<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_05_1511258</id>
	<title>"Accidental" Download Sending 22-Year-Old Man To Prison</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260030060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Two years ago, Matthew White searched Limewire for porn. He was looking for 'College Girls Gone Wild,' but ended up downloading some images of child pornography. This was accidental, according to White, and he quickly deleted the images. A year later, <a href="http://cbs13.com/local/limewire.child.porn.2.1346842.html">the FBI showed up on his family's doorstep and asked to search the computer</a>. After thorough sleuthing, the FBI found some images 'deep within the hard drive.' According to White, the investigators agreed that he himself could not have accessed the files anymore. Matthew now faces 20 years in jail for possession of child pornography. On advice from his lawyer, he intends to plead guilty so that he will 'hopefully' end up with 3.5 years in jail, 10 years probation and a registration as a sex offender. 'The FBI could not comment on this specific case, but said if child pornography is ever downloaded accidentally, the user needs to call authorities immediately. They may confiscate your computer, but it's better than the alternative.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Two years ago , Matthew White searched Limewire for porn .
He was looking for 'College Girls Gone Wild, ' but ended up downloading some images of child pornography .
This was accidental , according to White , and he quickly deleted the images .
A year later , the FBI showed up on his family 's doorstep and asked to search the computer .
After thorough sleuthing , the FBI found some images 'deep within the hard drive .
' According to White , the investigators agreed that he himself could not have accessed the files anymore .
Matthew now faces 20 years in jail for possession of child pornography .
On advice from his lawyer , he intends to plead guilty so that he will 'hopefully ' end up with 3.5 years in jail , 10 years probation and a registration as a sex offender .
'The FBI could not comment on this specific case , but said if child pornography is ever downloaded accidentally , the user needs to call authorities immediately .
They may confiscate your computer , but it 's better than the alternative .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Two years ago, Matthew White searched Limewire for porn.
He was looking for 'College Girls Gone Wild,' but ended up downloading some images of child pornography.
This was accidental, according to White, and he quickly deleted the images.
A year later, the FBI showed up on his family's doorstep and asked to search the computer.
After thorough sleuthing, the FBI found some images 'deep within the hard drive.
' According to White, the investigators agreed that he himself could not have accessed the files anymore.
Matthew now faces 20 years in jail for possession of child pornography.
On advice from his lawyer, he intends to plead guilty so that he will 'hopefully' end up with 3.5 years in jail, 10 years probation and a registration as a sex offender.
'The FBI could not comment on this specific case, but said if child pornography is ever downloaded accidentally, the user needs to call authorities immediately.
They may confiscate your computer, but it's better than the alternative.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335958</id>
	<title>Orwellian...</title>
	<author>jburton71</author>
	<datestamp>1260036000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just another example of the prophecy of 1984.

If anyone thinks that this sort of activity will diminish in the future then they are just kidding themselves. It will get worse, much worse.

Big Brother wants to know what you are doing, where you are doing it, when you are doing, and even why you are doing it - at all times.

As other posters have said - destroy the drive if you ever THINK you might have accidentally downloaded ANYTHING that your respective Government considers illegal. Preferably with acid, although a sledge hammer would do nicely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just another example of the prophecy of 1984 .
If anyone thinks that this sort of activity will diminish in the future then they are just kidding themselves .
It will get worse , much worse .
Big Brother wants to know what you are doing , where you are doing it , when you are doing , and even why you are doing it - at all times .
As other posters have said - destroy the drive if you ever THINK you might have accidentally downloaded ANYTHING that your respective Government considers illegal .
Preferably with acid , although a sledge hammer would do nicely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just another example of the prophecy of 1984.
If anyone thinks that this sort of activity will diminish in the future then they are just kidding themselves.
It will get worse, much worse.
Big Brother wants to know what you are doing, where you are doing it, when you are doing, and even why you are doing it - at all times.
As other posters have said - destroy the drive if you ever THINK you might have accidentally downloaded ANYTHING that your respective Government considers illegal.
Preferably with acid, although a sledge hammer would do nicely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337808</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>vyrus128</author>
	<datestamp>1260004320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should write up your story in more detail (e.g. how you kept your cool and managed to analogize three more jurors into agreeing with you, without getting kicked off the jury) and post it somewhere. FIJA would certainly publish it for you, and it would be a valuable resource.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should write up your story in more detail ( e.g .
how you kept your cool and managed to analogize three more jurors into agreeing with you , without getting kicked off the jury ) and post it somewhere .
FIJA would certainly publish it for you , and it would be a valuable resource .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should write up your story in more detail (e.g.
how you kept your cool and managed to analogize three more jurors into agreeing with you, without getting kicked off the jury) and post it somewhere.
FIJA would certainly publish it for you, and it would be a valuable resource.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335852</id>
	<title>do the math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260035520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do the math.  What's the most popular porn?  Girls as close to 18 as possible.  Combine that with user submitted porn.  Combine that with typical porn viewing habits, i.e. way too much.  Now do some stats.  Who's leftover that doesn't have something illegal in their cache?  No one who looks at lots of porn, that's for sure.  Face it.  If someone doesn't like you, they can mess your life up financially, politically, emotionally, really anything they fell like if they are malicious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do the math .
What 's the most popular porn ?
Girls as close to 18 as possible .
Combine that with user submitted porn .
Combine that with typical porn viewing habits , i.e .
way too much .
Now do some stats .
Who 's leftover that does n't have something illegal in their cache ?
No one who looks at lots of porn , that 's for sure .
Face it .
If someone does n't like you , they can mess your life up financially , politically , emotionally , really anything they fell like if they are malicious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do the math.
What's the most popular porn?
Girls as close to 18 as possible.
Combine that with user submitted porn.
Combine that with typical porn viewing habits, i.e.
way too much.
Now do some stats.
Who's leftover that doesn't have something illegal in their cache?
No one who looks at lots of porn, that's for sure.
Face it.
If someone doesn't like you, they can mess your life up financially, politically, emotionally, really anything they fell like if they are malicious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337684</id>
	<title>Re:Call the cops</title>
	<author>pipatron</author>
	<datestamp>1260003600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's very rare to hind behind Tor for downloading child porn, it's very slow and unreliable for large transfers. If you're doing something illegal you might as well rent some russian VPN or something already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's very rare to hind behind Tor for downloading child porn , it 's very slow and unreliable for large transfers .
If you 're doing something illegal you might as well rent some russian VPN or something already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's very rare to hind behind Tor for downloading child porn, it's very slow and unreliable for large transfers.
If you're doing something illegal you might as well rent some russian VPN or something already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336240</id>
	<title>Re:Wow is this scary</title>
	<author>Dunkirk</author>
	<datestamp>1260037800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a good question. The followup that occurs to me is: if law enforcement is so bored or desperate for a win that they have to stoop to hanging a guy (who actually, really is just guilty of an accident which he took care of), then will they stop if they don't find deleted, incriminating files? Will they then rely solely on their logs, which they will claim to a jury proves everything? And then claim that the fact that they couldn't find ANY deleted files is proof that he's hiding his illegal activities in such a nefarious way that their "cybercrime experts" can't even trace it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a good question .
The followup that occurs to me is : if law enforcement is so bored or desperate for a win that they have to stoop to hanging a guy ( who actually , really is just guilty of an accident which he took care of ) , then will they stop if they do n't find deleted , incriminating files ?
Will they then rely solely on their logs , which they will claim to a jury proves everything ?
And then claim that the fact that they could n't find ANY deleted files is proof that he 's hiding his illegal activities in such a nefarious way that their " cybercrime experts " ca n't even trace it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a good question.
The followup that occurs to me is: if law enforcement is so bored or desperate for a win that they have to stoop to hanging a guy (who actually, really is just guilty of an accident which he took care of), then will they stop if they don't find deleted, incriminating files?
Will they then rely solely on their logs, which they will claim to a jury proves everything?
And then claim that the fact that they couldn't find ANY deleted files is proof that he's hiding his illegal activities in such a nefarious way that their "cybercrime experts" can't even trace it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338604</id>
	<title>Re:I think the right move would be...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260010260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In an ideal world, yes, but in reality it's not always as simple as that.  Someone close to me was indicted on a felony copyright charge, which, like this, was blown way out of proportion.  Nationally known legal experts said he'd probably lose first, then likely win on appeal, which would take years, and this thing had already been dragging on for several years.  So, when they offered a plea for a misdemeanor, he took it, rather that deal with the hassle and stress this was putting on him and his family for another 5-10 years.  Until you've lived it, I don't think anyone can understand what it's like to deal with something like this for years and years.</p><p>In that case, however, there were no long-term consequences to the plea.  If this guy has to register as a sex-offender will ruin his life.  It would be a tragic loss of a potentially productive member of society if this kid has to register.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In an ideal world , yes , but in reality it 's not always as simple as that .
Someone close to me was indicted on a felony copyright charge , which , like this , was blown way out of proportion .
Nationally known legal experts said he 'd probably lose first , then likely win on appeal , which would take years , and this thing had already been dragging on for several years .
So , when they offered a plea for a misdemeanor , he took it , rather that deal with the hassle and stress this was putting on him and his family for another 5-10 years .
Until you 've lived it , I do n't think anyone can understand what it 's like to deal with something like this for years and years.In that case , however , there were no long-term consequences to the plea .
If this guy has to register as a sex-offender will ruin his life .
It would be a tragic loss of a potentially productive member of society if this kid has to register .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In an ideal world, yes, but in reality it's not always as simple as that.
Someone close to me was indicted on a felony copyright charge, which, like this, was blown way out of proportion.
Nationally known legal experts said he'd probably lose first, then likely win on appeal, which would take years, and this thing had already been dragging on for several years.
So, when they offered a plea for a misdemeanor, he took it, rather that deal with the hassle and stress this was putting on him and his family for another 5-10 years.
Until you've lived it, I don't think anyone can understand what it's like to deal with something like this for years and years.In that case, however, there were no long-term consequences to the plea.
If this guy has to register as a sex-offender will ruin his life.
It would be a tragic loss of a potentially productive member of society if this kid has to register.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335940</id>
	<title>software for self protection</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260035880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>since there is a plethora of software to remove virus from computers, I am wondering if there is software available to the public to find and remove (all traces) of pornography on a computer.   In particular the public should have access to the software the FBI uses to find pornography.   Consider this scenario you take a job and are assigned a computer ( previously used)  later pornography is found on the computer and you are fired or worse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>since there is a plethora of software to remove virus from computers , I am wondering if there is software available to the public to find and remove ( all traces ) of pornography on a computer .
In particular the public should have access to the software the FBI uses to find pornography .
Consider this scenario you take a job and are assigned a computer ( previously used ) later pornography is found on the computer and you are fired or worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>since there is a plethora of software to remove virus from computers, I am wondering if there is software available to the public to find and remove (all traces) of pornography on a computer.
In particular the public should have access to the software the FBI uses to find pornography.
Consider this scenario you take a job and are assigned a computer ( previously used)  later pornography is found on the computer and you are fired or worse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336178</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Ideas</title>
	<author>\_LORAX\_</author>
	<datestamp>1260037320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really.</p><p>In the UK possession of a firearm is a crime.  He found a shotgun, held on to it for 24 hours, called the police but didn't tell them what he was bringing in, took public transportation with a loaded shotgun, showed up at the station, and plonked an illegal weapon on the front desk.  He was an idiot and he will probably face some jail time for his ineptitude.  He should have left the crime scene undisturbed and called the police.  The UK police have dealt with other situations and even had citizens take possession of firearms when they were in dangerous locations ( playground ) and there were no charges in those cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really.In the UK possession of a firearm is a crime .
He found a shotgun , held on to it for 24 hours , called the police but did n't tell them what he was bringing in , took public transportation with a loaded shotgun , showed up at the station , and plonked an illegal weapon on the front desk .
He was an idiot and he will probably face some jail time for his ineptitude .
He should have left the crime scene undisturbed and called the police .
The UK police have dealt with other situations and even had citizens take possession of firearms when they were in dangerous locations ( playground ) and there were no charges in those cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.In the UK possession of a firearm is a crime.
He found a shotgun, held on to it for 24 hours, called the police but didn't tell them what he was bringing in, took public transportation with a loaded shotgun, showed up at the station, and plonked an illegal weapon on the front desk.
He was an idiot and he will probably face some jail time for his ineptitude.
He should have left the crime scene undisturbed and called the police.
The UK police have dealt with other situations and even had citizens take possession of firearms when they were in dangerous locations ( playground ) and there were no charges in those cases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337864</id>
	<title>Quack Quack</title>
	<author>Winkhorst</author>
	<datestamp>1260004680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I was going to bring this up myself.

