and don't let anyone try to tell you anything different!
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258632840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would Microsoft build a back door into Win7, when the front door is so wide open?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would Microsoft build a back door into Win7 , when the front door is so wide open ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would Microsoft build a back door into Win7, when the front door is so wide open?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30176222</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs a back door?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258708140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What about all three of the BSD users?</p></div><p>three people can keep a secret...<br> <br> <br> <br>
if two of them are <i>dead</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about all three of the BSD users ? three people can keep a secret.. . if two of them are dead</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about all three of the BSD users?three people can keep a secret...   
if two of them are dead
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166486</id>
	<title>Re:Not really necessary</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1258636980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I think it's much more likely that the NSA would partner with Microsoft to ensure that Windows is actually more secure...</i>

</p><p>As cynical as I am about agencies that are supposed to be "protecting" us, you're probably right on this one.  When the NSA owns every internet backbone system, satellite relay, cell phone, and land line phone in America, plus they have more cryptos than ceiling tiles,  I'm not sure what a Windows 7 back door would do for them.  They don't need your PC and the risk of a foreign government finding that back door, a foreign government with the resources to do a good job looking for one, would be really high.

</p><p>A more secure operating system in wide use in government offices would be far more in their interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's much more likely that the NSA would partner with Microsoft to ensure that Windows is actually more secure.. . As cynical as I am about agencies that are supposed to be " protecting " us , you 're probably right on this one .
When the NSA owns every internet backbone system , satellite relay , cell phone , and land line phone in America , plus they have more cryptos than ceiling tiles , I 'm not sure what a Windows 7 back door would do for them .
They do n't need your PC and the risk of a foreign government finding that back door , a foreign government with the resources to do a good job looking for one , would be really high .
A more secure operating system in wide use in government offices would be far more in their interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I think it's much more likely that the NSA would partner with Microsoft to ensure that Windows is actually more secure...

As cynical as I am about agencies that are supposed to be "protecting" us, you're probably right on this one.
When the NSA owns every internet backbone system, satellite relay, cell phone, and land line phone in America, plus they have more cryptos than ceiling tiles,  I'm not sure what a Windows 7 back door would do for them.
They don't need your PC and the risk of a foreign government finding that back door, a foreign government with the resources to do a good job looking for one, would be really high.
A more secure operating system in wide use in government offices would be far more in their interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856</id>
	<title>NSA helped on Linux as well</title>
	<author>prestwich</author>
	<datestamp>1258629840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NSA did SELinux (for Linux...) so I don't think it's unreasonable to think they might have helped MS on security issues without doing anything nasty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NSA did SELinux ( for Linux... ) so I do n't think it 's unreasonable to think they might have helped MS on security issues without doing anything nasty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NSA did SELinux (for Linux...) so I don't think it's unreasonable to think they might have helped MS on security issues without doing anything nasty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166132</id>
	<title>Lets see what 'track changes' has to say:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258635240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Microsoft has not and will not (admit to having) put "backdoors" into Windows.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Microsoft has not and will not ( admit to having ) put " backdoors " into Windows .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Microsoft has not and will not (admit to having) put "backdoors" into Windows.
'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165154</id>
	<title>Methinks</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1258631040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He doth protest too much.</p><p>Also:</p><p>"Microsoft has denied that it has built a backdoor into Windows 7" [...] "the agency had worked on the operating system."</p><p>Yeah, they didn't do it, they let the NSA do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He doth protest too much.Also : " Microsoft has denied that it has built a backdoor into Windows 7 " [ ... ] " the agency had worked on the operating system .
" Yeah , they did n't do it , they let the NSA do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He doth protest too much.Also:"Microsoft has denied that it has built a backdoor into Windows 7" [...] "the agency had worked on the operating system.
"Yeah, they didn't do it, they let the NSA do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166552</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258637340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you may be putting too much into this.  Microsoft spokespeople really have no problem with lying when it suits them.  There are some examples, but the one I can think of right now was when a spokesperson said there are no hidden api's, and then MS released them the next month.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you may be putting too much into this .
Microsoft spokespeople really have no problem with lying when it suits them .
There are some examples , but the one I can think of right now was when a spokesperson said there are no hidden api 's , and then MS released them the next month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you may be putting too much into this.
Microsoft spokespeople really have no problem with lying when it suits them.
There are some examples, but the one I can think of right now was when a spokesperson said there are no hidden api's, and then MS released them the next month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165014</id>
	<title>Re:Not really necessary</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1258630440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's much more likely that the NSA would partner with Microsoft to ensure that Windows is actually more secure, so that those same targets outside of the US cannot get into the US government systems.</p><p>The NSA doesn't need to rely on Windows to gain access to other networks, but considering the fact that many government systems are running Windows, the National Security Agency definitely has an interest in making sure those systems are secure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's much more likely that the NSA would partner with Microsoft to ensure that Windows is actually more secure , so that those same targets outside of the US can not get into the US government systems.The NSA does n't need to rely on Windows to gain access to other networks , but considering the fact that many government systems are running Windows , the National Security Agency definitely has an interest in making sure those systems are secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's much more likely that the NSA would partner with Microsoft to ensure that Windows is actually more secure, so that those same targets outside of the US cannot get into the US government systems.The NSA doesn't need to rely on Windows to gain access to other networks, but considering the fact that many government systems are running Windows, the National Security Agency definitely has an interest in making sure those systems are secure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166142</id>
	<title>Re:Probably easier to back door Linux.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258635300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; But I have about as much idea of what's going on inside of my Ubuntu as I did<br>&gt; my Windows, from a backdoor perspective.</p><p>However, hundreds of highly skilled Debian Developers know exactly what is going on inside Debian.  And many of them live outside the USA and don't particularly like or trust the US government.  Many of those same people are also Ubuntu developers.  While it is not inconceivable that some agency (not necessarily of the US government) might slip a trojan in, it is highly unlikely.</p><p>If it was something that was frequently attempted some would have been spotted.  You can bet such a thing would get as much embarrassing attention as possible (and that's a lot).  Why risk it when almost everyone runs Windows and most Linux servers run buggy Php apps?  Just choose one of the zillions of existing exploits and be happy.  No one will ever know you aren't just another cracker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; But I have about as much idea of what 's going on inside of my Ubuntu as I did &gt; my Windows , from a backdoor perspective.However , hundreds of highly skilled Debian Developers know exactly what is going on inside Debian .
And many of them live outside the USA and do n't particularly like or trust the US government .
Many of those same people are also Ubuntu developers .
While it is not inconceivable that some agency ( not necessarily of the US government ) might slip a trojan in , it is highly unlikely.If it was something that was frequently attempted some would have been spotted .
You can bet such a thing would get as much embarrassing attention as possible ( and that 's a lot ) .
Why risk it when almost everyone runs Windows and most Linux servers run buggy Php apps ?
Just choose one of the zillions of existing exploits and be happy .
No one will ever know you are n't just another cracker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; But I have about as much idea of what's going on inside of my Ubuntu as I did&gt; my Windows, from a backdoor perspective.However, hundreds of highly skilled Debian Developers know exactly what is going on inside Debian.
And many of them live outside the USA and don't particularly like or trust the US government.
Many of those same people are also Ubuntu developers.
While it is not inconceivable that some agency (not necessarily of the US government) might slip a trojan in, it is highly unlikely.If it was something that was frequently attempted some would have been spotted.
You can bet such a thing would get as much embarrassing attention as possible (and that's a lot).
Why risk it when almost everyone runs Windows and most Linux servers run buggy Php apps?
Just choose one of the zillions of existing exploits and be happy.
No one will ever know you aren't just another cracker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167070</id>
	<title>its not a backdoor its a peephole</title>
	<author>dbcowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1258640820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bush says we don't torture..<br>and we did.  so its not a backdoor... its ah... a peephole.... or something.  and ya Microsoft didn't put it in.... cause then some employees there would know too much and have to be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ehmmm rebooted.  Instead they allowed the peephole to be put in.  And they can honest say they didn't do it, nor do they know anything about it... its not torture... I mean a backdoor cause the defination of that is nothing that anyone else would think it means.  No matter... I'm a Mac.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bush says we do n't torture..and we did .
so its not a backdoor... its ah... a peephole.... or something .
and ya Microsoft did n't put it in.... cause then some employees there would know too much and have to be ... ehmmm rebooted .
Instead they allowed the peephole to be put in .
And they can honest say they did n't do it , nor do they know anything about it... its not torture... I mean a backdoor cause the defination of that is nothing that anyone else would think it means .
No matter... I 'm a Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bush says we don't torture..and we did.
so its not a backdoor... its ah... a peephole.... or something.
and ya Microsoft didn't put it in.... cause then some employees there would know too much and have to be ... ehmmm rebooted.
Instead they allowed the peephole to be put in.
And they can honest say they didn't do it, nor do they know anything about it... its not torture... I mean a backdoor cause the defination of that is nothing that anyone else would think it means.
No matter... I'm a Mac.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168826</id>
	<title>Re:Not really necessary</title>
	<author>bussdriver</author>
	<datestamp>1258748460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about subtle patterns to caching, encryption / protocol timing, or just using a form of public key encryption to save hints for cracking encryption? The hints could be saved openly somewhere and probably go years without detection... make them hidden...  Could be compiler work.. the tool chain is a great place to insert things that developers wouldn't notice.</p><p>Anybody remember when the fbi made a deal with the major anti-virus tools to have their software be ignored? I do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about subtle patterns to caching , encryption / protocol timing , or just using a form of public key encryption to save hints for cracking encryption ?
The hints could be saved openly somewhere and probably go years without detection... make them hidden... Could be compiler work.. the tool chain is a great place to insert things that developers would n't notice.Anybody remember when the fbi made a deal with the major anti-virus tools to have their software be ignored ?
I do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about subtle patterns to caching, encryption / protocol timing, or just using a form of public key encryption to save hints for cracking encryption?
The hints could be saved openly somewhere and probably go years without detection... make them hidden...  Could be compiler work.. the tool chain is a great place to insert things that developers wouldn't notice.Anybody remember when the fbi made a deal with the major anti-virus tools to have their software be ignored?
I do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165348</id>
	<title>Probably easier to back door Linux.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258631760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, its funny, but if the NSA ever got its hooks into a repository, it could do all sorts of fun stuff that way in Linux.  We only "trust" Linux because Linux is a huge trust circle.  WE trust it because its open, and assume that someone else must have looked at it.  But I have about as much idea of what's going on inside of my Ubuntu as I did my Windows, from a backdoor perspective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , its funny , but if the NSA ever got its hooks into a repository , it could do all sorts of fun stuff that way in Linux .
We only " trust " Linux because Linux is a huge trust circle .
WE trust it because its open , and assume that someone else must have looked at it .
But I have about as much idea of what 's going on inside of my Ubuntu as I did my Windows , from a backdoor perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, its funny, but if the NSA ever got its hooks into a repository, it could do all sorts of fun stuff that way in Linux.
We only "trust" Linux because Linux is a huge trust circle.
WE trust it because its open, and assume that someone else must have looked at it.
But I have about as much idea of what's going on inside of my Ubuntu as I did my Windows, from a backdoor perspective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168918</id>
	<title>Backdoor actually found!</title>
	<author>Ivan Stepaniuk</author>
	<datestamp>1258707780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is called Windows Update. MS can craft a special update for a determinate IP range and destroy any country's economy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is called Windows Update .
MS can craft a special update for a determinate IP range and destroy any country 's economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is called Windows Update.
MS can craft a special update for a determinate IP range and destroy any country's economy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165118</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258630920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and Glenn Beck denies he raped a young girl.</p><p>At least Microsoft has the balls to say they didn't do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and Glenn Beck denies he raped a young girl.At least Microsoft has the balls to say they did n't do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and Glenn Beck denies he raped a young girl.At least Microsoft has the balls to say they didn't do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166722</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258638420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would anyone put a "backdoor" in "window" ? Rather make the window large enough<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone put a " backdoor " in " window " ?
Rather make the window large enough : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone put a "backdoor" in "window" ?
Rather make the window large enough :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165048</id>
	<title>They should use this as a selling point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258630620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Might appeal to many Mac users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Might appeal to many Mac users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might appeal to many Mac users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165252</id>
	<title>What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>pyrr</author>
	<datestamp>1258631460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...did Windows 7 rape and murder a young girl in 1990? It's a simple question, why won't Microsoft deny that Windows 7 did this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...did Windows 7 rape and murder a young girl in 1990 ?
It 's a simple question , why wo n't Microsoft deny that Windows 7 did this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...did Windows 7 rape and murder a young girl in 1990?
It's a simple question, why won't Microsoft deny that Windows 7 did this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808</id>
	<title>Not really necessary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258629600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Odds are the NSA is privy to whatever the current exploits are for windows operating systems anyways. I wouldn't be surprised if they had staff working on breaking into Windows machines if for nothing else than attacks on targets outside the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Odds are the NSA is privy to whatever the current exploits are for windows operating systems anyways .
I would n't be surprised if they had staff working on breaking into Windows machines if for nothing else than attacks on targets outside the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odds are the NSA is privy to whatever the current exploits are for windows operating systems anyways.
I wouldn't be surprised if they had staff working on breaking into Windows machines if for nothing else than attacks on targets outside the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166348</id>
	<title>No guys, more like</title>
	<author>arhhook</author>
	<datestamp>1258636320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its more like front-door, amirite?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its more like front-door , amirite ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its more like front-door, amirite?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166252</id>
	<title>Never believe something until...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258635840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never believe something until it is officially denied.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:o)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never believe something until it is officially denied .
: o )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never believe something until it is officially denied.
:o)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30171300</id>
	<title>Maybe they put no backdoors into Windows but......</title>
	<author>EMR</author>
	<datestamp>1258733700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they let them into their Front page extensions.</p><p>This one I "verified" myself on a server I had to administer at college..   We very shortly afterwords gutted front page off of it and migrated everything away from Windows for the web server.</p><p>http://www.securityfocus.com/advisories/2235</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they let them into their Front page extensions.This one I " verified " myself on a server I had to administer at college.. We very shortly afterwords gutted front page off of it and migrated everything away from Windows for the web server.http : //www.securityfocus.com/advisories/2235</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they let them into their Front page extensions.This one I "verified" myself on a server I had to administer at college..   We very shortly afterwords gutted front page off of it and migrated everything away from Windows for the web server.http://www.securityfocus.com/advisories/2235</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165818</id>
	<title>When you got the keys why worry?</title>
	<author>turtleshadow</author>
	<datestamp>1258633860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NSA has not a need for a full on back door.</p><p>They just need to know the general and specifics about the make,model and type of the types of means Win7 implements and then they delve deep into their big o key ring and use what they already have.</p><p>Really what you think their super computers are doing? They are computing tables, hash matches and every key ever possible. Then they go about doing real work of breaking encryption with distributed and finessed brute force.</p><p>When have a key making machines why even bother with backdoors? The NSA is patient, it's what makes them good at what they do.</p><p>Anyhow I think the NSA doesn't need a back door it just wants to know where all the access points are then they can just lift the whole whatnot off the hinges - from the outside-  and do whatever they please at that point.</p><p>Im sure they took a bit of a look at bit locker and have or will figure that out. MS already has perhaps given the all the "tells" they probably need to figure out how to reduce the key space.  I wonder if MS would hide one well known file outside the locker but encrypted in the same key and NSA can chew on that to find out the key for the whole volume.</p><p>Anyhow I admire them, NIST and NSA,  for what they try to do. If it keeps Mafia out of banking great. If they can put the next Madoff/Galleon Group behind bars before they make a mess that's a plus as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NSA has not a need for a full on back door.They just need to know the general and specifics about the make,model and type of the types of means Win7 implements and then they delve deep into their big o key ring and use what they already have.Really what you think their super computers are doing ?
They are computing tables , hash matches and every key ever possible .
Then they go about doing real work of breaking encryption with distributed and finessed brute force.When have a key making machines why even bother with backdoors ?
The NSA is patient , it 's what makes them good at what they do.Anyhow I think the NSA does n't need a back door it just wants to know where all the access points are then they can just lift the whole whatnot off the hinges - from the outside- and do whatever they please at that point.Im sure they took a bit of a look at bit locker and have or will figure that out .
MS already has perhaps given the all the " tells " they probably need to figure out how to reduce the key space .
I wonder if MS would hide one well known file outside the locker but encrypted in the same key and NSA can chew on that to find out the key for the whole volume.Anyhow I admire them , NIST and NSA , for what they try to do .
If it keeps Mafia out of banking great .
If they can put the next Madoff/Galleon Group behind bars before they make a mess that 's a plus as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NSA has not a need for a full on back door.They just need to know the general and specifics about the make,model and type of the types of means Win7 implements and then they delve deep into their big o key ring and use what they already have.Really what you think their super computers are doing?
They are computing tables, hash matches and every key ever possible.
Then they go about doing real work of breaking encryption with distributed and finessed brute force.When have a key making machines why even bother with backdoors?
The NSA is patient, it's what makes them good at what they do.Anyhow I think the NSA doesn't need a back door it just wants to know where all the access points are then they can just lift the whole whatnot off the hinges - from the outside-  and do whatever they please at that point.Im sure they took a bit of a look at bit locker and have or will figure that out.
MS already has perhaps given the all the "tells" they probably need to figure out how to reduce the key space.
I wonder if MS would hide one well known file outside the locker but encrypted in the same key and NSA can chew on that to find out the key for the whole volume.Anyhow I admire them, NIST and NSA,  for what they try to do.
If it keeps Mafia out of banking great.
If they can put the next Madoff/Galleon Group behind bars before they make a mess that's a plus as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169574</id>
	<title>If the NSA wants to know what you're thinking. . .</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1258717920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the NSA wants to know EVERYTHING about you, they have far better ways than installing active spyware on your system to do it.</p><p>There is a record somewhere of everything you've ever downloaded or uploaded.  Every Google search you've ever performed.  Encryption breaking is pointless because they have the ability to know what you type as you type it.  Heck, they probably have the ability to know what you <i>think</i> as you think it.</p><p>Did you know that you can read an RFID tag from orbit?  --People know about the max distance a tag can be charged from, and it is indeed a few feet, but the distance from which it can be <i>read</i> is much greater.  If the detector is good enough. . .</p><p>Did you know you can use a light bulb as an active antenna?  Any bit of circuitry, for that matter, even powered down, still processes EM wave forms and can be used to snoop.  The idea of the NSA messing around with malware in order to spy on computer users is like comparing Donkey Kong to today's modern game systems.</p><p>The only reason the NSA might encourage the belief that they have proprietary code built into a Microsoft product would be to mislead people into thinking that they work within the same baby-fences as the rest of us free range serfs.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the NSA wants to know EVERYTHING about you , they have far better ways than installing active spyware on your system to do it.There is a record somewhere of everything you 've ever downloaded or uploaded .
Every Google search you 've ever performed .
Encryption breaking is pointless because they have the ability to know what you type as you type it .
Heck , they probably have the ability to know what you think as you think it.Did you know that you can read an RFID tag from orbit ?
--People know about the max distance a tag can be charged from , and it is indeed a few feet , but the distance from which it can be read is much greater .
If the detector is good enough .
. .Did you know you can use a light bulb as an active antenna ?
Any bit of circuitry , for that matter , even powered down , still processes EM wave forms and can be used to snoop .
The idea of the NSA messing around with malware in order to spy on computer users is like comparing Donkey Kong to today 's modern game systems.The only reason the NSA might encourage the belief that they have proprietary code built into a Microsoft product would be to mislead people into thinking that they work within the same baby-fences as the rest of us free range serfs.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the NSA wants to know EVERYTHING about you, they have far better ways than installing active spyware on your system to do it.There is a record somewhere of everything you've ever downloaded or uploaded.
Every Google search you've ever performed.
Encryption breaking is pointless because they have the ability to know what you type as you type it.
Heck, they probably have the ability to know what you think as you think it.Did you know that you can read an RFID tag from orbit?
--People know about the max distance a tag can be charged from, and it is indeed a few feet, but the distance from which it can be read is much greater.
If the detector is good enough.
. .Did you know you can use a light bulb as an active antenna?
Any bit of circuitry, for that matter, even powered down, still processes EM wave forms and can be used to snoop.
The idea of the NSA messing around with malware in order to spy on computer users is like comparing Donkey Kong to today's modern game systems.The only reason the NSA might encourage the belief that they have proprietary code built into a Microsoft product would be to mislead people into thinking that they work within the same baby-fences as the rest of us free range serfs.-FL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166276</id>
	<title>Re:NSA helped on Linux as well</title>
	<author>rastilin</author>
	<datestamp>1258636020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The NSA did SELinux (for Linux...) so I don't think it's unreasonable to think they might have helped MS on security issues without doing anything nasty.</p></div><p>

True; there's no guarantee that something nasty happened, of course there's no guarantee that something nasty didn't happen. <br> <br>

Still, if they did put a backdoor in Windows, then all I can say is "good for them". I mean I LOVE Windows, I use it on all my machines. However if you're a government agency or someone else who's genuinely concerned with security, and you're running unknown code on your system, then your being reckless. The prudent thought is to assume that there is already a backdoor of some kind and filter all communications to and from their machines to stop unknown packets getting through. Or better yet, run only known code. This isn't a call for OSS software on all computers, but rather that these institutions would insist on seeing the code before entrusting themselves to it.<br> <br>

I remember when the news came out that Britain's new submarines would run embedded Windows on some of their systems. That just chilled me to the bone, more paranoia, not less, would be good when considering the design of secure systems. So, don't trust anything you can't verify.
</p><p>

Also: Before anyone chimes in helpfully, I'm well aware that the GPL only requires you to provide code to people who buy your product; so it's almost exactly like OSS. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The NSA did SELinux ( for Linux... ) so I do n't think it 's unreasonable to think they might have helped MS on security issues without doing anything nasty .
True ; there 's no guarantee that something nasty happened , of course there 's no guarantee that something nasty did n't happen .
Still , if they did put a backdoor in Windows , then all I can say is " good for them " .
I mean I LOVE Windows , I use it on all my machines .
However if you 're a government agency or someone else who 's genuinely concerned with security , and you 're running unknown code on your system , then your being reckless .
The prudent thought is to assume that there is already a backdoor of some kind and filter all communications to and from their machines to stop unknown packets getting through .
Or better yet , run only known code .
This is n't a call for OSS software on all computers , but rather that these institutions would insist on seeing the code before entrusting themselves to it .
I remember when the news came out that Britain 's new submarines would run embedded Windows on some of their systems .
That just chilled me to the bone , more paranoia , not less , would be good when considering the design of secure systems .
So , do n't trust anything you ca n't verify .
Also : Before anyone chimes in helpfully , I 'm well aware that the GPL only requires you to provide code to people who buy your product ; so it 's almost exactly like OSS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NSA did SELinux (for Linux...) so I don't think it's unreasonable to think they might have helped MS on security issues without doing anything nasty.
True; there's no guarantee that something nasty happened, of course there's no guarantee that something nasty didn't happen.
Still, if they did put a backdoor in Windows, then all I can say is "good for them".
I mean I LOVE Windows, I use it on all my machines.
However if you're a government agency or someone else who's genuinely concerned with security, and you're running unknown code on your system, then your being reckless.
The prudent thought is to assume that there is already a backdoor of some kind and filter all communications to and from their machines to stop unknown packets getting through.
Or better yet, run only known code.
This isn't a call for OSS software on all computers, but rather that these institutions would insist on seeing the code before entrusting themselves to it.
I remember when the news came out that Britain's new submarines would run embedded Windows on some of their systems.
That just chilled me to the bone, more paranoia, not less, would be good when considering the design of secure systems.
So, don't trust anything you can't verify.
Also: Before anyone chimes in helpfully, I'm well aware that the GPL only requires you to provide code to people who buy your product; so it's almost exactly like OSS. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168458</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>mrdtr</author>
	<datestamp>1258655940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who needs a back door to sneak in, when all the windows are only secured with feeble latches?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who needs a back door to sneak in , when all the windows are only secured with feeble latches ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who needs a back door to sneak in, when all the windows are only secured with feeble latches?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30173628</id>
	<title>huh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258742580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's my opinion that Microsoft is not lying.</p><p>IMO they would have to work with the NSA and deny any involvement (unless after the fact, as all NSA employees are fully aware of) if there was any such thing.</p><p>I find it unlikely that Microsoft has built some secret backdoor into Windows that would ALWAYS work precisely as intended and NEVER be discovered or exploited by the hacking community.</p><p>And if a backdoor was discovered and the government managed to keep its face unassociated with the inexplicable phenomena that would be rather interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's my opinion that Microsoft is not lying.IMO they would have to work with the NSA and deny any involvement ( unless after the fact , as all NSA employees are fully aware of ) if there was any such thing.I find it unlikely that Microsoft has built some secret backdoor into Windows that would ALWAYS work precisely as intended and NEVER be discovered or exploited by the hacking community.And if a backdoor was discovered and the government managed to keep its face unassociated with the inexplicable phenomena that would be rather interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's my opinion that Microsoft is not lying.IMO they would have to work with the NSA and deny any involvement (unless after the fact, as all NSA employees are fully aware of) if there was any such thing.I find it unlikely that Microsoft has built some secret backdoor into Windows that would ALWAYS work precisely as intended and NEVER be discovered or exploited by the hacking community.And if a backdoor was discovered and the government managed to keep its face unassociated with the inexplicable phenomena that would be rather interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165444</id>
	<title>Re:Not really necessary</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1258632120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The NSA probably has people looking for security holes in Windows and any other widely deployed piece of software, just as they have people looking for weaknesses in widely deployed cryptographic algorithms (and ones they are thinking of deploying).  I they need to get into a system, they probably have a few undisclosed vulnerabilities on hand to do so with.  They also probably let the companies in question know, if the US government is using the systems in question.   The only interesting thing about this is that the NSA has access to the Windows source code for exploit hunting.  That's not very interesting though, because the British and Chinese governments do to, and so (I assume) do others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The NSA probably has people looking for security holes in Windows and any other widely deployed piece of software , just as they have people looking for weaknesses in widely deployed cryptographic algorithms ( and ones they are thinking of deploying ) .
I they need to get into a system , they probably have a few undisclosed vulnerabilities on hand to do so with .
They also probably let the companies in question know , if the US government is using the systems in question .
The only interesting thing about this is that the NSA has access to the Windows source code for exploit hunting .
That 's not very interesting though , because the British and Chinese governments do to , and so ( I assume ) do others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NSA probably has people looking for security holes in Windows and any other widely deployed piece of software, just as they have people looking for weaknesses in widely deployed cryptographic algorithms (and ones they are thinking of deploying).
I they need to get into a system, they probably have a few undisclosed vulnerabilities on hand to do so with.
They also probably let the companies in question know, if the US government is using the systems in question.
The only interesting thing about this is that the NSA has access to the Windows source code for exploit hunting.
That's not very interesting though, because the British and Chinese governments do to, and so (I assume) do others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166184</id>
	<title>MS wanted to be honest</title>
	<author>josteos</author>
	<datestamp>1258635480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The original MS response went like this:<br><br>"We were forced by the NSA to leave backdoors into Win7"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. but the rep made the mistake of typing it on a Win7 machine....</htmltext>
<tokenext>The original MS response went like this : " We were forced by the NSA to leave backdoors into Win7 " .. but the rep made the mistake of typing it on a Win7 machine... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original MS response went like this:"We were forced by the NSA to leave backdoors into Win7" .. but the rep made the mistake of typing it on a Win7 machine....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169070</id>
	<title>Why does the NSA work on Windows?</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1258710960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why does the NSA work on Windows? They're paid with tax-money, they're paid for working for the benefit of the tax-payer. When they work on Windows, they work for the benefit of a corporation, that has more than enough money to pay for such development.<br> <br>

The code they produced belongs to the public, because the public paid for it! If Microsoft doesn't open that code, they're stealing from the tax-payer!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does the NSA work on Windows ?
They 're paid with tax-money , they 're paid for working for the benefit of the tax-payer .
When they work on Windows , they work for the benefit of a corporation , that has more than enough money to pay for such development .
The code they produced belongs to the public , because the public paid for it !
If Microsoft does n't open that code , they 're stealing from the tax-payer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does the NSA work on Windows?
They're paid with tax-money, they're paid for working for the benefit of the tax-payer.
When they work on Windows, they work for the benefit of a corporation, that has more than enough money to pay for such development.
The code they produced belongs to the public, because the public paid for it!
If Microsoft doesn't open that code, they're stealing from the tax-payer!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167296</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258642860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use, how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it?</p></div><p>Client authentication.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use , how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it ? Client authentication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use, how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it?Client authentication.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165532</id>
	<title>Oh sure, there's a back door in Windows 7</title>
	<author>twoears</author>
	<datestamp>1258632600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>But it's only in the goatse edition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But it 's only in the goatse edition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it's only in the goatse edition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169936</id>
	<title>There's no back door</title>
	<author>setrops</author>
	<datestamp>1258724040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See what they did is build a keyword subroutine in the indexing system and if the data found hits a certain threshold the OS calls home when the user performs a basic operation such as updating the PC.</p><p>So technically it's not a back door.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See what they did is build a keyword subroutine in the indexing system and if the data found hits a certain threshold the OS calls home when the user performs a basic operation such as updating the PC.So technically it 's not a back door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See what they did is build a keyword subroutine in the indexing system and if the data found hits a certain threshold the OS calls home when the user performs a basic operation such as updating the PC.So technically it's not a back door.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165062</id>
	<title>Show us the code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258630680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Show the code, let us download, examine, compile, and test the output and then we'll believe you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Show the code , let us download , examine , compile , and test the output and then we 'll believe you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Show the code, let us download, examine, compile, and test the output and then we'll believe you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30175388</id>
	<title>No smoke without  a fire...</title>
	<author>alukin</author>
	<datestamp>1258748400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, that's all I said. There's no smoke without a fire.<br>They may say it is "unintentional", but many holes stays for years in WinXX unpatched.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that 's all I said .
There 's no smoke without a fire.They may say it is " unintentional " , but many holes stays for years in WinXX unpatched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that's all I said.
There's no smoke without a fire.They may say it is "unintentional", but many holes stays for years in WinXX unpatched.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166224</id>
	<title>Netscape engineers are weenies!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258635720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Netscape engineers are weenies!</p><p>nuff said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Netscape engineers are weenies ! nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Netscape engineers are weenies!nuff said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167178</id>
	<title>Mr. Potato Head</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258641840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr. Potato Head!  Mr. Potato Head!  Backdoors are not secrets!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. Potato Head !
Mr. Potato Head !
Backdoors are not secrets !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. Potato Head!
Mr. Potato Head!
Backdoors are not secrets!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165164</id>
	<title>Re:NSA helped on Linux as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258631100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is true. NSA runs on Windows machines, and they need to be as secure as possible for national security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is true .
NSA runs on Windows machines , and they need to be as secure as possible for national security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is true.
NSA runs on Windows machines, and they need to be as secure as possible for national security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167254</id>
	<title>welcome to the real world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258642560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>hi all,

a clue to the public.
all os's have back doors.
anyone who believes otherwise is too trusting.

here's another one.
90\% or more of i.c's have back doors hardwired in them.

everyone thinks there not there,but,prove me wrong.