"Yes, THEY can murder thousands of people both here and abroad, but YOU cannot accidentally fart in public without them wanting to lock you up for the rest of your life.

"What just blew me away last night watching a video from PilotsFor911Truth was that the NTSB simulation agrees with the interviews done by the guys at NationalSecurityAlert, that the plane at the Pentagon followed a northerly flight path that could not possibly have knocked over the light poles. The only folks who were out of step on this were the 911 Commission. Add to this the failure to reset the altitude gauge in the simulation upon descent and you have the plane at 400+ feet, flying OVER the Pentagon and not into it."


Moderators are idiots.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I was going to bring this up myself .
" Yes , THEY can murder thousands of people both here and abroad , but YOU can not accidentally fart in public without them wanting to lock you up for the rest of your life .
" What just blew me away last night watching a video from PilotsFor911Truth was that the NTSB simulation agrees with the interviews done by the guys at NationalSecurityAlert , that the plane at the Pentagon followed a northerly flight path that could not possibly have knocked over the light poles .
The only folks who were out of step on this were the 911 Commission .
Add to this the failure to reset the altitude gauge in the simulation upon descent and you have the plane at 400 + feet , flying OVER the Pentagon and not into it .
" Moderators are idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I was going to bring this up myself.
"Yes, THEY can murder thousands of people both here and abroad, but YOU cannot accidentally fart in public without them wanting to lock you up for the rest of your life.
"What just blew me away last night watching a video from PilotsFor911Truth was that the NTSB simulation agrees with the interviews done by the guys at NationalSecurityAlert, that the plane at the Pentagon followed a northerly flight path that could not possibly have knocked over the light poles.
The only folks who were out of step on this were the 911 Commission.
Add to this the failure to reset the altitude gauge in the simulation upon descent and you have the plane at 400+ feet, flying OVER the Pentagon and not into it.
"


Moderators are idiots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338028</id>
	<title>Re:It happens</title>
	<author>Lehk228</author>
	<datestamp>1260005820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Prosecutor: so you admit that you frequent a web site with semi-regular posting of child pornography AND when it is posted you access it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Prosecutor : so you admit that you frequent a web site with semi-regular posting of child pornography AND when it is posted you access it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prosecutor: so you admit that you frequent a web site with semi-regular posting of child pornography AND when it is posted you access it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339610</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260018180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His intent was to divest himself of the illegal firearm and deliver it to the proper authorities.  He did so without harming anyone.  That's worth taking three years of his life at the taxpayer's expense?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His intent was to divest himself of the illegal firearm and deliver it to the proper authorities .
He did so without harming anyone .
That 's worth taking three years of his life at the taxpayer 's expense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His intent was to divest himself of the illegal firearm and deliver it to the proper authorities.
He did so without harming anyone.
That's worth taking three years of his life at the taxpayer's expense?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337292</id>
	<title>Re:Government.</title>
	<author>jjohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1260044100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False\_dilemma" title="wikipedia.org">False dilemma</a> [wikipedia.org], have you met him?  He's a really good guy to know!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>False dilemma [ wikipedia.org ] , have you met him ?
He 's a really good guy to know !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>False dilemma [wikipedia.org], have you met him?
He's a really good guy to know!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341648</id>
	<title>1984 AGAIN?</title>
	<author>Jager Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1260130080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is like the <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/04/1918206/Woman-Filming-Sisters-Birthday-Party-Gets-Charged-With-Felony-Movie-Piracy" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">story of a 22yr old woman innocently filming her sister's bday party,</a> [slashdot.org] and accidentally capturing part of the new "Twilight"....and subsequently being arrested... Except this is MUCH worse - because now this guy is going to jail, AND be branded (anyone read "The Scarlet Letter"...or know any lepers?) as a "Sex Offender"..
<p>

I myself have accidentally downloaded files I suspect were illegal - but never <i>intentionally</i>.  Thanks to FrostWire's preview feature, I was able to see them for what they were, before they completed.  Thanks to <a href="http://www.fileshredder.org/" title="fileshredder.org" rel="nofollow">File Shredder</a> [fileshredder.org] (to which I have no affiliation), I was able to rid myself of that garbage. (make sure you wipe the "preview" file, too!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:&gt; ) </p><p>

The government is going TOO far...  Go after the people MAKING this shit and ruining kids lives, and the people that download it INTENTIONALLY.  A deleted file should say, right there and then, that the person was trying to OBEY the law.  Files on the internet/p2p are like buying stuff off TV - you SEE what you're supposed to get, but when it gets there, it's something TOTALLY different.</p><p>

Take care, fellow slashdotters...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is like the story of a 22yr old woman innocently filming her sister 's bday party , [ slashdot.org ] and accidentally capturing part of the new " Twilight " ....and subsequently being arrested... Except this is MUCH worse - because now this guy is going to jail , AND be branded ( anyone read " The Scarlet Letter " ...or know any lepers ?
) as a " Sex Offender " . . I myself have accidentally downloaded files I suspect were illegal - but never intentionally .
Thanks to FrostWire 's preview feature , I was able to see them for what they were , before they completed .
Thanks to File Shredder [ fileshredder.org ] ( to which I have no affiliation ) , I was able to rid myself of that garbage .
( make sure you wipe the " preview " file , too !
: &gt; ) The government is going TOO far... Go after the people MAKING this shit and ruining kids lives , and the people that download it INTENTIONALLY .
A deleted file should say , right there and then , that the person was trying to OBEY the law .
Files on the internet/p2p are like buying stuff off TV - you SEE what you 're supposed to get , but when it gets there , it 's something TOTALLY different .
Take care , fellow slashdotters.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is like the story of a 22yr old woman innocently filming her sister's bday party, [slashdot.org] and accidentally capturing part of the new "Twilight"....and subsequently being arrested... Except this is MUCH worse - because now this guy is going to jail, AND be branded (anyone read "The Scarlet Letter"...or know any lepers?
) as a "Sex Offender"..


I myself have accidentally downloaded files I suspect were illegal - but never intentionally.
Thanks to FrostWire's preview feature, I was able to see them for what they were, before they completed.
Thanks to File Shredder [fileshredder.org] (to which I have no affiliation), I was able to rid myself of that garbage.
(make sure you wipe the "preview" file, too!
:&gt; ) 