have a nice day regards,
mike</htmltext>
<tokenext>hi all , a clue to the public .
all os 's have back doors .
anyone who believes otherwise is too trusting .
here 's another one .
90 \ % or more of i.c 's have back doors hardwired in them .
everyone thinks there not there,but,prove me wrong .
have a nice day regards , mike</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hi all,

a clue to the public.
all os's have back doors.
anyone who believes otherwise is too trusting.
here's another one.
90\% or more of i.c's have back doors hardwired in them.
everyone thinks there not there,but,prove me wrong.
have a nice day regards,
mike</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165436</id>
	<title>Microsoft commented further...</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1258632120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft clarified further:<blockquote><div><p>We didn't <i>build in</i> any backdoors, they just kinda happened.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft clarified further : We did n't build in any backdoors , they just kinda happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft clarified further:We didn't build in any backdoors, they just kinda happened.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165104</id>
	<title>Strategic Defense Initiative</title>
	<author>Corson</author>
	<datestamp>1258630860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>An OS that runs on 90\% of computers in the world is a de facto strategic weapon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An OS that runs on 90 \ % of computers in the world is a de facto strategic weapon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An OS that runs on 90\% of computers in the world is a de facto strategic weapon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166438</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs a back door?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258636740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that I don't think this is hilarious, but how many times are you going to post this here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I do n't think this is hilarious , but how many times are you going to post this here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I don't think this is hilarious, but how many times are you going to post this here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166890</id>
	<title>Re:Idiocy of ComputerWorld and slashdot...</title>
	<author>rastilin</author>
	<datestamp>1258639380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering that Microsoft is a company that does it's damndest to avoid any form of taxation, and has even threatened economic repercussions against the American government to get it's way in the past, I'd genuinely he hurt if I found out that the NSA's giving out free technical help to these people.<br> <br>

If it was for some nefarious purpose, well then, they're just doing their jobs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that Microsoft is a company that does it 's damndest to avoid any form of taxation , and has even threatened economic repercussions against the American government to get it 's way in the past , I 'd genuinely he hurt if I found out that the NSA 's giving out free technical help to these people .
If it was for some nefarious purpose , well then , they 're just doing their jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering that Microsoft is a company that does it's damndest to avoid any form of taxation, and has even threatened economic repercussions against the American government to get it's way in the past, I'd genuinely he hurt if I found out that the NSA's giving out free technical help to these people.
If it was for some nefarious purpose, well then, they're just doing their jobs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165034</id>
	<title>I'm the NSA...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258630560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and Windows 7 was my idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and Windows 7 was my idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and Windows 7 was my idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165704</id>
	<title>Under the PATRIOT act...</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1258633320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Microsoft had assisted the NSA and deliberately buggered their security model for the government's purposes, it would be a federal crime for them to admit it.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft had assisted the NSA and deliberately buggered their security model for the government 's purposes , it would be a federal crime for them to admit it.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft had assisted the NSA and deliberately buggered their security model for the government's purposes, it would be a federal crime for them to admit it.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30170708</id>
	<title>There. Fixed that for you.</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1258730640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Microsoft Denies It <i>Deliberately</i> Built Backdoor Into Windows 7</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Denies It Deliberately Built Backdoor Into Windows 7</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Microsoft Denies It Deliberately Built Backdoor Into Windows 7
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166596</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>coolforsale114</author>
	<datestamp>1258637520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com] Christmas is around the corner: And old customers can also enjoy the gifts sent by my company in a can also request to our company. Gifts lot,Buy more get the moreOnly this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! <a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp</a> [coolforsale.com] [coolforsale.com]? id=s76 (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] Christmas is around the corner : And old customers can also enjoy the gifts sent by my company in a can also request to our company .
Gifts lot,Buy more get the moreOnly this site have this treatmentOur goal is " Best quality , Best reputation , Best services " .
Your satisfaction is our main pursue .
You can find the best products from us , meeting your different needs.Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but do n't miss it.Select your favorite clothing !
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you !
http : //www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp [ coolforsale.com ] [ coolforsale.com ] ?
id = s76 ( Tracksuit w ) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket , Air jordan ( 1-24 ) shoes $ 33 Nike shox ( R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3 ) $ 35 Handbags ( Coach lv fendi d&amp;g ) $ 35 Tshirts ( Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste ) $ 16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com] Christmas is around the corner: And old customers can also enjoy the gifts sent by my company in a can also request to our company.
Gifts lot,Buy more get the moreOnly this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services".
Your satisfaction is our main pursue.
You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing!
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you!
http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp [coolforsale.com] [coolforsale.com]?
id=s76 (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30170124</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs a back door?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258726560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'...is like standing bent over in the street in downtown Gomorrah, naked, arse greased up and carrying a flashing neon sign saying &ldquo;COME AND GET IT.&rdquo;'</p><p>I have often wondered what kind of thoughts prompt a person to offer this kind of analogy. How do these thoughts get into your head. Have you done any introspection recently? If not, this might be a good place to start, to better know yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'...is like standing bent over in the street in downtown Gomorrah , naked , arse greased up and carrying a flashing neon sign saying    COME AND GET IT.    'I have often wondered what kind of thoughts prompt a person to offer this kind of analogy .
How do these thoughts get into your head .
Have you done any introspection recently ?
If not , this might be a good place to start , to better know yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'...is like standing bent over in the street in downtown Gomorrah, naked, arse greased up and carrying a flashing neon sign saying “COME AND GET IT.”'I have often wondered what kind of thoughts prompt a person to offer this kind of analogy.
How do these thoughts get into your head.
Have you done any introspection recently?
If not, this might be a good place to start, to better know yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166938</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1258639800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because that's the procedure, dammit! This is the government, we follow a procedure! That's why we have three-coat toilet paper, we need 2 copies of every crap!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because that 's the procedure , dammit !
This is the government , we follow a procedure !
That 's why we have three-coat toilet paper , we need 2 copies of every crap !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because that's the procedure, dammit!
This is the government, we follow a procedure!
That's why we have three-coat toilet paper, we need 2 copies of every crap!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167198</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs a back door?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258641960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, I've seen that exact comment before. Verbatim.</p><p>Troll harder, please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , I 've seen that exact comment before .
Verbatim.Troll harder , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, I've seen that exact comment before.
Verbatim.Troll harder, please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166756</id>
	<title>Backdoors are not secrets</title>
	<author>bubezleeb</author>
	<datestamp>1258638660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hasbro denies it built backdoor into Mr. Potato Head.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hasbro denies it built backdoor into Mr. Potato Head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hasbro denies it built backdoor into Mr. Potato Head.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167352</id>
	<title>History repeats itself....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258643460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember this CNN story in 1999 showing that they found an NSA backdoor?

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/03/windows.nsa.02/" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/03/windows.nsa.02/</a> [cnn.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember this CNN story in 1999 showing that they found an NSA backdoor ?
http : //www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/03/windows.nsa.02/ [ cnn.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember this CNN story in 1999 showing that they found an NSA backdoor?
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/03/windows.nsa.02/ [cnn.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165284</id>
	<title>This is silly</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1258631580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course you can trust the government. I mean, this is the NSA we're talking about. They're on YOUR side.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; And as for Microsoft, or any other multinational company for that matter, they have grown to the size that they are because they are 100\% honest to goodness hard working souls that, when faced with a decision, will always take the ethically correct side. I mean that's how you get fantastically rich, isn't it? Ask our hard working friends at Goldman Sachs, for example!</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I'm shocked that you could even consider that Microsoft could be lying. I mean, what happens if they get caught lying? Surely the "back door" would be right there in the source code for all to see, and they'd be found out right away. Oh, wait... sorry, you don't get to see the source code. But Microsoft apologized for violating the GPL, that makes them GOOD guys. You're not suggesting that if anyone ever DID find out some sort of way to control a Windows machine, all they'd have to do is call it a "security vulnerability" and issue a patch (with a different back door) for it, are you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course you can trust the government .
I mean , this is the NSA we 're talking about .
They 're on YOUR side .
      And as for Microsoft , or any other multinational company for that matter , they have grown to the size that they are because they are 100 \ % honest to goodness hard working souls that , when faced with a decision , will always take the ethically correct side .
I mean that 's how you get fantastically rich , is n't it ?
Ask our hard working friends at Goldman Sachs , for example !
      I 'm shocked that you could even consider that Microsoft could be lying .
I mean , what happens if they get caught lying ?
Surely the " back door " would be right there in the source code for all to see , and they 'd be found out right away .
Oh , wait... sorry , you do n't get to see the source code .
But Microsoft apologized for violating the GPL , that makes them GOOD guys .
You 're not suggesting that if anyone ever DID find out some sort of way to control a Windows machine , all they 'd have to do is call it a " security vulnerability " and issue a patch ( with a different back door ) for it , are you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course you can trust the government.
I mean, this is the NSA we're talking about.
They're on YOUR side.
      And as for Microsoft, or any other multinational company for that matter, they have grown to the size that they are because they are 100\% honest to goodness hard working souls that, when faced with a decision, will always take the ethically correct side.
I mean that's how you get fantastically rich, isn't it?
Ask our hard working friends at Goldman Sachs, for example!
      I'm shocked that you could even consider that Microsoft could be lying.
I mean, what happens if they get caught lying?
Surely the "back door" would be right there in the source code for all to see, and they'd be found out right away.
Oh, wait... sorry, you don't get to see the source code.
But Microsoft apologized for violating the GPL, that makes them GOOD guys.
You're not suggesting that if anyone ever DID find out some sort of way to control a Windows machine, all they'd have to do is call it a "security vulnerability" and issue a patch (with a different back door) for it, are you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30180980</id>
	<title>Re:No fun for Beck here, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258728960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not -1 Troll, this is +1 Sarcastic.  Somebody's havin' a bad day and taking it out on innocent bystanders again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not -1 Troll , this is + 1 Sarcastic .
Somebody 's havin ' a bad day and taking it out on innocent bystanders again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not -1 Troll, this is +1 Sarcastic.
Somebody's havin' a bad day and taking it out on innocent bystanders again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168084</id>
	<title>Any Known Backdoors in Win9x, WinNT, Win2K, or XP?</title>
	<author>littlewink</author>
	<datestamp>1258652040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't heard of any, although all had plenty of bugs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't heard of any , although all had plenty of bugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't heard of any, although all had plenty of bugs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167136</id>
	<title>Re:Probably easier to back door Linux.</title>
	<author>atchijov</author>
	<datestamp>1258641360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One big difference, if you have proper training you can download source code for Ubuntu and check for backdoors.  You can not do it with your Windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One big difference , if you have proper training you can download source code for Ubuntu and check for backdoors .
You can not do it with your Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One big difference, if you have proper training you can download source code for Ubuntu and check for backdoors.
You can not do it with your Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>bug1</author>
	<datestamp>1258634520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To say it more clearly, the allegation is that NSA put the back door in, microsoft didnt deny it. They are using political speak to make is sound like nobody put back doors in.</p><p>An think about it, what self respecting intelligence agency wouldnt want a back door in windows. Their job is to collect intelligence, and windows is almost everywhere and handles lots of information.</p><p>It might sound paranoid to say windows is bugged by the NSA, but it totally ignorance to suggest they wouldnt want to bug it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To say it more clearly , the allegation is that NSA put the back door in , microsoft didnt deny it .
They are using political speak to make is sound like nobody put back doors in.An think about it , what self respecting intelligence agency wouldnt want a back door in windows .
Their job is to collect intelligence , and windows is almost everywhere and handles lots of information.It might sound paranoid to say windows is bugged by the NSA , but it totally ignorance to suggest they wouldnt want to bug it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To say it more clearly, the allegation is that NSA put the back door in, microsoft didnt deny it.
They are using political speak to make is sound like nobody put back doors in.An think about it, what self respecting intelligence agency wouldnt want a back door in windows.
Their job is to collect intelligence, and windows is almost everywhere and handles lots of information.It might sound paranoid to say windows is bugged by the NSA, but it totally ignorance to suggest they wouldnt want to bug it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30179692</id>
	<title>It's a GUIDE</title>
	<author>MulluskO</author>
	<datestamp>1258721220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Working in partnership with Microsoft and elements of the Department of Defense, NSA leveraged our unique expertise and operational knowledge of system threats and vulnerabilities to enhance Microsoft's operating system security <b>guide</b> without constraining the user to perform their everyday tasks, whether those tasks are being performed in the public or private sector,"</p></div></blockquote><p>DISA and the NSA produce guides.</p><p><a href="http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/stig/index.html" title="disa.mil">http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/stig/index.html</a> [disa.mil]<br><a href="http://www.nsa.gov/ia/guidance/security\_configuration\_guides/index.shtml" title="nsa.gov">http://www.nsa.gov/ia/guidance/security\_configuration\_guides/index.shtml</a> [nsa.gov]</p><p>They're patting one another on the back because they worked on the guide before Windows 7 was released.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Working in partnership with Microsoft and elements of the Department of Defense , NSA leveraged our unique expertise and operational knowledge of system threats and vulnerabilities to enhance Microsoft 's operating system security guide without constraining the user to perform their everyday tasks , whether those tasks are being performed in the public or private sector , " DISA and the NSA produce guides.http : //iase.disa.mil/stigs/stig/index.html [ disa.mil ] http : //www.nsa.gov/ia/guidance/security \ _configuration \ _guides/index.shtml [ nsa.gov ] They 're patting one another on the back because they worked on the guide before Windows 7 was released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Working in partnership with Microsoft and elements of the Department of Defense, NSA leveraged our unique expertise and operational knowledge of system threats and vulnerabilities to enhance Microsoft's operating system security guide without constraining the user to perform their everyday tasks, whether those tasks are being performed in the public or private sector,"DISA and the NSA produce guides.http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/stig/index.html [disa.mil]http://www.nsa.gov/ia/guidance/security\_configuration\_guides/index.shtml [nsa.gov]They're patting one another on the back because they worked on the guide before Windows 7 was released.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167980</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1258650780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My cousin is an electrical engineer of great skill, and a former NSA employee of over ten years.  He <b>assures</b> me that I'd be completely disappointed, disillusioned, and bored if I knew what they really did.</p><p>I tell him that's what his bosses <b>wanted</b> him to think.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My cousin is an electrical engineer of great skill , and a former NSA employee of over ten years .
He assures me that I 'd be completely disappointed , disillusioned , and bored if I knew what they really did.I tell him that 's what his bosses wanted him to think .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My cousin is an electrical engineer of great skill, and a former NSA employee of over ten years.
He assures me that I'd be completely disappointed, disillusioned, and bored if I knew what they really did.I tell him that's what his bosses wanted him to think.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169840</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1258721940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because the NSA is out to collect intelligence, which means they have very little of it themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the NSA is out to collect intelligence , which means they have very little of it themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the NSA is out to collect intelligence, which means they have very little of it themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168454</id>
	<title>Re:Probably easier to back door Linux.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258655820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, it's called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander\_effect" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Bystander Effect</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , it 's called the Bystander Effect [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, it's called the Bystander Effect [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164810</id>
	<title>"We did NOT put in a backdoor for the NSA."</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1258629600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's for the RIAA."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's for the RIAA .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's for the RIAA.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167584</id>
	<title>Windows Update</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258646220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should they develop a special backdoor if Windows Update fulfills all their needs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should they develop a special backdoor if Windows Update fulfills all their needs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should they develop a special backdoor if Windows Update fulfills all their needs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164848</id>
	<title>With props to Bill Cosby</title>
	<author>Fishbulb</author>
	<datestamp>1258629780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God:  "NOAH!"</p><p>Noah: "What!"</p><p>God:  "Noah, I did not put a backdoor in Windows 7."</p><p>Noah: "[...] RIGHT."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God : " NOAH !
" Noah : " What !
" God : " Noah , I did not put a backdoor in Windows 7 .
" Noah : " [ ... ] RIGHT .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God:  "NOAH!
"Noah: "What!
"God:  "Noah, I did not put a backdoor in Windows 7.
"Noah: "[...] RIGHT.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165464</id>
	<title>Re:of-course not</title>
	<author>pluther</author>
	<datestamp>1258632240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that I think they actually did, but I can think of a couple of things they could gain:</p><p>"Hello, we're with the federal government. We work with the Justice Department.  You know, the one that decides whether and how hard to press anti-trust lawsuits..."</p><p>"We're going to be making recommendations on what Operating System the entire federal government should use in coming budget cycles. We'd like to discuss some enhancements to yours..."</p><p>Of course, I can also think of perfectly legitimate reasons for the NSA to be working closely with Microsoft - such as ensuring tighter security on future versions of the OS that most of the government runs on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I think they actually did , but I can think of a couple of things they could gain : " Hello , we 're with the federal government .
We work with the Justice Department .
You know , the one that decides whether and how hard to press anti-trust lawsuits... " " We 're going to be making recommendations on what Operating System the entire federal government should use in coming budget cycles .
We 'd like to discuss some enhancements to yours... " Of course , I can also think of perfectly legitimate reasons for the NSA to be working closely with Microsoft - such as ensuring tighter security on future versions of the OS that most of the government runs on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I think they actually did, but I can think of a couple of things they could gain:"Hello, we're with the federal government.
We work with the Justice Department.
You know, the one that decides whether and how hard to press anti-trust lawsuits...""We're going to be making recommendations on what Operating System the entire federal government should use in coming budget cycles.
We'd like to discuss some enhancements to yours..."Of course, I can also think of perfectly legitimate reasons for the NSA to be working closely with Microsoft - such as ensuring tighter security on future versions of the OS that most of the government runs on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164834</id>
	<title>Backdoor?</title>
	<author>ackthpt</author>
	<datestamp>1258629720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, it's all the front door - javascript through ie</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , it 's all the front door - javascript through ie</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, it's all the front door - javascript through ie</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167006</id>
	<title>KG - Redmond</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258640340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Working on the Windows NT Development team in the 1990's, I can recall one specific bug for NT 3.5 (or was it NT 3.51):<br>"The CIA has requested the option to clear out the page file on shutdown." (Pharaphrasing)<br>Yes *that* CIA.<br>Today it's an option in Windows: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314834</p><p>I'm sure someone will get their panties up in a bunch over this too, but most people will see that it's a simple straight forward request by a Microsoft Customer to improve the security of Windows Machines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Working on the Windows NT Development team in the 1990 's , I can recall one specific bug for NT 3.5 ( or was it NT 3.51 ) : " The CIA has requested the option to clear out the page file on shutdown .
" ( Pharaphrasing ) Yes * that * CIA.Today it 's an option in Windows : http : //support.microsoft.com/kb/314834I 'm sure someone will get their panties up in a bunch over this too , but most people will see that it 's a simple straight forward request by a Microsoft Customer to improve the security of Windows Machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Working on the Windows NT Development team in the 1990's, I can recall one specific bug for NT 3.5 (or was it NT 3.51):"The CIA has requested the option to clear out the page file on shutdown.
" (Pharaphrasing)Yes *that* CIA.Today it's an option in Windows: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314834I'm sure someone will get their panties up in a bunch over this too, but most people will see that it's a simple straight forward request by a Microsoft Customer to improve the security of Windows Machines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168680</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1258658580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use, how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it?</i> </p><p>The same way I have a SSH "backdoor" to my system that I can access from anywhere but that the NSA can't get into?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use , how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it ?
The same way I have a SSH " backdoor " to my system that I can access from anywhere but that the NSA ca n't get into ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use, how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it?
The same way I have a SSH "backdoor" to my system that I can access from anywhere but that the NSA can't get into?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166774</id>
	<title>Re:Strategic Defense Initiative</title>
	<author>Jarjarthejedi</author>
	<datestamp>1258638720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"An OS that runs on 90\% of computers in the world is a de facto strategic weapon."</p><p>So when we hear about the NSA working on XP then we need to be worried.<br>(Fun fact, win7 has about 3\% market share atm, XP has &gt;70\% as of October '09)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" An OS that runs on 90 \ % of computers in the world is a de facto strategic weapon .
" So when we hear about the NSA working on XP then we need to be worried .
( Fun fact , win7 has about 3 \ % market share atm , XP has &gt; 70 \ % as of October '09 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"An OS that runs on 90\% of computers in the world is a de facto strategic weapon.
"So when we hear about the NSA working on XP then we need to be worried.
(Fun fact, win7 has about 3\% market share atm, XP has &gt;70\% as of October '09)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165926</id>
	<title>By whose definition of backdoor?</title>
	<author>ichbineinneuben</author>
	<datestamp>1258634400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember when Microsoft said "Windows Genuine Advantage isn't spyware"?  Just because it does the same things spyware does, doesn't mean it's spyware, if you re-define spyware to mean "software that spies on you and phones home, written by someone other than Microsoft".  So when their spokesperson says "Microsoft did not put a backdoor into Windows 7" this should be read as "Microsoft did not put <i>remote root-level access code written by someone other than Microsoft</i> into Windows 7".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when Microsoft said " Windows Genuine Advantage is n't spyware " ?
Just because it does the same things spyware does , does n't mean it 's spyware , if you re-define spyware to mean " software that spies on you and phones home , written by someone other than Microsoft " .
So when their spokesperson says " Microsoft did not put a backdoor into Windows 7 " this should be read as " Microsoft did not put remote root-level access code written by someone other than Microsoft into Windows 7 " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when Microsoft said "Windows Genuine Advantage isn't spyware"?
Just because it does the same things spyware does, doesn't mean it's spyware, if you re-define spyware to mean "software that spies on you and phones home, written by someone other than Microsoft".
So when their spokesperson says "Microsoft did not put a backdoor into Windows 7" this should be read as "Microsoft did not put remote root-level access code written by someone other than Microsoft into Windows 7".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165006</id>
	<title>Idiocy of ComputerWorld and slashdot...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258630440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>NSA: "We wrote a guide and a separate tool to help in enterprise security management"<br>
<br>
ComputerWorld: "OMG NSA TROJANED WINDOWS 7"<br>
<br>
NSA: "WTF? We made a document and stand-alone download..."<br>
<br>
ComputerWorld: "CONSPIRACY!"<br>
<br>
NSA: "Uh, we work with linux too you know... SELinux...?"<br>
<br>
ComputerWorld: "FRONTPAGE HEADLINE NEWS! WINDOWS 7 BACKDOOR EXISTS!"<br>
<br>
Slashdot: "ZOMG! NSA MADE A WINDOWS 7 BACKDOOR!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>NSA : " We wrote a guide and a separate tool to help in enterprise security management " ComputerWorld : " OMG NSA TROJANED WINDOWS 7 " NSA : " WTF ?
We made a document and stand-alone download... " ComputerWorld : " CONSPIRACY !
" NSA : " Uh , we work with linux too you know.. .
SELinux... ? " ComputerWorld : " FRONTPAGE HEADLINE NEWS !
WINDOWS 7 BACKDOOR EXISTS !
" Slashdot : " ZOMG !
NSA MADE A WINDOWS 7 BACKDOOR !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NSA: "We wrote a guide and a separate tool to help in enterprise security management"

ComputerWorld: "OMG NSA TROJANED WINDOWS 7"

NSA: "WTF?
We made a document and stand-alone download..."

ComputerWorld: "CONSPIRACY!
"

NSA: "Uh, we work with linux too you know...
SELinux...?"

ComputerWorld: "FRONTPAGE HEADLINE NEWS!
WINDOWS 7 BACKDOOR EXISTS!
"

Slashdot: "ZOMG!
NSA MADE A WINDOWS 7 BACKDOOR!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30171802</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258735920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If there were a backdoor, somebody somewhere, very soon after Win7's launch, would notice some suspicious activity on their network. No way such a thing can go undetected.</i></p><p>This is what passes for insightful? There are obvious ways to have a backdoor without showing suspicious network activity.<br>e.g.<br>Piggyback on legit comms to ms controlled site/s<br>Lie dormant until a certain event occurs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there were a backdoor , somebody somewhere , very soon after Win7 's launch , would notice some suspicious activity on their network .
No way such a thing can go undetected.This is what passes for insightful ?
There are obvious ways to have a backdoor without showing suspicious network activity.e.g.Piggyback on legit comms to ms controlled site/sLie dormant until a certain event occurs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there were a backdoor, somebody somewhere, very soon after Win7's launch, would notice some suspicious activity on their network.
No way such a thing can go undetected.This is what passes for insightful?
There are obvious ways to have a backdoor without showing suspicious network activity.e.g.Piggyback on legit comms to ms controlled site/sLie dormant until a certain event occurs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165156</id>
	<title>Re:NSA helped on Linux as well</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1258631040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was quite abit of concern that Microsoft put in a backdoor for the NSA on Windows 95 though Windows 2000.</p><p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/437967.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/437967.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p><p>It was never confirmed that a backdoor was installed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was quite abit of concern that Microsoft put in a backdoor for the NSA on Windows 95 though Windows 2000.http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/437967.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] It was never confirmed that a backdoor was installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was quite abit of concern that Microsoft put in a backdoor for the NSA on Windows 95 though Windows 2000.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/437967.stm [bbc.co.uk]It was never confirmed that a backdoor was installed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167602</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>dhavleak</author>
	<datestamp>1258646460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a steaming pile of shit.