The government is going TOO far...  Go after the people MAKING this shit and ruining kids lives, and the people that download it INTENTIONALLY.
A deleted file should say, right there and then, that the person was trying to OBEY the law.
Files on the internet/p2p are like buying stuff off TV - you SEE what you're supposed to get, but when it gets there, it's something TOTALLY different.
Take care, fellow slashdotters...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336362</id>
	<title>Usenet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260038580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have usenet access via Easynews. After a little while of having the service, I realised I didn't have to use an NNTP client and could access everything from their website. They also provide a global search feature. Here's some email correspondence I had with them after my very first use of it.</p><p>Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:30:38 +0000<br>To: abuse@easynews.com<br>Subject: CP Report</p><p>I recently tested out your global search engine and searched for Type:<br>Image, Keyword: Anything.</p><p>The first link clearly looks like CP. I have read your FAQ, which directs me<br>to report it at this email address.</p><p>message-id: [removed because of the junk filter]</p><p>---</p><p>Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:45:15 -0700<br>Subject: [Ticket #254206] CP Report<br>From: "Support via RT" [abuse@easynews.com]</p><p>Hello,</p><p>If you are reporting a violation of our Terms of Service, please send us<br>a sample message header from the posts in question. We need a full<br>message header in order to investigate the posts and take the<br>appropriate action.</p><p>http://www.easynews.com/childpolicy.html</p><p>Thank you,<br>Easynews Abuse Department</p><p>---</p><p>Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:59:45 +0000<br>To: abuse@easynews.com<br>Subject: Re: [Ticket #254206] CP Report</p><p>Hello,</p><p>You want me to actively look for this child pornography for you? The link<br>you have given me, states that I should email you the \_message ids\_, which<br>is what I sent you, as well as telling you how I discovered it.</p><p>I'm not sure what else you need and I am not going try to find the image<br>again, for obvious reasons.</p><p>Again, the message id is: [removed because of the junk filter]</p><p>Thank you.</p><p>---</p><p>I never received a reply. I don't know if it was ever removed, but I get the impression they weren't too bothered about it. I wonder where I stand?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have usenet access via Easynews .
After a little while of having the service , I realised I did n't have to use an NNTP client and could access everything from their website .
They also provide a global search feature .
Here 's some email correspondence I had with them after my very first use of it.Date : Sun , 17 Feb 2008 20 : 30 : 38 + 0000To : abuse @ easynews.comSubject : CP ReportI recently tested out your global search engine and searched for Type : Image , Keyword : Anything.The first link clearly looks like CP .
I have read your FAQ , which directs meto report it at this email address.message-id : [ removed because of the junk filter ] ---Date : Thu , 21 Feb 2008 20 : 45 : 15 -0700Subject : [ Ticket # 254206 ] CP ReportFrom : " Support via RT " [ abuse @ easynews.com ] Hello,If you are reporting a violation of our Terms of Service , please send usa sample message header from the posts in question .
We need a fullmessage header in order to investigate the posts and take theappropriate action.http : //www.easynews.com/childpolicy.htmlThank you,Easynews Abuse Department---Date : Fri , 22 Feb 2008 17 : 59 : 45 + 0000To : abuse @ easynews.comSubject : Re : [ Ticket # 254206 ] CP ReportHello,You want me to actively look for this child pornography for you ?
The linkyou have given me , states that I should email you the \ _message ids \ _ , whichis what I sent you , as well as telling you how I discovered it.I 'm not sure what else you need and I am not going try to find the imageagain , for obvious reasons.Again , the message id is : [ removed because of the junk filter ] Thank you.---I never received a reply .
I do n't know if it was ever removed , but I get the impression they were n't too bothered about it .
I wonder where I stand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have usenet access via Easynews.
After a little while of having the service, I realised I didn't have to use an NNTP client and could access everything from their website.
They also provide a global search feature.
Here's some email correspondence I had with them after my very first use of it.Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:30:38 +0000To: abuse@easynews.comSubject: CP ReportI recently tested out your global search engine and searched for Type:Image, Keyword: Anything.The first link clearly looks like CP.
I have read your FAQ, which directs meto report it at this email address.message-id: [removed because of the junk filter]---Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:45:15 -0700Subject: [Ticket #254206] CP ReportFrom: "Support via RT" [abuse@easynews.com]Hello,If you are reporting a violation of our Terms of Service, please send usa sample message header from the posts in question.
We need a fullmessage header in order to investigate the posts and take theappropriate action.http://www.easynews.com/childpolicy.htmlThank you,Easynews Abuse Department---Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:59:45 +0000To: abuse@easynews.comSubject: Re: [Ticket #254206] CP ReportHello,You want me to actively look for this child pornography for you?
The linkyou have given me, states that I should email you the \_message ids\_, whichis what I sent you, as well as telling you how I discovered it.I'm not sure what else you need and I am not going try to find the imageagain, for obvious reasons.Again, the message id is: [removed because of the junk filter]Thank you.---I never received a reply.
I don't know if it was ever removed, but I get the impression they weren't too bothered about it.
I wonder where I stand?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339336</id>
	<title>Lottery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260015900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I go out right now and download some CP on Limewire, what are the chances of my being caught?</p><p>I ask this because we see this or similar stories every couple of months. Is this reflective of the conviction rate, or are droves of people being arrested for similar offenses that we never hear of?</p><p>I find it hard to believe that everyone looking at 17 year olds on Limewire is convicted, but then again what would be the point of having a reverse lottery? Is it a fear thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I go out right now and download some CP on Limewire , what are the chances of my being caught ? I ask this because we see this or similar stories every couple of months .
Is this reflective of the conviction rate , or are droves of people being arrested for similar offenses that we never hear of ? I find it hard to believe that everyone looking at 17 year olds on Limewire is convicted , but then again what would be the point of having a reverse lottery ?
Is it a fear thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I go out right now and download some CP on Limewire, what are the chances of my being caught?I ask this because we see this or similar stories every couple of months.
Is this reflective of the conviction rate, or are droves of people being arrested for similar offenses that we never hear of?I find it hard to believe that everyone looking at 17 year olds on Limewire is convicted, but then again what would be the point of having a reverse lottery?
Is it a fear thing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336406</id>
	<title>Re:Call the cops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260038820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Erasing a partition could also easily be done with a linux Live CD:  dd if=dev/zero of=/dev/sda1 bs=512 (should also work with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/random)<br>Repeat multiple times if paranoid, but I think once is enough to make it impossible to extract data without throwing millions at it.</p><p>Btw. they probably found a connection log on a PC of the sender, tracker of the limewire, or searched his ISP's logs (arguably, ISP shouldn't log that kind of data). It's even possible that secretly all routing is logged, though this probably causes too much traffic. I wonder how many child pornographers hide behind tools like Tor these days. All this is just redicolous because they probably can't catch more than few \% of them.<br>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Erasing a partition could also easily be done with a linux Live CD : dd if = dev/zero of = /dev/sda1 bs = 512 ( should also work with /dev/random ) Repeat multiple times if paranoid , but I think once is enough to make it impossible to extract data without throwing millions at it.Btw .
they probably found a connection log on a PC of the sender , tracker of the limewire , or searched his ISP 's logs ( arguably , ISP should n't log that kind of data ) .
It 's even possible that secretly all routing is logged , though this probably causes too much traffic .
I wonder how many child pornographers hide behind tools like Tor these days .
All this is just redicolous because they probably ca n't catch more than few \ % of them. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erasing a partition could also easily be done with a linux Live CD:  dd if=dev/zero of=/dev/sda1 bs=512 (should also work with /dev/random)Repeat multiple times if paranoid, but I think once is enough to make it impossible to extract data without throwing millions at it.Btw.
they probably found a connection log on a PC of the sender, tracker of the limewire, or searched his ISP's logs (arguably, ISP shouldn't log that kind of data).
It's even possible that secretly all routing is logged, though this probably causes too much traffic.
I wonder how many child pornographers hide behind tools like Tor these days.
All this is just redicolous because they probably can't catch more than few \% of them..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335736</id>
	<title>They're going too far</title>
	<author>boudie2</author>
	<datestamp>1260034860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has to be one of the worst examples I've seen of law enforcement
over stepping their boundaries. Nobody can argue that child porn is
bad stuff BUT taking your computer if you accidentally dl it is almost
more outrageous than 20 years in prison for possession.
Wouldn't it be better if you were trying to download something of
dubious origin to save it on a USB thumb drive? Just bypass the
hard drive until you're sure it's safe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has to be one of the worst examples I 've seen of law enforcement over stepping their boundaries .
Nobody can argue that child porn is bad stuff BUT taking your computer if you accidentally dl it is almost more outrageous than 20 years in prison for possession .
Would n't it be better if you were trying to download something of dubious origin to save it on a USB thumb drive ?
Just bypass the hard drive until you 're sure it 's safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has to be one of the worst examples I've seen of law enforcement
over stepping their boundaries.
Nobody can argue that child porn is
bad stuff BUT taking your computer if you accidentally dl it is almost
more outrageous than 20 years in prison for possession.
Wouldn't it be better if you were trying to download something of
dubious origin to save it on a USB thumb drive?
Just bypass the
hard drive until you're sure it's safe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335932</id>
	<title>Malware &amp; Spam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260035880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if you computer is or has been part on a botnet that transfered that kind of picture to your hard drive, without you ever be aware of that? What if spammers or botnet hoarders starts to send mails with child porn attached to millons of email addresses? Or worse, what if someone sends to a rival a simple anonymous mail with such picture and then call the cops?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if you computer is or has been part on a botnet that transfered that kind of picture to your hard drive , without you ever be aware of that ?
What if spammers or botnet hoarders starts to send mails with child porn attached to millons of email addresses ?
Or worse , what if someone sends to a rival a simple anonymous mail with such picture and then call the cops ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if you computer is or has been part on a botnet that transfered that kind of picture to your hard drive, without you ever be aware of that?
What if spammers or botnet hoarders starts to send mails with child porn attached to millons of email addresses?
Or worse, what if someone sends to a rival a simple anonymous mail with such picture and then call the cops?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336542</id>
	<title>Re:Never volunteer anything to the cops</title>
	<author>greenbird</author>
	<datestamp>1260039480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fire the lawyer. No jury will convict.</p></div><p>They almost certainly would. The prosecutor just has to make it clear that the only relevant fact is that he did download the images. It's completely irrelevant to his guilt or innocence that he immediately deleted the images. These laws leave absolutely no wiggle room with regards to intent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fire the lawyer .
No jury will convict.They almost certainly would .
The prosecutor just has to make it clear that the only relevant fact is that he did download the images .
It 's completely irrelevant to his guilt or innocence that he immediately deleted the images .
These laws leave absolutely no wiggle room with regards to intent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fire the lawyer.
No jury will convict.They almost certainly would.
The prosecutor just has to make it clear that the only relevant fact is that he did download the images.
It's completely irrelevant to his guilt or innocence that he immediately deleted the images.
These laws leave absolutely no wiggle room with regards to intent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339122</id>
	<title>What about browsing records?</title>
	<author>riker1384</author>
	<datestamp>1260014400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if that works on files you drag into the Trash, what about your browsing history and cache? Are those securely deleted when you clear them in Safari?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if that works on files you drag into the Trash , what about your browsing history and cache ?
Are those securely deleted when you clear them in Safari ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if that works on files you drag into the Trash, what about your browsing history and cache?
Are those securely deleted when you clear them in Safari?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336412</id>
	<title>Run Linux</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1260038820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>/usr/bin/shred is your friend. Won't always do the job, but usually suffices. Destroying the hard drive is excessive, unless you're running for public office.</htmltext>
<tokenext>/usr/bin/shred is your friend .
Wo n't always do the job , but usually suffices .
Destroying the hard drive is excessive , unless you 're running for public office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/usr/bin/shred is your friend.
Won't always do the job, but usually suffices.
Destroying the hard drive is excessive, unless you're running for public office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336090</id>
	<title>Re:FBI bait?</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1260036780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The FBI bait sites are awesome, because they don't care how downloaded the image, just that you made the request.  So, people have found out what the bait images are, apparently, and like to "FBI Roll"  people by either linking to them directly, or even better, putting them as a 1x1 image hidden somewhere on an innocuous page.  That way you never even see it, but it's in your browser cache now, so when the FBI comes knocking after your download, it'll be there.   Somebody needs to step this program up a notch, and start FBI rolling every major newscaster, reporter, media executive, and politician (big and small).  Until that happens, nobody gives a shit.  Nobody cares that some innocent guy goes to jail for 3.5 years and can never get a job ever again and dies homeless, nobody cares in the slightest.  Nobody even cares when a 17 year old girl gets 10 years for taking a pic of her tits and sending it to her boyfriend.  Because she's a pedophile, it says so right here in the charges, anybody defending her is also a pedophile.  And in fact, since she's underage, anybody defending her is a DOUBLE pedophile.  You can imagine, a double pedophile is not something you want to be.  That's right, the war on child porn is so bad, people won't even care about a white, privileged, teenage girl!  I think you'd have to get every last person in the house and senate indited at once, because if you even only got half of them, the other half would turn on them like rabid wolves, cheering and applauding that the bait system works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The FBI bait sites are awesome , because they do n't care how downloaded the image , just that you made the request .