</p><p>If there were a backdoor, somebody somewhere, very soon after Win7's launch, would notice some suspicious activity on their network. No way such a thing can go undetected. Pure fucking FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a steaming pile of shit .
If there were a backdoor , somebody somewhere , very soon after Win7 's launch , would notice some suspicious activity on their network .
No way such a thing can go undetected .
Pure fucking FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a steaming pile of shit.
If there were a backdoor, somebody somewhere, very soon after Win7's launch, would notice some suspicious activity on their network.
No way such a thing can go undetected.
Pure fucking FUD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166714</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>icannotthinkofaname</author>
	<datestamp>1258638420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they need to push their unwanted Firefox add-ons somehow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they need to push their unwanted Firefox add-ons somehow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they need to push their unwanted Firefox add-ons somehow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165326</id>
	<title>Re:NSA helped on Linux as well</title>
	<author>RobertLTux</author>
	<datestamp>1258631700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and besides if you are a big enough corp you can always get any source from MS you need (under NDA with a contract defining what you get how you get it and to whom in the company the code is given)</p><p>and when you are talking about the US.GOV they have a very quick way of getting stuff from a US.COM  called "DOJ or DOD pick who blocks your products from sale"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and besides if you are a big enough corp you can always get any source from MS you need ( under NDA with a contract defining what you get how you get it and to whom in the company the code is given ) and when you are talking about the US.GOV they have a very quick way of getting stuff from a US.COM called " DOJ or DOD pick who blocks your products from sale "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and besides if you are a big enough corp you can always get any source from MS you need (under NDA with a contract defining what you get how you get it and to whom in the company the code is given)and when you are talking about the US.GOV they have a very quick way of getting stuff from a US.COM  called "DOJ or DOD pick who blocks your products from sale"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166564</id>
	<title>Re:denial = admission</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1258637340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or the well-known fact that the CIA has its fingers all over Facebook.</p> </div><p>Along with every single Facebook developer.  Which is why I don't allow any applications "access" to my data.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you suckers believe for one instant that everything you do and write isn't being scribbled into some Internal Security goon's harddrive somewhere? I have a friend who worked for Juniper, and he personally knew that AT&amp;T was buying their equipment to route all its traffic through NSA spook territory before hitting the rest of the web. East Germany represent!</p></div><p>Ah.  You've convinced me.  I had no idea.  Now I know!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the well-known fact that the CIA has its fingers all over Facebook .
Along with every single Facebook developer .
Which is why I do n't allow any applications " access " to my data.Do you suckers believe for one instant that everything you do and write is n't being scribbled into some Internal Security goon 's harddrive somewhere ?
I have a friend who worked for Juniper , and he personally knew that AT&amp;T was buying their equipment to route all its traffic through NSA spook territory before hitting the rest of the web .
East Germany represent ! Ah .
You 've convinced me .
I had no idea .
Now I know !
.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or the well-known fact that the CIA has its fingers all over Facebook.
Along with every single Facebook developer.
Which is why I don't allow any applications "access" to my data.Do you suckers believe for one instant that everything you do and write isn't being scribbled into some Internal Security goon's harddrive somewhere?
I have a friend who worked for Juniper, and he personally knew that AT&amp;T was buying their equipment to route all its traffic through NSA spook territory before hitting the rest of the web.
East Germany represent!Ah.
You've convinced me.
I had no idea.
Now I know!
...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166220</id>
	<title>Re:I Tried to Interview Microsoft About This</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1258635720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>no rumor is officially true until it is officially denied.</htmltext>
<tokenext>no rumor is officially true until it is officially denied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no rumor is officially true until it is officially denied.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165000</id>
	<title>Back door?!  Hah!  There isn't even a front door!</title>
	<author>Narcocide</author>
	<datestamp>1258630380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is Windows we're talking about here, after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Windows we 're talking about here , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Windows we're talking about here, after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165572</id>
	<title>NSA is into many OS'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258632840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>All concerns about NSA and Windows 7 could also be applied to SE Linux <a href="http://www.nsa.gov/research/selinux/" title="nsa.gov">http://www.nsa.gov/research/selinux/</a> [nsa.gov]</htmltext>
<tokenext>All concerns about NSA and Windows 7 could also be applied to SE Linux http : //www.nsa.gov/research/selinux/ [ nsa.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All concerns about NSA and Windows 7 could also be applied to SE Linux http://www.nsa.gov/research/selinux/ [nsa.gov]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30170436</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1258729080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOLOLOLOL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOLOLOLOL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOLOLOLOL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168552</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1258656840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why would Microsoft build a back door into Win7, when the front door is so wide open?</p></div><p>Which is exactly why the NSA is contributing.  Previously, the NSA would develop their own guide for locking down Windows.  With WindowsXP they decided that effort was redundant and instead collaborated with Microsoft on their security guidelines and tools.  The NSA also provides penetration and cryptographic expertise.</p><p>The NSA has an obvious interest in helping Microsoft produce a secure product as the govt uses it quite heavily.  As for backdoors, you don't really need to insert backdoors in the form of undisclosed vulnerabilities.   It would not surprise me if the NSA had access to the Microsoft signing keys which would be of great value for compromising a system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would Microsoft build a back door into Win7 , when the front door is so wide open ? Which is exactly why the NSA is contributing .
Previously , the NSA would develop their own guide for locking down Windows .
With WindowsXP they decided that effort was redundant and instead collaborated with Microsoft on their security guidelines and tools .
The NSA also provides penetration and cryptographic expertise.The NSA has an obvious interest in helping Microsoft produce a secure product as the govt uses it quite heavily .
As for backdoors , you do n't really need to insert backdoors in the form of undisclosed vulnerabilities .
It would not surprise me if the NSA had access to the Microsoft signing keys which would be of great value for compromising a system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would Microsoft build a back door into Win7, when the front door is so wide open?Which is exactly why the NSA is contributing.
Previously, the NSA would develop their own guide for locking down Windows.
With WindowsXP they decided that effort was redundant and instead collaborated with Microsoft on their security guidelines and tools.
The NSA also provides penetration and cryptographic expertise.The NSA has an obvious interest in helping Microsoft produce a secure product as the govt uses it quite heavily.
As for backdoors, you don't really need to insert backdoors in the form of undisclosed vulnerabilities.
It would not surprise me if the NSA had access to the Microsoft signing keys which would be of great value for compromising a system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169566</id>
	<title>No reason for a bacdoor to start with</title>
	<author>Hybridmutant</author>
	<datestamp>1258717800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why brother putting themselves to the risk when there is the capacity to put one in with windows updates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why brother putting themselves to the risk when there is the capacity to put one in with windows updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why brother putting themselves to the risk when there is the capacity to put one in with windows updates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166824</id>
	<title>Re:Probably easier to back door Linux.</title>
	<author>vik</author>
	<datestamp>1258638960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I can look if I see anything weird. I'm not beholden to any one supplier, or a monopolist organisation that can blithely say "oh it'll be fixed in the next release" with no conviction whatsoever. I can't be kept out. If I'm not happy with the answer I can check for myself. If I find anything I file a public bug report. The whole world knows, and if it is a security issue the whole fix is posted promptly by trusted people who really care about their work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I can look if I see anything weird .
I 'm not beholden to any one supplier , or a monopolist organisation that can blithely say " oh it 'll be fixed in the next release " with no conviction whatsoever .
I ca n't be kept out .
If I 'm not happy with the answer I can check for myself .
If I find anything I file a public bug report .
The whole world knows , and if it is a security issue the whole fix is posted promptly by trusted people who really care about their work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I can look if I see anything weird.
I'm not beholden to any one supplier, or a monopolist organisation that can blithely say "oh it'll be fixed in the next release" with no conviction whatsoever.
I can't be kept out.
If I'm not happy with the answer I can check for myself.
If I find anything I file a public bug report.
The whole world knows, and if it is a security issue the whole fix is posted promptly by trusted people who really care about their work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166254</id>
	<title>Truthful but misleading?</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1258635840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> a senior National Security Agency (NSA) official testified before Congress that the agency had worked on the operating system. 'Microsoft has not and will not put "backdoors" into Windows'</p></div></blockquote><p>
I am sure he is being honest in his statement that <b>Microsoft</b> has not put backdoors in, but he has avoided answering the question of whether the <b>NSA</b> has put backdoors in Windows 7.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a senior National Security Agency ( NSA ) official testified before Congress that the agency had worked on the operating system .
'Microsoft has not and will not put " backdoors " into Windows ' I am sure he is being honest in his statement that Microsoft has not put backdoors in , but he has avoided answering the question of whether the NSA has put backdoors in Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> a senior National Security Agency (NSA) official testified before Congress that the agency had worked on the operating system.
'Microsoft has not and will not put "backdoors" into Windows'
I am sure he is being honest in his statement that Microsoft has not put backdoors in, but he has avoided answering the question of whether the NSA has put backdoors in Windows 7.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166334</id>
	<title>I believe them!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258636200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all, they have been so trustworthy in the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , they have been so trustworthy in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, they have been so trustworthy in the past.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168986</id>
	<title>Re:welcome to the real world</title>
	<author>Ash-Fox</author>
	<datestamp>1258709400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>all os's have back doors</p></div></blockquote><p>What?</p><blockquote><div><p>prove me wrong.</p></div></blockquote><p>Okay, despite careful code analysis of AROS (due to the amount of years of experience I have had in developing, testing and toying with it), I could not find any evidence of the existence of back doors in it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>all os 's have back doorsWhat ? prove me wrong.Okay , despite careful code analysis of AROS ( due to the amount of years of experience I have had in developing , testing and toying with it ) , I could not find any evidence of the existence of back doors in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all os's have back doorsWhat?prove me wrong.Okay, despite careful code analysis of AROS (due to the amount of years of experience I have had in developing, testing and toying with it), I could not find any evidence of the existence of back doors in it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166972</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1258640160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>fuck you people are morons<p>
do you really think such a backdoor could be implemented on this scale and not be detected?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fuck you people are morons do you really think such a backdoor could be implemented on this scale and not be detected ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fuck you people are morons
do you really think such a backdoor could be implemented on this scale and not be detected?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167898</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258649940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use, how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it?</p></div><p>You have heard of that concept called &ldquo;password&rdquo;, have you? ^^</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use , how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it ? You have heard of that concept called    password    , have you ?
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use, how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it?You have heard of that concept called “password”, have you?
^^
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165968</id>
	<title>Re:Not really necessary</title>
	<author>duffbeer703</author>
	<datestamp>1258634520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say a more likely NSA "backdoor" would be some sort of subtle flaw in the implementation of an encryption, hash or some other algorithm critical to Windows. NSA spends alot of time and money on cryptanalysis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say a more likely NSA " backdoor " would be some sort of subtle flaw in the implementation of an encryption , hash or some other algorithm critical to Windows .
NSA spends alot of time and money on cryptanalysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say a more likely NSA "backdoor" would be some sort of subtle flaw in the implementation of an encryption, hash or some other algorithm critical to Windows.
NSA spends alot of time and money on cryptanalysis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166516</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258637100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the "we're able to shut down  your computer if we suspect you may not have an authorized version of our software" backdoor isn't enough of a backdoor for them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the " we 're able to shut down your computer if we suspect you may not have an authorized version of our software " backdoor is n't enough of a backdoor for them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the "we're able to shut down  your computer if we suspect you may not have an authorized version of our software" backdoor isn't enough of a backdoor for them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165694</id>
	<title>Re:NSA helped on Linux as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258633320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The NSA did SELinux (for Linux...) so I don't think it's unreasonable to think they might have helped MS on security issues without doing anything nasty.</p></div><p>Let us see the source code, and then we can decide for ourselves.</p><p>Remember: Security through obscurity is no security at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The NSA did SELinux ( for Linux... ) so I do n't think it 's unreasonable to think they might have helped MS on security issues without doing anything nasty.Let us see the source code , and then we can decide for ourselves.Remember : Security through obscurity is no security at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NSA did SELinux (for Linux...) so I don't think it's unreasonable to think they might have helped MS on security issues without doing anything nasty.Let us see the source code, and then we can decide for ourselves.Remember: Security through obscurity is no security at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165184</id>
	<title>Re:NSA helped on Linux as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258631160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>an open source application, where all eyes in the world are watching what they do</p></div><p>You may be overstating the interest that people have in open-source software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>an open source application , where all eyes in the world are watching what they doYou may be overstating the interest that people have in open-source software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an open source application, where all eyes in the world are watching what they doYou may be overstating the interest that people have in open-source software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167722</id>
	<title>There's more than one way</title>
	<author>AnalPerfume</author>
	<datestamp>1258648020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft don't need to have actively created a back door for one to exist, look at the code the call "secure" and how many exploits are found daily for it. This is them supposedly trying NOT to have exploits. They already have back doors for DRM control and instructions to please their real customers ie other companies, as well as their own WGA all for the common enrichment of rights holders. So just because Microsoft don't intentionally create back doors for the NSA means nothing.<br><br>Like any other intelligence agency, spying on people who use Windows would be a prime goal, but there's plenty of malware out there to do that, with Microsoft and the security industry formed to fix the holes left by Microsoft's technical incompetence can only fix so much. There's no reason why the NSA couldn't develop their own malware with VB and run it like any other criminals, without any collusion with Microsoft at all.<br><br>Given the fact that Windows is as secure as a paper tank at the best of times, and the governments of the world seem to want to insist that people use Windows, it's mot hard to imagine Microsoft suits using the "hey if you force your people to use our software, you can spy on what they do with them much easier" as a reason NOT to support calls for a FOSS / Linux switch.<br><br>Given how many crimes Microsoft get away with in more jurisdictions it's also not hard to imagine a meeting where Microsoft agree to turn a blind eye to malware from certain sources in return for cases being dropped, or friendly judges put on the case who will promptly find in favour of Microsoft, and dismiss any logical evidence that they've done anything wrong.<br><br>As far as "it's in our interests to make Windows secure as we use it", how much of the US defense network still use Windows? I've noticed some have switched to Linux, while Microsoft had to create a special "secure XP" for them because the regular one wasn't up to the task. How easy would it be for the entire network to switch to Linux to protect itself while endorsing Windows for everyone else as it gives them and easy target to hit if they need to? They could even get Linux to pretend it's Windows when queried so nobody outside would know.<br><br>Remember most govt departments are VERY partisan, they don't like to co-operate as much as they should. They don't like sharing stuff that would help everyone because if only they do it and look good, they look even better in comparison to other departments who didn't do it. The contrast is even wider.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft do n't need to have actively created a back door for one to exist , look at the code the call " secure " and how many exploits are found daily for it .
This is them supposedly trying NOT to have exploits .
They already have back doors for DRM control and instructions to please their real customers ie other companies , as well as their own WGA all for the common enrichment of rights holders .
So just because Microsoft do n't intentionally create back doors for the NSA means nothing.Like any other intelligence agency , spying on people who use Windows would be a prime goal , but there 's plenty of malware out there to do that , with Microsoft and the security industry formed to fix the holes left by Microsoft 's technical incompetence can only fix so much .
There 's no reason why the NSA could n't develop their own malware with VB and run it like any other criminals , without any collusion with Microsoft at all.Given the fact that Windows is as secure as a paper tank at the best of times , and the governments of the world seem to want to insist that people use Windows , it 's mot hard to imagine Microsoft suits using the " hey if you force your people to use our software , you can spy on what they do with them much easier " as a reason NOT to support calls for a FOSS / Linux switch.Given how many crimes Microsoft get away with in more jurisdictions it 's also not hard to imagine a meeting where Microsoft agree to turn a blind eye to malware from certain sources in return for cases being dropped , or friendly judges put on the case who will promptly find in favour of Microsoft , and dismiss any logical evidence that they 've done anything wrong.As far as " it 's in our interests to make Windows secure as we use it " , how much of the US defense network still use Windows ?
I 've noticed some have switched to Linux , while Microsoft had to create a special " secure XP " for them because the regular one was n't up to the task .
How easy would it be for the entire network to switch to Linux to protect itself while endorsing Windows for everyone else as it gives them and easy target to hit if they need to ?
They could even get Linux to pretend it 's Windows when queried so nobody outside would know.Remember most govt departments are VERY partisan , they do n't like to co-operate as much as they should .
They do n't like sharing stuff that would help everyone because if only they do it and look good , they look even better in comparison to other departments who did n't do it .
The contrast is even wider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft don't need to have actively created a back door for one to exist, look at the code the call "secure" and how many exploits are found daily for it.
This is them supposedly trying NOT to have exploits.
They already have back doors for DRM control and instructions to please their real customers ie other companies, as well as their own WGA all for the common enrichment of rights holders.
So just because Microsoft don't intentionally create back doors for the NSA means nothing.Like any other intelligence agency, spying on people who use Windows would be a prime goal, but there's plenty of malware out there to do that, with Microsoft and the security industry formed to fix the holes left by Microsoft's technical incompetence can only fix so much.
There's no reason why the NSA couldn't develop their own malware with VB and run it like any other criminals, without any collusion with Microsoft at all.Given the fact that Windows is as secure as a paper tank at the best of times, and the governments of the world seem to want to insist that people use Windows, it's mot hard to imagine Microsoft suits using the "hey if you force your people to use our software, you can spy on what they do with them much easier" as a reason NOT to support calls for a FOSS / Linux switch.Given how many crimes Microsoft get away with in more jurisdictions it's also not hard to imagine a meeting where Microsoft agree to turn a blind eye to malware from certain sources in return for cases being dropped, or friendly judges put on the case who will promptly find in favour of Microsoft, and dismiss any logical evidence that they've done anything wrong.As far as "it's in our interests to make Windows secure as we use it", how much of the US defense network still use Windows?
I've noticed some have switched to Linux, while Microsoft had to create a special "secure XP" for them because the regular one wasn't up to the task.
How easy would it be for the entire network to switch to Linux to protect itself while endorsing Windows for everyone else as it gives them and easy target to hit if they need to?
They could even get Linux to pretend it's Windows when queried so nobody outside would know.Remember most govt departments are VERY partisan, they don't like to co-operate as much as they should.
They don't like sharing stuff that would help everyone because if only they do it and look good, they look even better in comparison to other departments who didn't do it.
The contrast is even wider.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165548</id>
	<title>Lemmy FTFY</title>
	<author>NotBorg</author>
	<datestamp>1258632720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Microsoft has not and will not put "backdoors" into Windows,' a <em>conspiracy</em> spokeswoman said</p></div></blockquote><p>Fixed.</p><p>You can stop laughing at my shiny hat now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has not and will not put " backdoors " into Windows, ' a conspiracy spokeswoman saidFixed.You can stop laughing at my shiny hat now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has not and will not put "backdoors" into Windows,' a conspiracy spokeswoman saidFixed.You can stop laughing at my shiny hat now.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165040</id>
	<title>Re:of-course not</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1258630560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C'mon - name a single thing Microsoft would gain by having a backdoor into any Windows installation.  Now count how many ways such a backdoor could bite Microsoft in the ass.</p><p>It makes zero business sense to create a backdoor in Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C'mon - name a single thing Microsoft would gain by having a backdoor into any Windows installation .
Now count how many ways such a backdoor could bite Microsoft in the ass.It makes zero business sense to create a backdoor in Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C'mon - name a single thing Microsoft would gain by having a backdoor into any Windows installation.
Now count how many ways such a backdoor could bite Microsoft in the ass.It makes zero business sense to create a backdoor in Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167608</id>
	<title>It's not a back door...</title>
	<author>uvajed\_ekil</author>
	<datestamp>1258646520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...it's just another bug that they will be incapable of repairing. Some things never change.
<br> <br>
A "back door" that big brother could exploit would not need to be the result of a conspiracy against citizens or anything nefarious on the part of M$, just the usual incompetence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...it 's just another bug that they will be incapable of repairing .
Some things never change .
A " back door " that big brother could exploit would not need to be the result of a conspiracy against citizens or anything nefarious on the part of M $ , just the usual incompetence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...it's just another bug that they will be incapable of repairing.
Some things never change.
A "back door" that big brother could exploit would not need to be the result of a conspiracy against citizens or anything nefarious on the part of M$, just the usual incompetence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167054</id>
	<title>Re:Not really necessary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258640700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that but many governments outside the US don't even use Windows. So they certainly wouldn't want to create a backdoor in their own systems knowing that other governments won't be compromised by it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that but many governments outside the US do n't even use Windows .
So they certainly would n't want to create a backdoor in their own systems knowing that other governments wo n't be compromised by it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that but many governments outside the US don't even use Windows.
So they certainly wouldn't want to create a backdoor in their own systems knowing that other governments won't be compromised by it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30172934</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>u-235-sentinel</author>
	<datestamp>1258739940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  It's already too easy so why bother???</p><p><a href="http://www.desert-storm.com/War/" title="desert-storm.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.desert-storm.com/War/</a> [desert-storm.com]</p><p>We were able to disable much of the Iraqi air defense with a virus placed on their systems.  And that's just the recent war.  Makes you wonder about the other stories you hear about why Windows is soo riddled with bugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
It 's already too easy so why bother ? ?
? http : //www.desert-storm.com/War/ [ desert-storm.com ] We were able to disable much of the Iraqi air defense with a virus placed on their systems .
And that 's just the recent war .
Makes you wonder about the other stories you hear about why Windows is soo riddled with bugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
It's already too easy so why bother??
?http://www.desert-storm.com/War/ [desert-storm.com]We were able to disable much of the Iraqi air defense with a virus placed on their systems.
And that's just the recent war.
Makes you wonder about the other stories you hear about why Windows is soo riddled with bugs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169424</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>bytesex</author>
	<datestamp>1258715760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure you've anonymized the IP address from which you're posting as well, haven't you ?  Governments aren't very keen on people breaking those kinds of vows, even after a few years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure you 've anonymized the IP address from which you 're posting as well , have n't you ?
Governments are n't very keen on people breaking those kinds of vows , even after a few years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure you've anonymized the IP address from which you're posting as well, haven't you ?
Governments aren't very keen on people breaking those kinds of vows, even after a few years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165558</id>
	<title>Re:NSA helped on Linux as well</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1258632780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>where all eyes in the world are watching what they do</p></div><p>I have never looked at the SELinux code.... have you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>where all eyes in the world are watching what they doI have never looked at the SELinux code.... have you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>where all eyes in the world are watching what they doI have never looked at the SELinux code.... have you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30174016</id>
	<title>Ob. XKCD</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1258743960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/528/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/528/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/528/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/528/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166698</id>
	<title>Re:of-course not</title>
	<author>Nithendil</author>
	<datestamp>1258638360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there is one thing Microsoft loves more than anything else it is money. While the code may not be open source, students in universities can view it and the code could be pirated/released ala windows 2000. And if a backdoor to the NSA was found shit would hit the fan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there is one thing Microsoft loves more than anything else it is money .
While the code may not be open source , students in universities can view it and the code could be pirated/released ala windows 2000 .
And if a backdoor to the NSA was found shit would hit the fan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there is one thing Microsoft loves more than anything else it is money.
While the code may not be open source, students in universities can view it and the code could be pirated/released ala windows 2000.
And if a backdoor to the NSA was found shit would hit the fan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165280</id>
	<title>Re:NSA helped on Linux as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258631520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And they also recommended a couple of changes to DES when it was being developed:</p><p><a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/10/the\_legacy\_of\_d.html" title="schneier.com">http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/10/the\_legacy\_of\_d.html</a> [schneier.com]</p><p>Folks at the time thought it was some nefarious backdoor, but a couple of decades later came to realize it actually improved the security of DES.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And they also recommended a couple of changes to DES when it was being developed : http : //www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/10/the \ _legacy \ _of \ _d.html [ schneier.com ] Folks at the time thought it was some nefarious backdoor , but a couple of decades later came to realize it actually improved the security of DES .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And they also recommended a couple of changes to DES when it was being developed:http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/10/the\_legacy\_of\_d.html [schneier.com]Folks at the time thought it was some nefarious backdoor, but a couple of decades later came to realize it actually improved the security of DES.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167224</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258642140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um because when we find out how to exploit it they are put at risk, why make a back door when youc an plant a trojan just as easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um because when we find out how to exploit it they are put at risk , why make a back door when youc an plant a trojan just as easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um because when we find out how to exploit it they are put at risk, why make a back door when youc an plant a trojan just as easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166296</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258636080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why would Microsoft build a back door into Win7, when the front door is so wide open?</p></div><p>OR the side doors. Windows actually!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would Microsoft build a back door into Win7 , when the front door is so wide open ? OR the side doors .
Windows actually !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would Microsoft build a back door into Win7, when the front door is so wide open?OR the side doors.
Windows actually!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165810</id>
	<title>Straw man fail.</title>
	<author>Statecraftsman</author>
	<datestamp>1258633800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Guess I registered whyhasntmicrosoftdeniedthewindows7backdoor.com for nought.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess I registered whyhasntmicrosoftdeniedthewindows7backdoor.com for nought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess I registered whyhasntmicrosoftdeniedthewindows7backdoor.com for nought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164996</id>
	<title>Re:Not really necessary</title>
	<author>megamerican</author>
	<datestamp>1258630380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That shouldn't be hard for them to do when they built the security for the system.</p><p>As I always say: You're world delivered.... to the NSA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That should n't be hard for them to do when they built the security for the system.As I always say : You 're world delivered.... to the NSA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That shouldn't be hard for them to do when they built the security for the system.As I always say: You're world delivered.... to the NSA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169358</id>
	<title>There is no back door in Windows .</title>
	<author>Lost Penguin</author>
	<datestamp>1258714320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then again, the front door has no lock set either.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then again , the front door has no lock set either.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then again, the front door has no lock set either.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168534</id>
	<title>No backdoors?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258656660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then what is Windows Genuine Validation, but a backdoor for Microsoft to shut down copies of Windows and Office that it thinks (often erroneously) are pirated, when the user tries to update?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then what is Windows Genuine Validation , but a backdoor for Microsoft to shut down copies of Windows and Office that it thinks ( often erroneously ) are pirated , when the user tries to update ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then what is Windows Genuine Validation, but a backdoor for Microsoft to shut down copies of Windows and Office that it thinks (often erroneously) are pirated, when the user tries to update?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167132</id>
	<title>fffsfs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258641300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wheel you know... any one that as download that US Spies list to the computer in the past years as seen as soon as that came into public knowledge that their computers stop working without explication and had to be formatted... only if you'd print it before it crashed you would maintain the list otherwise it would be lost for ever... anyone telling me their is no backdoor can only be joking! They have probably several backdoors included in several places just in case something is detected and have to be fixed.<br>They put backdoors into every hardware, software they can (including but not limit to: router, OS's, Anti-malware,crypto software, and others)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wheel you know... any one that as download that US Spies list to the computer in the past years as seen as soon as that came into public knowledge that their computers stop working without explication and had to be formatted... only if you 'd print it before it crashed you would maintain the list otherwise it would be lost for ever... anyone telling me their is no backdoor can only be joking !
They have probably several backdoors included in several places just in case something is detected and have to be fixed.They put backdoors into every hardware , software they can ( including but not limit to : router , OS 's , Anti-malware,crypto software , and others )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wheel you know... any one that as download that US Spies list to the computer in the past years as seen as soon as that came into public knowledge that their computers stop working without explication and had to be formatted... only if you'd print it before it crashed you would maintain the list otherwise it would be lost for ever... anyone telling me their is no backdoor can only be joking!
They have probably several backdoors included in several places just in case something is detected and have to be fixed.They put backdoors into every hardware, software they can (including but not limit to: router, OS's, Anti-malware,crypto software, and others)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167842</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>KibibyteBrain</author>
	<datestamp>1258649220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is still hard to believe as I doubt it is practical. If Windows has a backdoor in it, which to be useful would be some method of retrieving information from the machine running the OS via the network without proper authentication, what is to stop diagnostics on the network from intercepting the unexpected behavior. Many corporate security products would do just this, and when security teams would audit new images they would do just this too. And many of these tools are based on FOSS OSes and software. I'm not saying it is beyond the ability of the NSA to hide backdoors in plain sight, but again, this would be profound. The only other backdoors would be things that involve physical access or perhaps to bitlocker, but who REALLY thinks these obstacles would stand in the way of the NSA even without a backdoor?
The only effective backdoor would be one built into an application that already used high encryption over the network, like the RDP client or something that would prevent DPI from noticing something strange was going on. But most security conscious organizations would not allow such things that could get past their sniffers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is still hard to believe as I doubt it is practical .
If Windows has a backdoor in it , which to be useful would be some method of retrieving information from the machine running the OS via the network without proper authentication , what is to stop diagnostics on the network from intercepting the unexpected behavior .
Many corporate security products would do just this , and when security teams would audit new images they would do just this too .
And many of these tools are based on FOSS OSes and software .
I 'm not saying it is beyond the ability of the NSA to hide backdoors in plain sight , but again , this would be profound .
The only other backdoors would be things that involve physical access or perhaps to bitlocker , but who REALLY thinks these obstacles would stand in the way of the NSA even without a backdoor ?
The only effective backdoor would be one built into an application that already used high encryption over the network , like the RDP client or something that would prevent DPI from noticing something strange was going on .
But most security conscious organizations would not allow such things that could get past their sniffers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is still hard to believe as I doubt it is practical.
If Windows has a backdoor in it, which to be useful would be some method of retrieving information from the machine running the OS via the network without proper authentication, what is to stop diagnostics on the network from intercepting the unexpected behavior.
Many corporate security products would do just this, and when security teams would audit new images they would do just this too.
And many of these tools are based on FOSS OSes and software.
I'm not saying it is beyond the ability of the NSA to hide backdoors in plain sight, but again, this would be profound.
The only other backdoors would be things that involve physical access or perhaps to bitlocker, but who REALLY thinks these obstacles would stand in the way of the NSA even without a backdoor?
The only effective backdoor would be one built into an application that already used high encryption over the network, like the RDP client or something that would prevent DPI from noticing something strange was going on.
But most security conscious organizations would not allow such things that could get past their sniffers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166862</id>
	<title>Re:NSA helped on Linux as well</title>
	<author>ShadowRangerRIT</author>
	<datestamp>1258639200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows is only legally closed source.  Practically, it leaks so often that it may as well be open.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows is only legally closed source .
Practically , it leaks so often that it may as well be open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows is only legally closed source.
Practically, it leaks so often that it may as well be open.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166190</id>
	<title>Windows really is open source</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1258635540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I see how windows became such a piece of security shit. You see, they have to let the Chinese security associations work on it to get that market share, then the Germans, then the Israelis, and so on, until any script kiddy in his basement can easily defeat the security.  Who says windows is not open source?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I see how windows became such a piece of security shit .
You see , they have to let the Chinese security associations work on it to get that market share , then the Germans , then the Israelis , and so on , until any script kiddy in his basement can easily defeat the security .
Who says windows is not open source ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I see how windows became such a piece of security shit.
You see, they have to let the Chinese security associations work on it to get that market share, then the Germans, then the Israelis, and so on, until any script kiddy in his basement can easily defeat the security.
Who says windows is not open source?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169034</id>
	<title>Re:Not really necessary</title>
	<author>qazsedcft</author>
	<datestamp>1258710360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not just government systems. The NSA has to protect national interests. Knowing that most companies use Windows that means they also have a duty to ensure that the Chinese or Russians can't screw-up the entire US economy by planting trojans in corporate networks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just government systems .
The NSA has to protect national interests .
Knowing that most companies use Windows that means they also have a duty to ensure that the Chinese or Russians ca n't screw-up the entire US economy by planting trojans in corporate networks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just government systems.
The NSA has to protect national interests.
Knowing that most companies use Windows that means they also have a duty to ensure that the Chinese or Russians can't screw-up the entire US economy by planting trojans in corporate networks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167866</id>
	<title>Different Worldviews</title>
	<author>banished</author>
	<datestamp>1258649520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Current fears of government involvement/takeover of private businesses aside, given the reliance of the DoD on the Windows ecosystem, it is reasonable to expect they -- and other security organizations such as the NSA -- have some level of access to the code developers (not necessarily to the code itself).  MS has a vested interest in thier sucess because they couldn't afford the headline, "DoD drops Windows for Linux."<p>While there could be a backdoor, a more rationale conclusion is the involvement of these government agencies is to help insure the O/S has the capability to be highly securable.  Very few programmers outside of government have the same security worldview as the NSA/DoD, so MS needs that government expertise to assist them.