So , people have found out what the bait images are , apparently , and like to " FBI Roll " people by either linking to them directly , or even better , putting them as a 1x1 image hidden somewhere on an innocuous page .
That way you never even see it , but it 's in your browser cache now , so when the FBI comes knocking after your download , it 'll be there .
Somebody needs to step this program up a notch , and start FBI rolling every major newscaster , reporter , media executive , and politician ( big and small ) .
Until that happens , nobody gives a shit .
Nobody cares that some innocent guy goes to jail for 3.5 years and can never get a job ever again and dies homeless , nobody cares in the slightest .
Nobody even cares when a 17 year old girl gets 10 years for taking a pic of her tits and sending it to her boyfriend .
Because she 's a pedophile , it says so right here in the charges , anybody defending her is also a pedophile .
And in fact , since she 's underage , anybody defending her is a DOUBLE pedophile .
You can imagine , a double pedophile is not something you want to be .
That 's right , the war on child porn is so bad , people wo n't even care about a white , privileged , teenage girl !
I think you 'd have to get every last person in the house and senate indited at once , because if you even only got half of them , the other half would turn on them like rabid wolves , cheering and applauding that the bait system works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FBI bait sites are awesome, because they don't care how downloaded the image, just that you made the request.
So, people have found out what the bait images are, apparently, and like to "FBI Roll"  people by either linking to them directly, or even better, putting them as a 1x1 image hidden somewhere on an innocuous page.
That way you never even see it, but it's in your browser cache now, so when the FBI comes knocking after your download, it'll be there.
Somebody needs to step this program up a notch, and start FBI rolling every major newscaster, reporter, media executive, and politician (big and small).
Until that happens, nobody gives a shit.
Nobody cares that some innocent guy goes to jail for 3.5 years and can never get a job ever again and dies homeless, nobody cares in the slightest.
Nobody even cares when a 17 year old girl gets 10 years for taking a pic of her tits and sending it to her boyfriend.
Because she's a pedophile, it says so right here in the charges, anybody defending her is also a pedophile.
And in fact, since she's underage, anybody defending her is a DOUBLE pedophile.
You can imagine, a double pedophile is not something you want to be.
That's right, the war on child porn is so bad, people won't even care about a white, privileged, teenage girl!
I think you'd have to get every last person in the house and senate indited at once, because if you even only got half of them, the other half would turn on them like rabid wolves, cheering and applauding that the bait system works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341390</id>
	<title>Re:I think the right move would be...</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1260039060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the cost of losing is expected to be 20 years, but a plea right now would get you two years, it's in your best interests to take the two years</p></div><p>
You're looking at this the wrong way.  Either of the two options you describe are both terrible losses for the accused, because either way he is becoming a <b>convicted felon</b>, and a <b>convicted sex offender</b> (not to mention a <b>convicted pedophile</b>).  In case you did not already know this, convicted felons are (at best) strictly second-class citizens in the US.  Do you think your job security is questionable?  A convicted felon can be fired from any job, at any employer, at any time, with no advance notice or justification needed.  A convicted felon is, under pretty much any situation, presumed guilty by the law and can be subjected to harsher treatments by law enforcement than the average citizen.  A convicted felon is turned away from visiting most other modern countries.  A convicted felon is generally not accepted for employment or education at most of our institutions of higher learning (remember we are talking about a 22-year-old man here).<br> <br>
Even if this man might not have a great chance at his first trial for this, he does have the constitutional right to appeal as long as he pleads not guilty.  If he takes a plea bargain (and hence enters a plea of guilty) he waives his right to appeal.  If he loses the initial trial, he can appeal this case a long way if needed, and it would be in his best interest to do so.<br> <br>
This man has everything to lose by taking that plea bargain.  Even if he were to go through multiple years of appeals (claiming his innocence at every possible opportunity) it would still be better than to ever admit guilt and take the label of convicted felon for the rest of his life.<br> <br>
This isn't a jaywalking citation we're talking about here.  We are talking about a felony accusation that carries severe consequences upon conviction, which means we are talking about the remainder of the life of a 22-year-old man who to this point had no criminal record.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the cost of losing is expected to be 20 years , but a plea right now would get you two years , it 's in your best interests to take the two years You 're looking at this the wrong way .
Either of the two options you describe are both terrible losses for the accused , because either way he is becoming a convicted felon , and a convicted sex offender ( not to mention a convicted pedophile ) .
In case you did not already know this , convicted felons are ( at best ) strictly second-class citizens in the US .
Do you think your job security is questionable ?
A convicted felon can be fired from any job , at any employer , at any time , with no advance notice or justification needed .
A convicted felon is , under pretty much any situation , presumed guilty by the law and can be subjected to harsher treatments by law enforcement than the average citizen .
A convicted felon is turned away from visiting most other modern countries .
A convicted felon is generally not accepted for employment or education at most of our institutions of higher learning ( remember we are talking about a 22-year-old man here ) .
Even if this man might not have a great chance at his first trial for this , he does have the constitutional right to appeal as long as he pleads not guilty .
If he takes a plea bargain ( and hence enters a plea of guilty ) he waives his right to appeal .
If he loses the initial trial , he can appeal this case a long way if needed , and it would be in his best interest to do so .
This man has everything to lose by taking that plea bargain .
Even if he were to go through multiple years of appeals ( claiming his innocence at every possible opportunity ) it would still be better than to ever admit guilt and take the label of convicted felon for the rest of his life .
This is n't a jaywalking citation we 're talking about here .
We are talking about a felony accusation that carries severe consequences upon conviction , which means we are talking about the remainder of the life of a 22-year-old man who to this point had no criminal record .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the cost of losing is expected to be 20 years, but a plea right now would get you two years, it's in your best interests to take the two years
You're looking at this the wrong way.
Either of the two options you describe are both terrible losses for the accused, because either way he is becoming a convicted felon, and a convicted sex offender (not to mention a convicted pedophile).
In case you did not already know this, convicted felons are (at best) strictly second-class citizens in the US.
Do you think your job security is questionable?
A convicted felon can be fired from any job, at any employer, at any time, with no advance notice or justification needed.
A convicted felon is, under pretty much any situation, presumed guilty by the law and can be subjected to harsher treatments by law enforcement than the average citizen.
A convicted felon is turned away from visiting most other modern countries.
A convicted felon is generally not accepted for employment or education at most of our institutions of higher learning (remember we are talking about a 22-year-old man here).
Even if this man might not have a great chance at his first trial for this, he does have the constitutional right to appeal as long as he pleads not guilty.
If he takes a plea bargain (and hence enters a plea of guilty) he waives his right to appeal.
If he loses the initial trial, he can appeal this case a long way if needed, and it would be in his best interest to do so.
This man has everything to lose by taking that plea bargain.
Even if he were to go through multiple years of appeals (claiming his innocence at every possible opportunity) it would still be better than to ever admit guilt and take the label of convicted felon for the rest of his life.
This isn't a jaywalking citation we're talking about here.
We are talking about a felony accusation that carries severe consequences upon conviction, which means we are talking about the remainder of the life of a 22-year-old man who to this point had no criminal record.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335620</id>
	<title>From the article:</title>
	<author>WGFCrafty</author>
	<datestamp>1260034320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"One day, you're going to get a knock on the door and have your child taken away for many years," he said.</p></div><p>
<b>No one</b> sees any problem with letting German existentialists design our laws until things like this start to happen.
<br> <br>
Good job Kafka!
<br> <br>
Asshole.....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" One day , you 're going to get a knock on the door and have your child taken away for many years , " he said .
No one sees any problem with letting German existentialists design our laws until things like this start to happen .
Good job Kafka !
Asshole.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"One day, you're going to get a knock on the door and have your child taken away for many years," he said.
No one sees any problem with letting German existentialists design our laws until things like this start to happen.
Good job Kafka!
Asshole.....
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336304</id>
	<title>Accidental?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260038160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, I'm not saying his defense isn't possible, but why do we immediately assume he's innocent?</p><p>Yes, the data was deleted, but do we know for how long?  As far as "unable to access" on a filesystem is concerned, deleted 2 minutes ago versus 2 years ago is about the same.  Also, if he had deleted it a year ago, you'd think the dirty blocks would have been partially erased, huh?  Kinda weird if the FBI could still detect it...and would mean that he has probably deleted it much later than he claims or the FBI knew information about the files beforehand as they were *gasp* FBI BAIT!</p><p>So we don't know the whole story here, and yeah, maybe he's right, but we haven't seen all the evidence.</p><p>I mean, not that a slashdot summary could -EVER- be wrong or incomplete<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , I 'm not saying his defense is n't possible , but why do we immediately assume he 's innocent ? Yes , the data was deleted , but do we know for how long ?
As far as " unable to access " on a filesystem is concerned , deleted 2 minutes ago versus 2 years ago is about the same .
Also , if he had deleted it a year ago , you 'd think the dirty blocks would have been partially erased , huh ?
Kinda weird if the FBI could still detect it...and would mean that he has probably deleted it much later than he claims or the FBI knew information about the files beforehand as they were * gasp * FBI BAIT ! So we do n't know the whole story here , and yeah , maybe he 's right , but we have n't seen all the evidence.I mean , not that a slashdot summary could -EVER- be wrong or incomplete : P .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, I'm not saying his defense isn't possible, but why do we immediately assume he's innocent?Yes, the data was deleted, but do we know for how long?
As far as "unable to access" on a filesystem is concerned, deleted 2 minutes ago versus 2 years ago is about the same.
Also, if he had deleted it a year ago, you'd think the dirty blocks would have been partially erased, huh?
Kinda weird if the FBI could still detect it...and would mean that he has probably deleted it much later than he claims or the FBI knew information about the files beforehand as they were *gasp* FBI BAIT!So we don't know the whole story here, and yeah, maybe he's right, but we haven't seen all the evidence.I mean, not that a slashdot summary could -EVER- be wrong or incomplete :P.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335860</id>
	<title>Re:Public Defender</title>
	<author>rliden</author>
	<datestamp>1260035580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Matt is pleading guilty on the advice of his public defender in hopes of getting a three and a half year sentence.</i> </p><p>In other words, he doesn't have the money to actually fight this.</p></div><p>And I'll add that his public pretender could have a deal going with the DA's office.  The DA gets this case and the public pretender gets another important case of his.  Win-win for everyone, except the defendant in this case.  It probably sounds like some wacky conspiracy theory until it happens close to home.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Matt is pleading guilty on the advice of his public defender in hopes of getting a three and a half year sentence .
In other words , he does n't have the money to actually fight this.And I 'll add that his public pretender could have a deal going with the DA 's office .
The DA gets this case and the public pretender gets another important case of his .
Win-win for everyone , except the defendant in this case .
It probably sounds like some wacky conspiracy theory until it happens close to home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Matt is pleading guilty on the advice of his public defender in hopes of getting a three and a half year sentence.
In other words, he doesn't have the money to actually fight this.And I'll add that his public pretender could have a deal going with the DA's office.
The DA gets this case and the public pretender gets another important case of his.
Win-win for everyone, except the defendant in this case.
It probably sounds like some wacky conspiracy theory until it happens close to home.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337866</id>
	<title>Too Much Money Chasing Too Few Crimes</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1260004680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's starting to sound like the Dept. of Homeland Security: too much money chasing too few leads. Thus, they go after small potatoes and iffy situations. Local gov'ts started slapping the label "Homeland Security" on arbitrary departments and projects to get DHS money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's starting to sound like the Dept .
of Homeland Security : too much money chasing too few leads .
Thus , they go after small potatoes and iffy situations .
Local gov'ts started slapping the label " Homeland Security " on arbitrary departments and projects to get DHS money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's starting to sound like the Dept.
of Homeland Security: too much money chasing too few leads.
Thus, they go after small potatoes and iffy situations.
Local gov'ts started slapping the label "Homeland Security" on arbitrary departments and projects to get DHS money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337588</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>halln</author>
	<datestamp>1260046260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like a good example where the Fully Informed Jury Association website should have been reviewed.  From their site <a href="http://fija.org/" title="fija.org" rel="nofollow">fija.org</a> [fija.org]:<br>
<br>
"The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government.  The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury.  This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.  Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a good example where the Fully Informed Jury Association website should have been reviewed .
From their site fija.org [ fija.org ] : " The primary function of the independent juror is not , as many think , to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws , but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government .
The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury .
This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if government wants to deprive any person of life , liberty , or property .
Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a good example where the Fully Informed Jury Association website should have been reviewed.
From their site fija.org [fija.org]:

"The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government.
The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury.
This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.
Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30353340</id>
	<title>Re:FBI bait?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260203040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait a minute, why would she go to jail? Surely the boyfriend would be the pervert in this case and it must be his fault that his under-age girlfriend took it upon herself to take inappropriate photos and send them to him without beforehand knowledge. They should prosecute him instead, she's just the victim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait a minute , why would she go to jail ?
Surely the boyfriend would be the pervert in this case and it must be his fault that his under-age girlfriend took it upon herself to take inappropriate photos and send them to him without beforehand knowledge .
They should prosecute him instead , she 's just the victim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait a minute, why would she go to jail?
Surely the boyfriend would be the pervert in this case and it must be his fault that his under-age girlfriend took it upon herself to take inappropriate photos and send them to him without beforehand knowledge.
They should prosecute him instead, she's just the victim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338284</id>
	<title>If you accidentally download child-porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260007740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...destroy your HD and throw it in the lake. That's the lesson here, I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...destroy your HD and throw it in the lake .
That 's the lesson here , I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...destroy your HD and throw it in the lake.
That's the lesson here, I guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341956</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1260093240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why are juries stacked with idiots too stupid to see that they could just as likely be in the defendant's seat for a multitude of offenses?</p></div><p>Many of thhe smarter people in the potential jury pool use excuses or claims of false bias to have themselves dismissed for reasons which are plausible and impossible to disprove? Many people have jobs which don't pay for jury time (i.e. it is unpaid time or low paid time considering that courts pay mostly pittance to jurors), business to run, or generally care more about their money than other people's lives. When the majority of society would just as soon step over your dead body as stop to help, then we have reached the beginning of the end; in fact, we are probably already past that point. Honest and functional juries depend upon honest citizens doing their best civic minded duty. I think we can all see how quaint and unrealistic that notion is these days; Indeed, your experience with the drug case proves that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are juries stacked with idiots too stupid to see that they could just as likely be in the defendant 's seat for a multitude of offenses ? Many of thhe smarter people in the potential jury pool use excuses or claims of false bias to have themselves dismissed for reasons which are plausible and impossible to disprove ?
Many people have jobs which do n't pay for jury time ( i.e .
it is unpaid time or low paid time considering that courts pay mostly pittance to jurors ) , business to run , or generally care more about their money than other people 's lives .
When the majority of society would just as soon step over your dead body as stop to help , then we have reached the beginning of the end ; in fact , we are probably already past that point .
Honest and functional juries depend upon honest citizens doing their best civic minded duty .
I think we can all see how quaint and unrealistic that notion is these days ; Indeed , your experience with the drug case proves that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are juries stacked with idiots too stupid to see that they could just as likely be in the defendant's seat for a multitude of offenses?Many of thhe smarter people in the potential jury pool use excuses or claims of false bias to have themselves dismissed for reasons which are plausible and impossible to disprove?
Many people have jobs which don't pay for jury time (i.e.
it is unpaid time or low paid time considering that courts pay mostly pittance to jurors), business to run, or generally care more about their money than other people's lives.
When the majority of society would just as soon step over your dead body as stop to help, then we have reached the beginning of the end; in fact, we are probably already past that point.
Honest and functional juries depend upon honest citizens doing their best civic minded duty.
I think we can all see how quaint and unrealistic that notion is these days; Indeed, your experience with the drug case proves that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341382</id>
	<title>Occasional wipe</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1260038940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're worried about something, do this occasionally on whatever partition you're worried about,<blockquote><div><p> <tt>$ cat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/urandom &gt; tmp<br>error: out of disk space<br>$ rm tmp</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're worried about something , do this occasionally on whatever partition you 're worried about , $ cat /dev/urandom &gt; tmperror : out of disk space $ rm tmp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're worried about something, do this occasionally on whatever partition you're worried about, $ cat /dev/urandom &gt; tmperror: out of disk space$ rm tmp 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341110</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1260034680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are a hero. Kudos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are a hero .
Kudos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are a hero.
Kudos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339644</id>
	<title>Re:Never volunteer anything to the cops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260018600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure how much of this is sarcasm, but I would happily point out that in anonymized surveys, more than 85\% of the population has committed a serious crime in their life.  Whether that is drug related, or theft or one of a variety of other things.</p><p>While your advice of "quit breaking the law you fucking tool" is admirable, I don't regard it as entirely practical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure how much of this is sarcasm , but I would happily point out that in anonymized surveys , more than 85 \ % of the population has committed a serious crime in their life .
Whether that is drug related , or theft or one of a variety of other things.While your advice of " quit breaking the law you fucking tool " is admirable , I do n't regard it as entirely practical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure how much of this is sarcasm, but I would happily point out that in anonymized surveys, more than 85\% of the population has committed a serious crime in their life.
Whether that is drug related, or theft or one of a variety of other things.While your advice of "quit breaking the law you fucking tool" is admirable, I don't regard it as entirely practical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30351612</id>
	<title>Re:Wow is this scary</title>
	<author>angelbunny</author>
	<datestamp>1260194280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OSX comes with tools for this.</p><p>Standard, the OS supports:<br>-Encrypted HDD<br>-Secure Delete<br>-Wiping free space (1,3,7, and 35 pass I believe). This could be automated using a line or two of terminal magic.</p><p>I hope I'm not advertising to much here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OSX comes with tools for this.Standard , the OS supports : -Encrypted HDD-Secure Delete-Wiping free space ( 1,3,7 , and 35 pass I believe ) .
This could be automated using a line or two of terminal magic.I hope I 'm not advertising to much here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OSX comes with tools for this.Standard, the OS supports:-Encrypted HDD-Secure Delete-Wiping free space (1,3,7, and 35 pass I believe).
This could be automated using a line or two of terminal magic.I hope I'm not advertising to much here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340578</id>
	<title>Re:self-incrimination</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260027480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Drives are cheap these days. You can pick up a 500GB one for $70. Just swap it out and reload your OS and apps <i>(low level format the old one and throw it away in a public dump)</i>. If the feds come knocking on your door, they will find nothing. If they suspect your PC no longer has the original drive, you state it crashed. It's a reasonable explanation and, in fact, is bound to happen sooner or later anyways.</p><p>$70. Think about it. It's a small price to ensure your life doesn't get totally fucked over!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Drives are cheap these days .
You can pick up a 500GB one for $ 70 .
Just swap it out and reload your OS and apps ( low level format the old one and throw it away in a public dump ) .
If the feds come knocking on your door , they will find nothing .
If they suspect your PC no longer has the original drive , you state it crashed .
It 's a reasonable explanation and , in fact , is bound to happen sooner or later anyways. $ 70 .
Think about it .
It 's a small price to ensure your life does n't get totally fucked over ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drives are cheap these days.
You can pick up a 500GB one for $70.
Just swap it out and reload your OS and apps (low level format the old one and throw it away in a public dump).
If the feds come knocking on your door, they will find nothing.
If they suspect your PC no longer has the original drive, you state it crashed.
It's a reasonable explanation and, in fact, is bound to happen sooner or later anyways.$70.
Think about it.
It's a small price to ensure your life doesn't get totally fucked over!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336914</id>
	<title>Re:do the math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260041700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And even if you don't surf porn, and are generally careful with unknown links, you could still get caught e.g. by some XSS attack which loads CP into an invisible iframe, and thus puts it into your browser's cache.</p><p>Also, I wonder how much CP ends up somewhere at Google's servers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And even if you do n't surf porn , and are generally careful with unknown links , you could still get caught e.g .
by some XSS attack which loads CP into an invisible iframe , and thus puts it into your browser 's cache.Also , I wonder how much CP ends up somewhere at Google 's servers .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And even if you don't surf porn, and are generally careful with unknown links, you could still get caught e.g.
by some XSS attack which loads CP into an invisible iframe, and thus puts it into your browser's cache.Also, I wonder how much CP ends up somewhere at Google's servers ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340940</id>
	<title>Re:Public Defender</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260032100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a profound ignorance of the legal system.  Public defenders do not have billable hours, and they certainly do not throw defendants under the bus by pleading out to satisfy some quota of cases every month.  Before you sully with your ignorance an office of attorneys who play an integral role in the constitutional safeguards of the justice system, perhaps you should take the time to learn more about the process before posting in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a profound ignorance of the legal system .
Public defenders do not have billable hours , and they certainly do not throw defendants under the bus by pleading out to satisfy some quota of cases every month .
Before you sully with your ignorance an office of attorneys who play an integral role in the constitutional safeguards of the justice system , perhaps you should take the time to learn more about the process before posting in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a profound ignorance of the legal system.
Public defenders do not have billable hours, and they certainly do not throw defendants under the bus by pleading out to satisfy some quota of cases every month.
Before you sully with your ignorance an office of attorneys who play an integral role in the constitutional safeguards of the justice system, perhaps you should take the time to learn more about the process before posting in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335710</id>
	<title>*BSD is Dying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying</b>  <br> <br>
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD
community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped
yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all
servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which
plainly states that <b>*BSD has lost more market share</b>,
this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD
is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by <a href="http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm" title="samag.com" rel="nofollow">failing
dead last</a> [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive
networking test.  <br> <br> You don't need to be the <a href="http://www.amazingkreskin.com/" title="amazingkreskin.com" rel="nofollow"> <b>Amazing Kreskin</b> </a> [amazingkreskin.com] to
predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a
bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because
<b>*BSD is dying</b>. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of
us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows
like a river of blood.  <br> <br> FreeBSD is the most endangered of them
all, having lost 93\% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant
departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith
only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be
any doubt: <b>FreeBSD is dying</b>.  <br> <br> Let's keep to the facts and
look at the numbers.  <br> <br> OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are
7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The
number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5
to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts
on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there
are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80
percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400
FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
<br> <br> Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on,
<b>FreeBSD went out of business</b> and was taken over by BSDI who sell
another troubled OS.  <b>Now BSDI is also dead</b>, its corpse turned
over to yet another charnel house.  <br> <br> All major surveys show that
*BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its
long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all
it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing
short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical
purposes, *BSD is dead.  <br> <br> <b>Fact: *BSD is dying</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is now official .
Netcraft confirms : * BSD is dying One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered * BSD community when IDC confirmed that * BSD market share has dropped yet again , now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers .
Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that * BSD has lost more market share , this news serves to reinforce what we 've known all along .
* BSD is collapsing in complete disarray , as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [ samag.com ] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test .
You do n't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [ amazingkreskin.com ] to predict * BSD 's future .
The hand writing is on the wall : * BSD faces a bleak future .
In fact there wo n't be any future at all for * BSD because * BSD is dying .
Things are looking very bad for * BSD .
As many of us are already aware , * BSD continues to lose market share .
Red ink flows like a river of blood .
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all , having lost 93 \ % of its core developers .
The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly .
There can no longer be any doubt : FreeBSD is dying .
Let 's keep to the facts and look at the numbers .
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD .
How many users of NetBSD are there ?
Let 's see .
The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1 .
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users .
BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts .
Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS .
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the * BSD market .
Therefore there are ( 7000 + 1400 + 700 ) * 4 = 36400 FreeBSD users .
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts .
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek , abysmal sales and so on , FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS .
Now BSDI is also dead , its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house .
All major surveys show that * BSD has steadily declined in market share .
* BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim .
If * BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers .
* BSD continues to decay .
Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time .
For all practical purposes , * BSD is dead .
Fact : * BSD is dying</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is now official.
Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying   
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD
community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped
yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all
servers.
Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which
plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share,
this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along.
*BSD
is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing
dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive
networking test.
You don't need to be the  Amazing Kreskin  [amazingkreskin.com] to
predict *BSD's future.
The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a
bleak future.
In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because
*BSD is dying.
Things are looking very bad for *BSD.
As many of
us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share.
Red ink flows
like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them
all, having lost 93\% of its core developers.
The sudden and unpleasant
departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith
only serve to underscore the point more clearly.
There can no longer be
any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and
look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are
7000 users of OpenBSD.
How many users of NetBSD are there?
Let's see.
The
number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5
to 1.
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users.
BSD/OS posts
on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts.
Therefore there
are about 700 users of BSD/OS.
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80
percent of the *BSD market.
Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400
FreeBSD users.
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on,
FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell
another troubled OS.
Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned
over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that
*BSD has steadily declined in market share.
*BSD is very sick and its
long term survival prospects are very dim.
If *BSD is to survive at all
it will be among OS dilettante dabblers.
*BSD continues to decay.
Nothing
short of a miracle could save it at this point in time.
For all practical
purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338372</id>
	<title>Re:Wow is this scary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260008580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes there is. If you are using Windows XP you can set up Eraser like this pretty easily. As far as I know, Eraser's built in Scheduler can't make jobs run whenever the computer is idle, so you'd have to use Windows' built in scheduled task manager.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes there is .
If you are using Windows XP you can set up Eraser like this pretty easily .
As far as I know , Eraser 's built in Scheduler ca n't make jobs run whenever the computer is idle , so you 'd have to use Windows ' built in scheduled task manager .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes there is.
If you are using Windows XP you can set up Eraser like this pretty easily.
As far as I know, Eraser's built in Scheduler can't make jobs run whenever the computer is idle, so you'd have to use Windows' built in scheduled task manager.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340054</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260022200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just out of curiosity in case I end up in a similar situation. What approach did you take to dissuade them without risking being "replaced".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just out of curiosity in case I end up in a similar situation .
What approach did you take to dissuade them without risking being " replaced " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just out of curiosity in case I end up in a similar situation.
What approach did you take to dissuade them without risking being "replaced".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336320</id>
	<title>Re:The FBI is lying.</title>
	<author>eosp</author>
	<datestamp>1260038280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Note that many modern file systems use journaling or copy-on-write, both of which have the effect that writing to the same file does not necessarily write to the same block. <a href="http://www.dban.org/" title="dban.org">DBAN</a> [dban.org] takes care of this problem, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that many modern file systems use journaling or copy-on-write , both of which have the effect that writing to the same file does not necessarily write to the same block .
DBAN [ dban.org ] takes care of this problem , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that many modern file systems use journaling or copy-on-write, both of which have the effect that writing to the same file does not necessarily write to the same block.
DBAN [dban.org] takes care of this problem, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878</id>
	<title>Wow is this scary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260035640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about you, but some times I've come across porn that I think of as a little bit marginal.  I also don't like the idea of someone digging up deleted files on my hard disk.