<a href="http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/index.html" title="disa.mil" rel="nofollow">http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/index.html</a> [disa.mil]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Current fears of government involvement/takeover of private businesses aside , given the reliance of the DoD on the Windows ecosystem , it is reasonable to expect they -- and other security organizations such as the NSA -- have some level of access to the code developers ( not necessarily to the code itself ) .
MS has a vested interest in thier sucess because they could n't afford the headline , " DoD drops Windows for Linux .
" While there could be a backdoor , a more rationale conclusion is the involvement of these government agencies is to help insure the O/S has the capability to be highly securable .
Very few programmers outside of government have the same security worldview as the NSA/DoD , so MS needs that government expertise to assist them .
http : //iase.disa.mil/stigs/index.html [ disa.mil ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Current fears of government involvement/takeover of private businesses aside, given the reliance of the DoD on the Windows ecosystem, it is reasonable to expect they -- and other security organizations such as the NSA -- have some level of access to the code developers (not necessarily to the code itself).
MS has a vested interest in thier sucess because they couldn't afford the headline, "DoD drops Windows for Linux.
"While there could be a backdoor, a more rationale conclusion is the involvement of these government agencies is to help insure the O/S has the capability to be highly securable.
Very few programmers outside of government have the same security worldview as the NSA/DoD, so MS needs that government expertise to assist them.
http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/index.html [disa.mil]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164922</id>
	<title>I Tried to Interview Microsoft About This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258630080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I asked them if they had put any backdoors in Windows 7 and the representative said loudly and nervously that that was preposterous and 'patently false' while scribbling something on a piece of paper.  He slid it across his desk to me.  It read:<p><div class="quote"><p>Please, they have microphones in my clothes, on the desk, in the walls, the fly buzzing by your mouth is their robot!!!  Meet me by the dumpster out back around 5pm, come alone.</p></div><p>Unfortunately I have a bad habit of reading things aloud when I read them and by the time I was finished the fly was gone and the man sitting across from me was dead.  The government doctor that rushed in the room and gave him pentobarbital in an attempt to revive him said it was due to an aneurysm caused by a robotic fly which he says he sees a lot of so it's nothing for me to look into.  <br> <br>