It seems like a good idea to have a tool that scrambles all the bits on the free space of your hard disk overnight and during idle periods.  Does anyone know if such a thing exists?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you , but some times I 've come across porn that I think of as a little bit marginal .
I also do n't like the idea of someone digging up deleted files on my hard disk .
It seems like a good idea to have a tool that scrambles all the bits on the free space of your hard disk overnight and during idle periods .
Does anyone know if such a thing exists ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you, but some times I've come across porn that I think of as a little bit marginal.
I also don't like the idea of someone digging up deleted files on my hard disk.
It seems like a good idea to have a tool that scrambles all the bits on the free space of your hard disk overnight and during idle periods.
Does anyone know if such a thing exists?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335560</id>
	<title>first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260033840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>W00t!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>W00t !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>W00t!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338776</id>
	<title>Re:You can KILL someone with this...</title>
	<author>kvezach</author>
	<datestamp>1260011820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder: if a gray hat were to make a worm that contained KP, would that be a good or bad thing? On the one hand, everybody would have KP so the law would be unenforcable. On the other, the authorities might just use it as leverage: okay, everybody has KP, now if we find a crimethinker we just can't convict by any other means, we can get him for possession of KP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder : if a gray hat were to make a worm that contained KP , would that be a good or bad thing ?
On the one hand , everybody would have KP so the law would be unenforcable .
On the other , the authorities might just use it as leverage : okay , everybody has KP , now if we find a crimethinker we just ca n't convict by any other means , we can get him for possession of KP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder: if a gray hat were to make a worm that contained KP, would that be a good or bad thing?
On the one hand, everybody would have KP so the law would be unenforcable.
On the other, the authorities might just use it as leverage: okay, everybody has KP, now if we find a crimethinker we just can't convict by any other means, we can get him for possession of KP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337678</id>
	<title>Why take chances at all??</title>
	<author>way2slo</author>
	<datestamp>1260046740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just get a new HD.  Why risk \_everything\_ when you can be in the free and clear for a very well spent $100 and a few hours re-install.  You think that guy wouldn't pay $10,000 now to make all his troubles disappear??</p><p>It's the unforgivable crime.  If that stuff winds up on your drive, smash it, then toss it, and get a new one.  Tell whoever that the HD died and you need a new one.  Even if you have to put it on a charge card or borrow the money.  Don't even mess around with shredders or wipe programs.  Why take any chance at all??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just get a new HD .
Why risk \ _everything \ _ when you can be in the free and clear for a very well spent $ 100 and a few hours re-install .
You think that guy would n't pay $ 10,000 now to make all his troubles disappear ?
? It 's the unforgivable crime .
If that stuff winds up on your drive , smash it , then toss it , and get a new one .
Tell whoever that the HD died and you need a new one .
Even if you have to put it on a charge card or borrow the money .
Do n't even mess around with shredders or wipe programs .
Why take any chance at all ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just get a new HD.
Why risk \_everything\_ when you can be in the free and clear for a very well spent $100 and a few hours re-install.
You think that guy wouldn't pay $10,000 now to make all his troubles disappear?
?It's the unforgivable crime.
If that stuff winds up on your drive, smash it, then toss it, and get a new one.
Tell whoever that the HD died and you need a new one.
Even if you have to put it on a charge card or borrow the money.
Don't even mess around with shredders or wipe programs.
Why take any chance at all?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335586</id>
	<title>"call authorities immediately"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure. And go to prison like this guy. Personally, I'd take my chances and just throw the hard drive away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure .
And go to prison like this guy .
Personally , I 'd take my chances and just throw the hard drive away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure.
And go to prison like this guy.
Personally, I'd take my chances and just throw the hard drive away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340702</id>
	<title>Re:So... how did they find this guy?</title>
	<author>fishexe</author>
	<datestamp>1260028980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They somehow managed to sniff all the traffic on a major filing sharing network, then they found the IP's of everyone who had downloaded a certain file and then they just sat on it for two years before going after someone who had downloaded it?</p> </div><p>Somehow I imagine that's not how they found him.  They probably arrested someone for distribution, and looked at their computer's Limewire logs for everyone they had seeded the file to.  Then they knocked on the doors of all those people, and whichever ones cooperated, they looked at the logs of who they seeded the file to, and so on until they found this guy.  That process could easily take two years, if not longer.  I'm pretty sure they'll never have the capacity to sniff all (or even most) of the traffic on a major file-sharing network, if only because as the government's search hardware scales, so do the file-sharing networks and the Internet itself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They somehow managed to sniff all the traffic on a major filing sharing network , then they found the IP 's of everyone who had downloaded a certain file and then they just sat on it for two years before going after someone who had downloaded it ?
Somehow I imagine that 's not how they found him .
They probably arrested someone for distribution , and looked at their computer 's Limewire logs for everyone they had seeded the file to .
Then they knocked on the doors of all those people , and whichever ones cooperated , they looked at the logs of who they seeded the file to , and so on until they found this guy .
That process could easily take two years , if not longer .
I 'm pretty sure they 'll never have the capacity to sniff all ( or even most ) of the traffic on a major file-sharing network , if only because as the government 's search hardware scales , so do the file-sharing networks and the Internet itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They somehow managed to sniff all the traffic on a major filing sharing network, then they found the IP's of everyone who had downloaded a certain file and then they just sat on it for two years before going after someone who had downloaded it?
Somehow I imagine that's not how they found him.
They probably arrested someone for distribution, and looked at their computer's Limewire logs for everyone they had seeded the file to.
Then they knocked on the doors of all those people, and whichever ones cooperated, they looked at the logs of who they seeded the file to, and so on until they found this guy.
That process could easily take two years, if not longer.
I'm pretty sure they'll never have the capacity to sniff all (or even most) of the traffic on a major file-sharing network, if only because as the government's search hardware scales, so do the file-sharing networks and the Internet itself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336874</id>
	<title>Re:Public Defender</title>
	<author>Drencrom</author>
	<datestamp>1260041400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think his best move in this case should be to move away from the US (in case he can travel anywhere with that criminal record)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think his best move in this case should be to move away from the US ( in case he can travel anywhere with that criminal record )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think his best move in this case should be to move away from the US (in case he can travel anywhere with that criminal record)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336832</id>
	<title>Re:The FBI is lying.</title>
	<author>badfish99</author>
	<datestamp>1260041220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about the law in the US, but here in the UK you must NOT tell the police if you come across kiddie porn accidentally like this.</p><p>In the UK, possession of this stuff (even cartoons) is a "strict liability" offence. If you've got it, you've broken the law, no matter how you came by it. So, if you tell the police that you've got it, they can (and will) prosecute you.</p><p>There are lots of laws like this in the UK, and they are becoming more common: the government likes them because they eliminate any possibility of people successfully defending themselves in court. Of course they leave open the possibility that you can be forced to commit a crime against your will - even by the police - and then punished for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about the law in the US , but here in the UK you must NOT tell the police if you come across kiddie porn accidentally like this.In the UK , possession of this stuff ( even cartoons ) is a " strict liability " offence .
If you 've got it , you 've broken the law , no matter how you came by it .
So , if you tell the police that you 've got it , they can ( and will ) prosecute you.There are lots of laws like this in the UK , and they are becoming more common : the government likes them because they eliminate any possibility of people successfully defending themselves in court .
Of course they leave open the possibility that you can be forced to commit a crime against your will - even by the police - and then punished for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about the law in the US, but here in the UK you must NOT tell the police if you come across kiddie porn accidentally like this.In the UK, possession of this stuff (even cartoons) is a "strict liability" offence.
If you've got it, you've broken the law, no matter how you came by it.
So, if you tell the police that you've got it, they can (and will) prosecute you.There are lots of laws like this in the UK, and they are becoming more common: the government likes them because they eliminate any possibility of people successfully defending themselves in court.
Of course they leave open the possibility that you can be forced to commit a crime against your will - even by the police - and then punished for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340594</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260027540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It the people that collect the images that creates the market for it.  The best thing about possession being illegal is that you can realy nail the pervs when you catch them.  Even if they get off on some of the primary charges, you still have possession to hang them with.</p><p>But possession means that you have posession of something.  This person nolonger had posession of the files.  I would say that the number of files should also matter in the case.  If it was a mistake, there should be very very few files.  But knowing his luck he downloaded a 1000 files inside a zip.</p><p>Don't forget he admited to downloading pirated porn.  If they didn't get him on these charges, they had others they could get to stick.  Having the FBI knock on your door is never a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It the people that collect the images that creates the market for it .
The best thing about possession being illegal is that you can realy nail the pervs when you catch them .
Even if they get off on some of the primary charges , you still have possession to hang them with.But possession means that you have posession of something .
This person nolonger had posession of the files .
I would say that the number of files should also matter in the case .
If it was a mistake , there should be very very few files .
But knowing his luck he downloaded a 1000 files inside a zip.Do n't forget he admited to downloading pirated porn .
If they did n't get him on these charges , they had others they could get to stick .
Having the FBI knock on your door is never a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It the people that collect the images that creates the market for it.
The best thing about possession being illegal is that you can realy nail the pervs when you catch them.
Even if they get off on some of the primary charges, you still have possession to hang them with.But possession means that you have posession of something.
This person nolonger had posession of the files.
I would say that the number of files should also matter in the case.
If it was a mistake, there should be very very few files.
But knowing his luck he downloaded a 1000 files inside a zip.Don't forget he admited to downloading pirated porn.
If they didn't get him on these charges, they had others they could get to stick.
Having the FBI knock on your door is never a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336800</id>
	<title>Re:Public Defender</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1260041040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who can't afford an expensive attorney are expendable as far as the "justice" system is concerned. If they thought they could get away with it, they'd just toss him in a tree chipper and save court costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who ca n't afford an expensive attorney are expendable as far as the " justice " system is concerned .
If they thought they could get away with it , they 'd just toss him in a tree chipper and save court costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who can't afford an expensive attorney are expendable as far as the "justice" system is concerned.
If they thought they could get away with it, they'd just toss him in a tree chipper and save court costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338332</id>
	<title>Re:I think the right move would be...</title>
	<author>UnderCoverPenguin</author>
	<datestamp>1260008160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, he would still be on unofficial sexual offender lists</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , he would still be on unofficial sexual offender lists</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, he would still be on unofficial sexual offender lists</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338010</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Zspdude</author>
	<datestamp>1260005700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if he had downloaded the images to look at - what harm would it have caused?  He didn't ruin some girls life by looking at pictures that already exist.</p></div><p>He didn't ruin the life of the specific girl in the photos. But he incremented the download counter, giving that much more encouragement to the suppliers, letting them know the market was at least one person greater than otherwise.</p><p>Maybe after downloading, he was in a conversation where the subject came up and he didn't feel justified in saying, "It's wrong". And so there was one less conversation where it was discouraged. If he justifies it to his own self, the same justification he feels will leak out, just as all the other aspects of his person come through to other people.</p><p>All of this adds up to the ruining of the life of a girl - not in the past - but in the future. The next girl.</p><p>My comment is hypothetical, because this gent was railroaded, but there exists another fellow for who this does apply. On a macro level, the dynamic holds true. The harm done is that evil propagates itself, and it is worse when it does so in subtle, unquantifiable, yet undeniably real fashion.</p><p>What is the justification for (knowingly) having it, and not destroying it? In this case he did destroy it (pay the man respect), and that is why everyone is upset.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if he had downloaded the images to look at - what harm would it have caused ?
He did n't ruin some girls life by looking at pictures that already exist.He did n't ruin the life of the specific girl in the photos .
But he incremented the download counter , giving that much more encouragement to the suppliers , letting them know the market was at least one person greater than otherwise.Maybe after downloading , he was in a conversation where the subject came up and he did n't feel justified in saying , " It 's wrong " .
And so there was one less conversation where it was discouraged .
If he justifies it to his own self , the same justification he feels will leak out , just as all the other aspects of his person come through to other people.All of this adds up to the ruining of the life of a girl - not in the past - but in the future .