I guess there's no story here after all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I asked them if they had put any backdoors in Windows 7 and the representative said loudly and nervously that that was preposterous and 'patently false ' while scribbling something on a piece of paper .
He slid it across his desk to me .
It read : Please , they have microphones in my clothes , on the desk , in the walls , the fly buzzing by your mouth is their robot ! ! !
Meet me by the dumpster out back around 5pm , come alone.Unfortunately I have a bad habit of reading things aloud when I read them and by the time I was finished the fly was gone and the man sitting across from me was dead .
The government doctor that rushed in the room and gave him pentobarbital in an attempt to revive him said it was due to an aneurysm caused by a robotic fly which he says he sees a lot of so it 's nothing for me to look into .
I guess there 's no story here after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I asked them if they had put any backdoors in Windows 7 and the representative said loudly and nervously that that was preposterous and 'patently false' while scribbling something on a piece of paper.
He slid it across his desk to me.
It read:Please, they have microphones in my clothes, on the desk, in the walls, the fly buzzing by your mouth is their robot!!!
Meet me by the dumpster out back around 5pm, come alone.Unfortunately I have a bad habit of reading things aloud when I read them and by the time I was finished the fly was gone and the man sitting across from me was dead.
The government doctor that rushed in the room and gave him pentobarbital in an attempt to revive him said it was due to an aneurysm caused by a robotic fly which he says he sees a lot of so it's nothing for me to look into.
I guess there's no story here after all.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30175280</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Pope Raymond Lama</author>
	<datestamp>1258747980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry -- I can't get how parent was not modded "+5 funny" - is there some deeper nested joke I am missing?</p><p>That is -- when using proprietary software - -any proprietary software today, not just Windows, but current generation videogames or smartphones, don't the network is used \_\_all\_\_ the time for the "updates"  and "windows genuine advantage." things? Don't theese updates run with highest priority on the system, overriding any action the user (owner)  cound take? So, in times before thigns got so screwed up, this is what was called "Back door". I know, you have sometimes the option to delay a " software update" -- but that is mostly an illusion,a s everything is designed for you to have to update sooner or later;</p><p>The one right thing to say here, has been said on the second comment I see on this thread:</p><p>"Why would Microsoft build a back door into Win7, when the front door is so wide open?" (by Wowsers)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry -- I ca n't get how parent was not modded " + 5 funny " - is there some deeper nested joke I am missing ? That is -- when using proprietary software - -any proprietary software today , not just Windows , but current generation videogames or smartphones , do n't the network is used \ _ \ _all \ _ \ _ the time for the " updates " and " windows genuine advantage .
" things ?
Do n't theese updates run with highest priority on the system , overriding any action the user ( owner ) cound take ?
So , in times before thigns got so screwed up , this is what was called " Back door " .
I know , you have sometimes the option to delay a " software update " -- but that is mostly an illusion,a s everything is designed for you to have to update sooner or later ; The one right thing to say here , has been said on the second comment I see on this thread : " Why would Microsoft build a back door into Win7 , when the front door is so wide open ?
" ( by Wowsers )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry -- I can't get how parent was not modded "+5 funny" - is there some deeper nested joke I am missing?That is -- when using proprietary software - -any proprietary software today, not just Windows, but current generation videogames or smartphones, don't the network is used \_\_all\_\_ the time for the "updates"  and "windows genuine advantage.
" things?
Don't theese updates run with highest priority on the system, overriding any action the user (owner)  cound take?
So, in times before thigns got so screwed up, this is what was called "Back door".
I know, you have sometimes the option to delay a " software update" -- but that is mostly an illusion,a s everything is designed for you to have to update sooner or later;The one right thing to say here, has been said on the second comment I see on this thread:"Why would Microsoft build a back door into Win7, when the front door is so wide open?
" (by Wowsers)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165992</id>
	<title>So you missed the recent secuirty by selinux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258634640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NULL address allowed privilage execape.</p><p>Now was the a coding error or intentional we will never know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NULL address allowed privilage execape.Now was the a coding error or intentional we will never know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NULL address allowed privilage execape.Now was the a coding error or intentional we will never know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169468</id>
	<title>In particular</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1258716540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They could do something evil like the famous C compiler backdoor. You infect only binary components. So no matter how carefully the code is audited, there is nothing in there. However, when said code is compiled on an infected system, it produces infected binaries. So people have the illusion of security with it. They build from source because they want to make sure what they have hasn't been changed, but they tools they use are compromised so the final system is compromised, though no trace is in the code.</p><p>However, that has the same ultimate problem that a backdoor in Windows, or anything else does: It is susceptible to detection by looking at a running system.</p><p>You discover that most security research isn't code auditing. They instead attack a working system in various ways to see if they can cause it to malfunction. After all, a code audit only goes so far. In almost any large project there were a lot of people that looked over the code and tried to find and fix bugs. So if they didn't see it, what makes you think you will? You are not the best programmer in the universe. Also these bugs can often be very tricky, complex interactions that aren't easy to see. The source looks fine and indeed the final code works fine except for a very specific set of circumstances.</p><p>Well guess what? Testing like that would have the possibility of picking up the backdoor. This idea that it could be hidden in such a way that security testing would never find it, but that looking at the source would make it immediately obvious is stupid. It just reeks of programmers who have Smartest Motherfucker in the Universe syndrome. You find that syndrome in many areas, but I seem to see it in programmers a whole lot. Basically, they seem to think they are just gods of code. Any bugs in a program they didn't write are because the person was "stupid". THEIR code would never have holes, and if they just saw that "Other Guy's" code they could immediately find and fix the problems. As such they are sure that if code is open it is safe because they are sure they could look at it and determine that in mere minutes if they wanted to.</p><p>To me, that says in fact the person is not a good programmer. It tends to be the lowest performers who cannot identify their own limitations and thus believe they are the highest performers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They could do something evil like the famous C compiler backdoor .
You infect only binary components .
So no matter how carefully the code is audited , there is nothing in there .
However , when said code is compiled on an infected system , it produces infected binaries .
So people have the illusion of security with it .
They build from source because they want to make sure what they have has n't been changed , but they tools they use are compromised so the final system is compromised , though no trace is in the code.However , that has the same ultimate problem that a backdoor in Windows , or anything else does : It is susceptible to detection by looking at a running system.You discover that most security research is n't code auditing .
They instead attack a working system in various ways to see if they can cause it to malfunction .
After all , a code audit only goes so far .
In almost any large project there were a lot of people that looked over the code and tried to find and fix bugs .
So if they did n't see it , what makes you think you will ?
You are not the best programmer in the universe .
Also these bugs can often be very tricky , complex interactions that are n't easy to see .
The source looks fine and indeed the final code works fine except for a very specific set of circumstances.Well guess what ?
Testing like that would have the possibility of picking up the backdoor .
This idea that it could be hidden in such a way that security testing would never find it , but that looking at the source would make it immediately obvious is stupid .
It just reeks of programmers who have Smartest Motherfucker in the Universe syndrome .
You find that syndrome in many areas , but I seem to see it in programmers a whole lot .
Basically , they seem to think they are just gods of code .
Any bugs in a program they did n't write are because the person was " stupid " .
THEIR code would never have holes , and if they just saw that " Other Guy 's " code they could immediately find and fix the problems .
As such they are sure that if code is open it is safe because they are sure they could look at it and determine that in mere minutes if they wanted to.To me , that says in fact the person is not a good programmer .
It tends to be the lowest performers who can not identify their own limitations and thus believe they are the highest performers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could do something evil like the famous C compiler backdoor.
You infect only binary components.
So no matter how carefully the code is audited, there is nothing in there.
However, when said code is compiled on an infected system, it produces infected binaries.
So people have the illusion of security with it.
They build from source because they want to make sure what they have hasn't been changed, but they tools they use are compromised so the final system is compromised, though no trace is in the code.However, that has the same ultimate problem that a backdoor in Windows, or anything else does: It is susceptible to detection by looking at a running system.You discover that most security research isn't code auditing.
They instead attack a working system in various ways to see if they can cause it to malfunction.
After all, a code audit only goes so far.
In almost any large project there were a lot of people that looked over the code and tried to find and fix bugs.
So if they didn't see it, what makes you think you will?
You are not the best programmer in the universe.
Also these bugs can often be very tricky, complex interactions that aren't easy to see.
The source looks fine and indeed the final code works fine except for a very specific set of circumstances.Well guess what?
Testing like that would have the possibility of picking up the backdoor.
This idea that it could be hidden in such a way that security testing would never find it, but that looking at the source would make it immediately obvious is stupid.
It just reeks of programmers who have Smartest Motherfucker in the Universe syndrome.
You find that syndrome in many areas, but I seem to see it in programmers a whole lot.
Basically, they seem to think they are just gods of code.
Any bugs in a program they didn't write are because the person was "stupid".
THEIR code would never have holes, and if they just saw that "Other Guy's" code they could immediately find and fix the problems.
As such they are sure that if code is open it is safe because they are sure they could look at it and determine that in mere minutes if they wanted to.To me, that says in fact the person is not a good programmer.
It tends to be the lowest performers who cannot identify their own limitations and thus believe they are the highest performers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168030</id>
	<title>NOBODY is mentioning FIPS?</title>
	<author>CFD339</author>
	<datestamp>1258651320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My limited understanding of FIPS compliance is such that I thing the likelihood is much higher that the involvement of the NSA is to work with Microsoft (as they have others) to make sure the right libraries are used and so on for FIPS compliance.   If you want to sell software to the US Government, it must be FIPS compliant.</p><p>The following is my understanding (which is likely flawed in some ways, but I think is fairly close to accurate) of how FIPS works (Taken from a response I wrote to someone else about this).</p><p>In all likelihood, this is all about their encryption being FIPS compliant and has nothing to do with backdoors.</p><p>The way I understand FIPS (because I got a mini-lesson on it during an SDR as they were doing it for [another software product I work with alot]) you have to use very specific encryption protocols that not only meet the standard for the encryption routine (e.g. RSA, or whatever) and the bit-size, but you have to use one of a specific set of approved implementation libraries.</p><p>That means you can use the exact same encrypting schema and key size as FIPS specifies, but if you don't do the encryption with an approved library, you're not compliant.</p><p>The rules get weirder from there.  If you are required to be FIPS compliant at work, and must send something encrypted, you have to send it to someone who is also FIPS compliant.   -- follow this logic now -- if you have to send it to someone who is NOT compliant, even though they use compatible encryption/decryption code and have exchanged keys with you, you CANNOT send them the encrypted file because their libraries are not FIPS compliant.   You can, however, send them the file IN THE CLEAR if you decide it's safe to do so.</p><p>In other words, FIPS says it is better to send something in the clear if you cannot be sure the other end is FIPS compliant, even if they can decrypt what you're sending.</p><p>That's your government at work.</p><p>BTW:  The routines which ARE certified have been fully vetted by many government and non-government people, and do not contain any special code in them that would lead to making decryption by the NSA any easier than it would otherwise be.  Since the routines are by nature just implementation of well know encryption standards, the only way to do that would be to interrupt the key pair creation process and use "less random" seeds.  I don't believe FIPS specifies the random number generation routine used.</p><p>Hope this helps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My limited understanding of FIPS compliance is such that I thing the likelihood is much higher that the involvement of the NSA is to work with Microsoft ( as they have others ) to make sure the right libraries are used and so on for FIPS compliance .
If you want to sell software to the US Government , it must be FIPS compliant.The following is my understanding ( which is likely flawed in some ways , but I think is fairly close to accurate ) of how FIPS works ( Taken from a response I wrote to someone else about this ) .In all likelihood , this is all about their encryption being FIPS compliant and has nothing to do with backdoors.The way I understand FIPS ( because I got a mini-lesson on it during an SDR as they were doing it for [ another software product I work with alot ] ) you have to use very specific encryption protocols that not only meet the standard for the encryption routine ( e.g .
RSA , or whatever ) and the bit-size , but you have to use one of a specific set of approved implementation libraries.That means you can use the exact same encrypting schema and key size as FIPS specifies , but if you do n't do the encryption with an approved library , you 're not compliant.The rules get weirder from there .
If you are required to be FIPS compliant at work , and must send something encrypted , you have to send it to someone who is also FIPS compliant .
-- follow this logic now -- if you have to send it to someone who is NOT compliant , even though they use compatible encryption/decryption code and have exchanged keys with you , you CAN NOT send them the encrypted file because their libraries are not FIPS compliant .
You can , however , send them the file IN THE CLEAR if you decide it 's safe to do so.In other words , FIPS says it is better to send something in the clear if you can not be sure the other end is FIPS compliant , even if they can decrypt what you 're sending.That 's your government at work.BTW : The routines which ARE certified have been fully vetted by many government and non-government people , and do not contain any special code in them that would lead to making decryption by the NSA any easier than it would otherwise be .
Since the routines are by nature just implementation of well know encryption standards , the only way to do that would be to interrupt the key pair creation process and use " less random " seeds .
I do n't believe FIPS specifies the random number generation routine used.Hope this helps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My limited understanding of FIPS compliance is such that I thing the likelihood is much higher that the involvement of the NSA is to work with Microsoft (as they have others) to make sure the right libraries are used and so on for FIPS compliance.
If you want to sell software to the US Government, it must be FIPS compliant.The following is my understanding (which is likely flawed in some ways, but I think is fairly close to accurate) of how FIPS works (Taken from a response I wrote to someone else about this).In all likelihood, this is all about their encryption being FIPS compliant and has nothing to do with backdoors.The way I understand FIPS (because I got a mini-lesson on it during an SDR as they were doing it for [another software product I work with alot]) you have to use very specific encryption protocols that not only meet the standard for the encryption routine (e.g.
RSA, or whatever) and the bit-size, but you have to use one of a specific set of approved implementation libraries.That means you can use the exact same encrypting schema and key size as FIPS specifies, but if you don't do the encryption with an approved library, you're not compliant.The rules get weirder from there.
If you are required to be FIPS compliant at work, and must send something encrypted, you have to send it to someone who is also FIPS compliant.
-- follow this logic now -- if you have to send it to someone who is NOT compliant, even though they use compatible encryption/decryption code and have exchanged keys with you, you CANNOT send them the encrypted file because their libraries are not FIPS compliant.
You can, however, send them the file IN THE CLEAR if you decide it's safe to do so.In other words, FIPS says it is better to send something in the clear if you cannot be sure the other end is FIPS compliant, even if they can decrypt what you're sending.That's your government at work.BTW:  The routines which ARE certified have been fully vetted by many government and non-government people, and do not contain any special code in them that would lead to making decryption by the NSA any easier than it would otherwise be.
Since the routines are by nature just implementation of well know encryption standards, the only way to do that would be to interrupt the key pair creation process and use "less random" seeds.
I don't believe FIPS specifies the random number generation routine used.Hope this helps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166130</id>
	<title>Re:of-course not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258635240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft would probably gain nothing directly, but (pure speculation here) let's imagine the US Govt tells Microsoft: "you run silently this certain DLL we are supplying, and when economy collapses we won't forget about you".</p><p>Also, keep in mind that in a world where corporate interests detemine if a war is launched or not, Microsoft and the US Government become essentially the same entity. There won't be a government mandating that a corporation does this or that, but a group of powerful people deciding together what is being done. If there's a backdoor in Win7 it wasn't forced but agreed on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft would probably gain nothing directly , but ( pure speculation here ) let 's imagine the US Govt tells Microsoft : " you run silently this certain DLL we are supplying , and when economy collapses we wo n't forget about you " .Also , keep in mind that in a world where corporate interests detemine if a war is launched or not , Microsoft and the US Government become essentially the same entity .
There wo n't be a government mandating that a corporation does this or that , but a group of powerful people deciding together what is being done .
If there 's a backdoor in Win7 it was n't forced but agreed on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft would probably gain nothing directly, but (pure speculation here) let's imagine the US Govt tells Microsoft: "you run silently this certain DLL we are supplying, and when economy collapses we won't forget about you".Also, keep in mind that in a world where corporate interests detemine if a war is launched or not, Microsoft and the US Government become essentially the same entity.
There won't be a government mandating that a corporation does this or that, but a group of powerful people deciding together what is being done.
If there's a backdoor in Win7 it wasn't forced but agreed on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166168</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258635420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why use the Windows, when there's perfectly good door.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why use the Windows , when there 's perfectly good door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why use the Windows, when there's perfectly good door.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166154</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs a back door?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258635360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about all three of the BSD users?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about all three of the BSD users ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about all three of the BSD users?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165176</id>
	<title>No worries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258631160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just check the sou..
<br>
Ah.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just check the sou. . Ah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just check the sou..

Ah.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169214</id>
	<title>Re:I Tried to Interview Microsoft About This</title>
	<author>craagz</author>
	<datestamp>1258712520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should consider writing novels. I really enjoyed reading this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should consider writing novels .
I really enjoyed reading this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should consider writing novels.
I really enjoyed reading this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165036</id>
	<title>Microsoft didn't make any backdoors</title>
	<author>overlordofmu</author>
	<datestamp>1258630560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The NSA, CIA or FBI made the backdoor.  And then forced Microsoft to include it in the final build of the OS.  Microsoft is technically telling the truth.<br> <br>
Remember this: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic\_Lantern\_(software)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic\_Lantern\_(software)</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The NSA , CIA or FBI made the backdoor .
And then forced Microsoft to include it in the final build of the OS .
Microsoft is technically telling the truth .
Remember this : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic \ _Lantern \ _ ( software ) [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NSA, CIA or FBI made the backdoor.
And then forced Microsoft to include it in the final build of the OS.
Microsoft is technically telling the truth.
Remember this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic\_Lantern\_(software) [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169668</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>magloca</author>
	<datestamp>1258718940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You are overlooking the fact that intelligence agencies are, also, usually tasked with preventing (as much as possible) foreign countries from collecting intelligence about the U.S. government. If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use, how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it?</p></div><p>What you're saying is that it wouldn't be <em>smart</em> for the NSA to put a backdoor in Windows. But what we're discussing here is whether or not they may <em>actually</em> have done it. The way I see it, the two are completely different.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are overlooking the fact that intelligence agencies are , also , usually tasked with preventing ( as much as possible ) foreign countries from collecting intelligence about the U.S. government. If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use , how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it ? What you 're saying is that it would n't be smart for the NSA to put a backdoor in Windows .
But what we 're discussing here is whether or not they may actually have done it .
The way I see it , the two are completely different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are overlooking the fact that intelligence agencies are, also, usually tasked with preventing (as much as possible) foreign countries from collecting intelligence about the U.S. government. If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use, how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it?What you're saying is that it wouldn't be smart for the NSA to put a backdoor in Windows.
But what we're discussing here is whether or not they may actually have done it.
The way I see it, the two are completely different.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169966</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Bentov</author>
	<datestamp>1258724400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you have answered you own question, if the front door is that wide, isn't the backdoor going to be better?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you have answered you own question , if the front door is that wide , is n't the backdoor going to be better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you have answered you own question, if the front door is that wide, isn't the backdoor going to be better?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167490</id>
	<title>NSA has two jobs....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258645080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Gather intelligence.<br>2) Secure government computers (this part is often mixed with work that NIST puts out - but don't kid yourself, its NSA work).</p><p>Didn't NSA put out secure linux?  Why, with the popularity of Windows, wouldn't NSA want windows to be secure?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Gather intelligence.2 ) Secure government computers ( this part is often mixed with work that NIST puts out - but do n't kid yourself , its NSA work ) .Did n't NSA put out secure linux ?
Why , with the popularity of Windows , would n't NSA want windows to be secure ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Gather intelligence.2) Secure government computers (this part is often mixed with work that NIST puts out - but don't kid yourself, its NSA work).Didn't NSA put out secure linux?
Why, with the popularity of Windows, wouldn't NSA want windows to be secure?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165342</id>
	<title>Re:Not really necessary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258631760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One would expect that microsoft would share info regarding holes in their products with the NSA as soon as they are confirmed and before they are patched, to give them a little time to exploit.</p><p>While a direct backdoor is not likely, it wouldn't surprise me if MS had intentionally left in or created a buffer overflow in one obscure section of the windows or IIS code, which the NSA could take advantage of until it is publicly found and then patched.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One would expect that microsoft would share info regarding holes in their products with the NSA as soon as they are confirmed and before they are patched , to give them a little time to exploit.While a direct backdoor is not likely , it would n't surprise me if MS had intentionally left in or created a buffer overflow in one obscure section of the windows or IIS code , which the NSA could take advantage of until it is publicly found and then patched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One would expect that microsoft would share info regarding holes in their products with the NSA as soon as they are confirmed and before they are patched, to give them a little time to exploit.While a direct backdoor is not likely, it wouldn't surprise me if MS had intentionally left in or created a buffer overflow in one obscure section of the windows or IIS code, which the NSA could take advantage of until it is publicly found and then patched.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164886</id>
	<title>of-course not</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1258629960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'Microsoft has not and will not put "backdoors" into Windows,' a company spokeswoman said, reacting to a Computerworld story Wednesday.</p></div><p> - of-course you wouldn't.  MS is a stand up company, known for ethical behavior, fair treatment of its users, etc.  I mean, it would never!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Microsoft has not and will not put " backdoors " into Windows, ' a company spokeswoman said , reacting to a Computerworld story Wednesday .
- of-course you would n't .
MS is a stand up company , known for ethical behavior , fair treatment of its users , etc .
I mean , it would never !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Microsoft has not and will not put "backdoors" into Windows,' a company spokeswoman said, reacting to a Computerworld story Wednesday.
- of-course you wouldn't.
MS is a stand up company, known for ethical behavior, fair treatment of its users, etc.
I mean, it would never!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30170018</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>ei4anb</author>
	<datestamp>1258725060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use, how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it?"