The next girl.My comment is hypothetical , because this gent was railroaded , but there exists another fellow for who this does apply .
On a macro level , the dynamic holds true .
The harm done is that evil propagates itself , and it is worse when it does so in subtle , unquantifiable , yet undeniably real fashion.What is the justification for ( knowingly ) having it , and not destroying it ?
In this case he did destroy it ( pay the man respect ) , and that is why everyone is upset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if he had downloaded the images to look at - what harm would it have caused?
He didn't ruin some girls life by looking at pictures that already exist.He didn't ruin the life of the specific girl in the photos.
But he incremented the download counter, giving that much more encouragement to the suppliers, letting them know the market was at least one person greater than otherwise.Maybe after downloading, he was in a conversation where the subject came up and he didn't feel justified in saying, "It's wrong".
And so there was one less conversation where it was discouraged.
If he justifies it to his own self, the same justification he feels will leak out, just as all the other aspects of his person come through to other people.All of this adds up to the ruining of the life of a girl - not in the past - but in the future.
The next girl.My comment is hypothetical, because this gent was railroaded, but there exists another fellow for who this does apply.
On a macro level, the dynamic holds true.
The harm done is that evil propagates itself, and it is worse when it does so in subtle, unquantifiable, yet undeniably real fashion.What is the justification for (knowingly) having it, and not destroying it?
In this case he did destroy it (pay the man respect), and that is why everyone is upset.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335918</id>
	<title>Government.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260035880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The arguments against anarchy start to where thin once you realize that the government isn't some savior-organization out to stop evil but is just a really strong rogue faction that does what it pleases.  You sleep safe at night, knowing there's a government out there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The arguments against anarchy start to where thin once you realize that the government is n't some savior-organization out to stop evil but is just a really strong rogue faction that does what it pleases .
You sleep safe at night , knowing there 's a government out there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The arguments against anarchy start to where thin once you realize that the government isn't some savior-organization out to stop evil but is just a really strong rogue faction that does what it pleases.
You sleep safe at night, knowing there's a government out there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335894</id>
	<title>Re:Another victim in the war on child porn</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1260035760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed.  Child porn is one of the few, if only, criminal act that is illegal to even SEE in picture.  You can see pictures of murder, you can see pictures of people breaking into buildings, you can even watch movie into this stuff, but the second it's a naked child BAM you're a criminal.  Hell, some people might even look it up not because they're a sick kiddie fiddler but because because they're just curious to what something like that would look like... and that isn't so strange, given how casually shock pornography is pasted everywhere, I mean, even goatse is something people just casually laugh about nowadays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
Child porn is one of the few , if only , criminal act that is illegal to even SEE in picture .
You can see pictures of murder , you can see pictures of people breaking into buildings , you can even watch movie into this stuff , but the second it 's a naked child BAM you 're a criminal .
Hell , some people might even look it up not because they 're a sick kiddie fiddler but because because they 're just curious to what something like that would look like... and that is n't so strange , given how casually shock pornography is pasted everywhere , I mean , even goatse is something people just casually laugh about nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
Child porn is one of the few, if only, criminal act that is illegal to even SEE in picture.
You can see pictures of murder, you can see pictures of people breaking into buildings, you can even watch movie into this stuff, but the second it's a naked child BAM you're a criminal.
Hell, some people might even look it up not because they're a sick kiddie fiddler but because because they're just curious to what something like that would look like... and that isn't so strange, given how casually shock pornography is pasted everywhere, I mean, even goatse is something people just casually laugh about nowadays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336356</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Talk to Police</title>
	<author>BeardedChimp</author>
	<datestamp>1260038580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a shame this isn't true in the uk, <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa\_jfl/" title="theregister.co.uk">we can be jailed here for <b>not</b> talking to the police.</a> [theregister.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a shame this is n't true in the uk , we can be jailed here for not talking to the police .
[ theregister.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a shame this isn't true in the uk, we can be jailed here for not talking to the police.
[theregister.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337596</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260046320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In most cases, production isn't doing any harm. The problem is that most of what is considered "child porn" by politics can also simply be found by searching for "child model" in google images. That's right, most of the child erotica features clothed children. Clothes or not, there's no abuses involved, parents and children agree to do it, and there isn't any sexual contact with the child.</p><p>The harm is unrelated to what is now called child pornography. More often than not it is incest cases which are only different from other incest cases in that the acts were filmed and uploaded online. The sexual assaults, and thus the harm, almost always come from within the family.</p><p>Of course it's easier to go blindly after child model agencies rather than find the actual children that were harmed. And honestly, before actually prosecuting someone, maybe it should be required to prove that a child was harmed directly in the process.</p><p>You can read more about this here: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/My\_life\_in\_child\_porn</p><p>Another problem comes with the arbitrary decision to make people "adult" at 18 years old. People don't suddenly grow up and become responsible at this age. There's no natural barrier that says an adult shouldn't have sex with a 16 year old, especially when that adult is 18 year old. And yet it's illegal. It also means that it would be worse to abuse a 17 year old than a 18 year old. Why? It's not like the abuse was any different, both are wrong and should be punished the same way. I don't think laws should try to regulate relationships. I don't see the point of ruining the life of someone because he's dating a person younger than himself when both agree to have this relationship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In most cases , production is n't doing any harm .
The problem is that most of what is considered " child porn " by politics can also simply be found by searching for " child model " in google images .
That 's right , most of the child erotica features clothed children .
Clothes or not , there 's no abuses involved , parents and children agree to do it , and there is n't any sexual contact with the child.The harm is unrelated to what is now called child pornography .
More often than not it is incest cases which are only different from other incest cases in that the acts were filmed and uploaded online .
The sexual assaults , and thus the harm , almost always come from within the family.Of course it 's easier to go blindly after child model agencies rather than find the actual children that were harmed .
And honestly , before actually prosecuting someone , maybe it should be required to prove that a child was harmed directly in the process.You can read more about this here : http : //wikileaks.org/wiki/My \ _life \ _in \ _child \ _pornAnother problem comes with the arbitrary decision to make people " adult " at 18 years old .
People do n't suddenly grow up and become responsible at this age .
There 's no natural barrier that says an adult should n't have sex with a 16 year old , especially when that adult is 18 year old .
And yet it 's illegal .
It also means that it would be worse to abuse a 17 year old than a 18 year old .
Why ? It 's not like the abuse was any different , both are wrong and should be punished the same way .
I do n't think laws should try to regulate relationships .
I do n't see the point of ruining the life of someone because he 's dating a person younger than himself when both agree to have this relationship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In most cases, production isn't doing any harm.
The problem is that most of what is considered "child porn" by politics can also simply be found by searching for "child model" in google images.
That's right, most of the child erotica features clothed children.
Clothes or not, there's no abuses involved, parents and children agree to do it, and there isn't any sexual contact with the child.The harm is unrelated to what is now called child pornography.
More often than not it is incest cases which are only different from other incest cases in that the acts were filmed and uploaded online.
The sexual assaults, and thus the harm, almost always come from within the family.Of course it's easier to go blindly after child model agencies rather than find the actual children that were harmed.
And honestly, before actually prosecuting someone, maybe it should be required to prove that a child was harmed directly in the process.You can read more about this here: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/My\_life\_in\_child\_pornAnother problem comes with the arbitrary decision to make people "adult" at 18 years old.
People don't suddenly grow up and become responsible at this age.
There's no natural barrier that says an adult shouldn't have sex with a 16 year old, especially when that adult is 18 year old.
And yet it's illegal.
It also means that it would be worse to abuse a 17 year old than a 18 year old.
Why? It's not like the abuse was any different, both are wrong and should be punished the same way.
I don't think laws should try to regulate relationships.
I don't see the point of ruining the life of someone because he's dating a person younger than himself when both agree to have this relationship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337324</id>
	<title>Re:Call the cops</title>
	<author>Courageous</author>
	<datestamp>1260044400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So basically what you are saying is that if I hacked Time Warner Cable and disseminated child porn on it, the local authorities would be required by law to arrest everyone with a TiVO?</p><p>Absurd, and I don't really believe this is true. I believe that case law requires intent to possess. I.e., if someone else had put the child porn on his computer, without his knowledge, and he could prove this to be true, there'd be no case.</p><p>C//</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically what you are saying is that if I hacked Time Warner Cable and disseminated child porn on it , the local authorities would be required by law to arrest everyone with a TiVO ? Absurd , and I do n't really believe this is true .
I believe that case law requires intent to possess .
I.e. , if someone else had put the child porn on his computer , without his knowledge , and he could prove this to be true , there 'd be no case.C//</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically what you are saying is that if I hacked Time Warner Cable and disseminated child porn on it, the local authorities would be required by law to arrest everyone with a TiVO?Absurd, and I don't really believe this is true.
I believe that case law requires intent to possess.
I.e., if someone else had put the child porn on his computer, without his knowledge, and he could prove this to be true, there'd be no case.C//</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340650</id>
	<title>Small fry is now the priority</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260028200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People will think I'm nuts and off-topic but western countries are turning into a police state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People will think I 'm nuts and off-topic but western countries are turning into a police state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People will think I'm nuts and off-topic but western countries are turning into a police state.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340366</id>
	<title>Re:Malware &amp; Spam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260025320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm too lazy too look up the link, but a teacher got charged because a computer in her classroom got 0wn3d and showed porn to the class or something. Was on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/, earlier this year I believe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm too lazy too look up the link , but a teacher got charged because a computer in her classroom got 0wn3d and showed porn to the class or something .
Was on / , earlier this year I believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm too lazy too look up the link, but a teacher got charged because a computer in her classroom got 0wn3d and showed porn to the class or something.
Was on /, earlier this year I believe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338620</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Talk to Police</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260010440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should not report child porn to the police <i>especially</i> if you're in the UK. If you determined that it was child porn, that means you must have seen it; seeing it is most definitely illegal in the UK, whether intentional or accidental; and the police are specifically required to arrest you for having seen it, even accidentally.</p><p>I would provide links to reports of exactly this happening -- innocent people calling the police to report child porn and promptly being arrested -- but then it occurred to me that I'd have to type "child pornography" into a search engine, and I'm not sure I can trust my ISP enough to do that. So I can't tell if people in this kind of situation were convicted or not. But you feel free to look for these reports, they shouldn't be hard to find<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should not report child porn to the police especially if you 're in the UK .
If you determined that it was child porn , that means you must have seen it ; seeing it is most definitely illegal in the UK , whether intentional or accidental ; and the police are specifically required to arrest you for having seen it , even accidentally.I would provide links to reports of exactly this happening -- innocent people calling the police to report child porn and promptly being arrested -- but then it occurred to me that I 'd have to type " child pornography " into a search engine , and I 'm not sure I can trust my ISP enough to do that .
So I ca n't tell if people in this kind of situation were convicted or not .
But you feel free to look for these reports , they should n't be hard to find .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should not report child porn to the police especially if you're in the UK.
If you determined that it was child porn, that means you must have seen it; seeing it is most definitely illegal in the UK, whether intentional or accidental; and the police are specifically required to arrest you for having seen it, even accidentally.I would provide links to reports of exactly this happening -- innocent people calling the police to report child porn and promptly being arrested -- but then it occurred to me that I'd have to type "child pornography" into a search engine, and I'm not sure I can trust my ISP enough to do that.
So I can't tell if people in this kind of situation were convicted or not.
But you feel free to look for these reports, they shouldn't be hard to find ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340880</id>
	<title>Heinous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260031320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is remarkably offensive to hear about. What a repulsive violation of White's privacy and a blatant abuse of the American legal system. Yes CP is also disgusting and should be fought, but this is soooo massively over-reactive.. The poor guy was just doing what a healthy male can be expected to do, he deleted the crap he wasn't interested in, there's no problem here... WTF.