<p>Here's how... </p><p>Lotus Notes had 64bit crypto back when 40bit was the most you could export from the land of the free. Most companies introduced an export version of their product. Lotus did not. </p><p>How did they manage this and be compatible with the reulations? Every time Notes generated a 64bit key it copied 24 of those bits and encrypted them with a key owned by the NSA and sent that with the encrypted text. Then the NSA only had 40bit crypto to crack when they intercepted the message. </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus\_notes#Security</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use , how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it ?
" Here 's how... Lotus Notes had 64bit crypto back when 40bit was the most you could export from the land of the free .
Most companies introduced an export version of their product .
Lotus did not .
How did they manage this and be compatible with the reulations ?
Every time Notes generated a 64bit key it copied 24 of those bits and encrypted them with a key owned by the NSA and sent that with the encrypted text .
Then the NSA only had 40bit crypto to crack when they intercepted the message .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus \ _notes # Security</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use, how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it?
"

Here's how... Lotus Notes had 64bit crypto back when 40bit was the most you could export from the land of the free.
Most companies introduced an export version of their product.
Lotus did not.
How did they manage this and be compatible with the reulations?
Every time Notes generated a 64bit key it copied 24 of those bits and encrypted them with a key owned by the NSA and sent that with the encrypted text.
Then the NSA only had 40bit crypto to crack when they intercepted the message.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus\_notes#Security</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167430</id>
	<title>Re:NSA helped on Linux as well</title>
	<author>Lazy Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1258644360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Like they are going to take a chance on getting caught doing something untoward in an open source application, where all eyes in the world are watching what they do.</p></div><p>
That is the theory, which is - sadly - wrong, because people just don't bother looking at the code as they hope someone else is going to do it eventually. The Linux kernel is an exception - it is very secure, not because of thousands of developers screening the code for security problems, but because of a dozen nasty people lurking on lkml whose only raison d'&#234;tre is to flame people to death over any minor buglet they can find in the patches. My sincerest thanks to them!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like they are going to take a chance on getting caught doing something untoward in an open source application , where all eyes in the world are watching what they do .
That is the theory , which is - sadly - wrong , because people just do n't bother looking at the code as they hope someone else is going to do it eventually .
The Linux kernel is an exception - it is very secure , not because of thousands of developers screening the code for security problems , but because of a dozen nasty people lurking on lkml whose only raison d '   tre is to flame people to death over any minor buglet they can find in the patches .
My sincerest thanks to them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like they are going to take a chance on getting caught doing something untoward in an open source application, where all eyes in the world are watching what they do.
That is the theory, which is - sadly - wrong, because people just don't bother looking at the code as they hope someone else is going to do it eventually.
The Linux kernel is an exception - it is very secure, not because of thousands of developers screening the code for security problems, but because of a dozen nasty people lurking on lkml whose only raison d'être is to flame people to death over any minor buglet they can find in the patches.
My sincerest thanks to them!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165352</id>
	<title>Re:I'm the NSA...</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1258631760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazing.  Never have mod points when I see gems like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazing .
Never have mod points when I see gems like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazing.
Never have mod points when I see gems like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168264</id>
	<title>Strong asymmetric crypto.</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1258653840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use, how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it?</i></p><p>Lock the back door using strong asymmetric cryptography.</p><p>Then even if the other intelligence agencies get hold of the source code (or tear the code apart and grok every bit) it does them no good.  They have to steal the private key or crack the cypher to open the door.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use , how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it ? Lock the back door using strong asymmetric cryptography.Then even if the other intelligence agencies get hold of the source code ( or tear the code apart and grok every bit ) it does them no good .
They have to steal the private key or crack the cypher to open the door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Windows has a back door that the NSA can use, how would they prevent foreign intelligence agencies from using it?Lock the back door using strong asymmetric cryptography.Then even if the other intelligence agencies get hold of the source code (or tear the code apart and grok every bit) it does them no good.
They have to steal the private key or crack the cypher to open the door.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169156</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1258711980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If people can find general small scale security exploits in Windows, what makes you think they'd be able to hide a full blown back door?</p><p>Sorry but it's just fantasy, paranoia. We've had this theory before but no one ever manages to find any traces of this backdoor. If you have it installed you can dissect the OS to your hearts content, you can be rest assured for all the money and skill the NSA have it's nothing compared to the millions of researchers, hackers and criminals that would love nothing more than to find that backdoor.</p><p>You seem to be taking it a step further and suggesting it's bugged- tell me, if it's for intelligence gathering why is no one seeing any unrecognised outbound traffic on their networking hardware that could be part of this? do you think the NSA have developed a protocol that is invisible to routers but somehow still gets routed? Or do you think every router manufacturer in the world is in on it too and people who have dissected those have just not found it either?</p><p>It's a wild conspiracy theory, it's non-sensical and has no basis in reality. The PC is an open platform, you can't just hide that sort of thing from everyone, someone is going to find traces of it, evidence of it.</p><p>But get this, here's a bigger reason it's a stupid idea- do you really think the KGB could get this past CSIS, MI5, MI6, the FSB and other foreign intelligence services? Don't you think MI5 would be up in arms if the NSA had access to the data of the UK's biggest companies able to bankrupt them at any moment by leaking their most confidential secrets?</p><p>Twist Microsoft's words all you want, but it's pretty clear what they said. It doesn't just sound paranoid, it is paranoid, irrationally so. It is what it is, the guy helped advise Microsoft on security- from the summary at least it doesn't sound like he got close to the source code even.</p><p>But then, perhaps I'm a Microsoft/NSA plant right? Surely that's a good explanation to keep yourself convinced of such a ludicrous idea as conspiracy nuts ultimately choose to do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If people can find general small scale security exploits in Windows , what makes you think they 'd be able to hide a full blown back door ? Sorry but it 's just fantasy , paranoia .
We 've had this theory before but no one ever manages to find any traces of this backdoor .
If you have it installed you can dissect the OS to your hearts content , you can be rest assured for all the money and skill the NSA have it 's nothing compared to the millions of researchers , hackers and criminals that would love nothing more than to find that backdoor.You seem to be taking it a step further and suggesting it 's bugged- tell me , if it 's for intelligence gathering why is no one seeing any unrecognised outbound traffic on their networking hardware that could be part of this ?
do you think the NSA have developed a protocol that is invisible to routers but somehow still gets routed ?
Or do you think every router manufacturer in the world is in on it too and people who have dissected those have just not found it either ? It 's a wild conspiracy theory , it 's non-sensical and has no basis in reality .
The PC is an open platform , you ca n't just hide that sort of thing from everyone , someone is going to find traces of it , evidence of it.But get this , here 's a bigger reason it 's a stupid idea- do you really think the KGB could get this past CSIS , MI5 , MI6 , the FSB and other foreign intelligence services ?
Do n't you think MI5 would be up in arms if the NSA had access to the data of the UK 's biggest companies able to bankrupt them at any moment by leaking their most confidential secrets ? Twist Microsoft 's words all you want , but it 's pretty clear what they said .
It does n't just sound paranoid , it is paranoid , irrationally so .
It is what it is , the guy helped advise Microsoft on security- from the summary at least it does n't sound like he got close to the source code even.But then , perhaps I 'm a Microsoft/NSA plant right ?
Surely that 's a good explanation to keep yourself convinced of such a ludicrous idea as conspiracy nuts ultimately choose to do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people can find general small scale security exploits in Windows, what makes you think they'd be able to hide a full blown back door?Sorry but it's just fantasy, paranoia.
We've had this theory before but no one ever manages to find any traces of this backdoor.
If you have it installed you can dissect the OS to your hearts content, you can be rest assured for all the money and skill the NSA have it's nothing compared to the millions of researchers, hackers and criminals that would love nothing more than to find that backdoor.You seem to be taking it a step further and suggesting it's bugged- tell me, if it's for intelligence gathering why is no one seeing any unrecognised outbound traffic on their networking hardware that could be part of this?
do you think the NSA have developed a protocol that is invisible to routers but somehow still gets routed?
Or do you think every router manufacturer in the world is in on it too and people who have dissected those have just not found it either?It's a wild conspiracy theory, it's non-sensical and has no basis in reality.
The PC is an open platform, you can't just hide that sort of thing from everyone, someone is going to find traces of it, evidence of it.But get this, here's a bigger reason it's a stupid idea- do you really think the KGB could get this past CSIS, MI5, MI6, the FSB and other foreign intelligence services?
Don't you think MI5 would be up in arms if the NSA had access to the data of the UK's biggest companies able to bankrupt them at any moment by leaking their most confidential secrets?Twist Microsoft's words all you want, but it's pretty clear what they said.
It doesn't just sound paranoid, it is paranoid, irrationally so.
It is what it is, the guy helped advise Microsoft on security- from the summary at least it doesn't sound like he got close to the source code even.But then, perhaps I'm a Microsoft/NSA plant right?
Surely that's a good explanation to keep yourself convinced of such a ludicrous idea as conspiracy nuts ultimately choose to do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166274</id>
	<title>depends on what the definition of "is" is...</title>
	<author>Phizzle</author>
	<datestamp>1258636020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have all seen enough double-talk from the corporations and government over the years... Just because M$ says they didn't put "backdoors" does not mean jack, since the term "backdoor" is widely subject to interpretation. They didn't exactly say ability to remotely access individual systems without users knowledge...

As far as being able to track users and attach unique IDs to every install of the OS or IE, thats already there. For the paranoid or anyone who cares, most of the hardware devices used for trafficking information already include the so called Lawful Intercept Capabilities - companies like Cisco, Nokia Siemens, etc...

The truly paranoid still have the option to conduct their discreet activities through proxies using spoofed MAC's and various Linux distros running off USB sticks - or so I hear...</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have all seen enough double-talk from the corporations and government over the years... Just because M $ says they did n't put " backdoors " does not mean jack , since the term " backdoor " is widely subject to interpretation .
They did n't exactly say ability to remotely access individual systems without users knowledge.. . As far as being able to track users and attach unique IDs to every install of the OS or IE , thats already there .
For the paranoid or anyone who cares , most of the hardware devices used for trafficking information already include the so called Lawful Intercept Capabilities - companies like Cisco , Nokia Siemens , etc.. . The truly paranoid still have the option to conduct their discreet activities through proxies using spoofed MAC 's and various Linux distros running off USB sticks - or so I hear.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have all seen enough double-talk from the corporations and government over the years... Just because M$ says they didn't put "backdoors" does not mean jack, since the term "backdoor" is widely subject to interpretation.
They didn't exactly say ability to remotely access individual systems without users knowledge...

As far as being able to track users and attach unique IDs to every install of the OS or IE, thats already there.
For the paranoid or anyone who cares, most of the hardware devices used for trafficking information already include the so called Lawful Intercept Capabilities - companies like Cisco, Nokia Siemens, etc...

The truly paranoid still have the option to conduct their discreet activities through proxies using spoofed MAC's and various Linux distros running off USB sticks - or so I hear...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168456</id>
	<title>Re:There's more than one way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258655880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"while Microsoft had to create a special "secure XP" for them because the regular one wasn't up to the task"</p><p>As if they wouldn't have to create a special secure Linux for themselves because the regular one you download off...wherever, won't be up to their task.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" while Microsoft had to create a special " secure XP " for them because the regular one was n't up to the task " As if they would n't have to create a special secure Linux for themselves because the regular one you download off...wherever , wo n't be up to their task .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"while Microsoft had to create a special "secure XP" for them because the regular one wasn't up to the task"As if they wouldn't have to create a special secure Linux for themselves because the regular one you download off...wherever, won't be up to their task.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166830</id>
	<title>Re:I have no problem believing MS this time...</title>
	<author>Nethemas the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1258639020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would they need a back door?  Windows?  Get it?  Access is already implied...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would they need a back door ?
Windows ? Get it ?
Access is already implied.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would they need a back door?
Windows?  Get it?
Access is already implied...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165376</id>
	<title>No fun for Beck here, huh?</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1258631820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's kinda hard for Beck to have fun with this controversy when Microsoft jumps the gun and denies it first, huh?  Well, I'm still wondering why Ballmer refuses to deny he raped and threw chairs at that girl in 1990....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's kinda hard for Beck to have fun with this controversy when Microsoft jumps the gun and denies it first , huh ?
Well , I 'm still wondering why Ballmer refuses to deny he raped and threw chairs at that girl in 1990... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's kinda hard for Beck to have fun with this controversy when Microsoft jumps the gun and denies it first, huh?
Well, I'm still wondering why Ballmer refuses to deny he raped and threw chairs at that girl in 1990....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30170702</id>
	<title>They speak the truth as always</title>
	<author>ShOOf</author>
	<datestamp>1258730640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Microsoft has not and will not put "backdoors" into Windows"</p><p><a href="http://www.cultdeadcow.com/tools/bo.html" title="cultdeadcow.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cultdeadcow.com/tools/bo.html</a> [cultdeadcow.com]</p><p>Ahh the good old says of popping open cd trays remotely and watching people's ICQ conversations as they reacted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Microsoft has not and will not put " backdoors " into Windows " http : //www.cultdeadcow.com/tools/bo.html [ cultdeadcow.com ] Ahh the good old says of popping open cd trays remotely and watching people 's ICQ conversations as they reacted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Microsoft has not and will not put "backdoors" into Windows"http://www.cultdeadcow.com/tools/bo.html [cultdeadcow.com]Ahh the good old says of popping open cd trays remotely and watching people's ICQ conversations as they reacted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30170124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30174092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30175280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30171802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30170018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30172934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30175180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30174936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30180980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30176222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30170436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_2159242_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30174936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165840
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30176222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30174092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30175180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30170124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167098
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169840
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167898
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167296
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168692
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168264
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168680
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30170018
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166830
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166972
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166966
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167602
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30171802
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30175280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30169966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30172934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30170436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30168030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30180980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30164856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30167430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_2159242.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30165212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_2159242.30166070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