In hearing these sorts of snippets, I just reflect that:
1. I'm glad I'm not American and
2. I'm glad I don't live in the US.

What COMPLETE Bullshit. Totally not a free society.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is remarkably offensive to hear about .
What a repulsive violation of White 's privacy and a blatant abuse of the American legal system .
Yes CP is also disgusting and should be fought , but this is soooo massively over-reactive.. The poor guy was just doing what a healthy male can be expected to do , he deleted the crap he was n't interested in , there 's no problem here... WTF . In hearing these sorts of snippets , I just reflect that : 1 .
I 'm glad I 'm not American and 2 .
I 'm glad I do n't live in the US .
What COMPLETE Bullshit .
Totally not a free society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is remarkably offensive to hear about.
What a repulsive violation of White's privacy and a blatant abuse of the American legal system.
Yes CP is also disgusting and should be fought, but this is soooo massively over-reactive.. The poor guy was just doing what a healthy male can be expected to do, he deleted the crap he wasn't interested in, there's no problem here... WTF.

In hearing these sorts of snippets, I just reflect that:
1.
I'm glad I'm not American and
2.
I'm glad I don't live in the US.
What COMPLETE Bullshit.
Totally not a free society.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336780</id>
	<title>Re:the real lesson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260040920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does the FBI <i>ask</i>? I thought they'd just <i>do</i> it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the FBI ask ?
I thought they 'd just do it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the FBI ask?
I thought they'd just do it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30428638</id>
	<title>Re:FBI bait?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260821940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That doesn't sound awesome at all. That's horrible!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't sound awesome at all .
That 's horrible !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't sound awesome at all.
That's horrible!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340062</id>
	<title>Re:The tapping of the tubes is complete</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1260022260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good thing we have a pro-government liberal President and a pro-government liberal Congress to protect us from government abuses.  Sigh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing we have a pro-government liberal President and a pro-government liberal Congress to protect us from government abuses .
Sigh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing we have a pro-government liberal President and a pro-government liberal Congress to protect us from government abuses.
Sigh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337152</id>
	<title>Never talk to the police</title>
	<author>beej</author>
	<datestamp>1260043140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone else already posted this, but it bears reposting.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>Reason #1 to never talk to the police: there's <i>no</i> way it can help. As he says, that really ought to be good enough, but he gives seven more reasons, just in case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone else already posted this , but it bears reposting.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 6wXkI4t7nuc [ youtube.com ] Reason # 1 to never talk to the police : there 's no way it can help .
As he says , that really ought to be good enough , but he gives seven more reasons , just in case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone else already posted this, but it bears reposting.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc [youtube.com]Reason #1 to never talk to the police: there's no way it can help.
As he says, that really ought to be good enough, but he gives seven more reasons, just in case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341584</id>
	<title>Not a good sign for the internets</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260042300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. go to 4chan<br>2. accidentally CP<br>3. ????<br>4. party van</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1. go to 4chan2 .
accidentally CP3 .
? ? ? ? 4. party van</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1. go to 4chan2.
accidentally CP3.
????4. party van</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338100</id>
	<title>Re:Appalling</title>
	<author>TheQuantumShift</author>
	<datestamp>1260006240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see it leading to website "certification". And you'll only need one guess as to who gets certified. Big business. Start your own blog on a home server? Well you obviously aren't certified, so you must be doing something nasty and trying to hide it. You're using some sort of "Hacked together community created" software? You are obviously trying to get around the laws of our great nation which require strict DRM black-boxes created by respectable companies (Gov. certified of course) in order to access the net. You filthy commie pirate scum! You're infringing upon the rights of mega corporations to extract as much money as possible from you!
<br> <br>
Back on topic, I think this guy should fight and make as big a spectacle of it as possible. Especially by playing up the bit about how this could happen to <b>anyone</b> looking for porn...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see it leading to website " certification " .
And you 'll only need one guess as to who gets certified .
Big business .
Start your own blog on a home server ?
Well you obviously are n't certified , so you must be doing something nasty and trying to hide it .
You 're using some sort of " Hacked together community created " software ?
You are obviously trying to get around the laws of our great nation which require strict DRM black-boxes created by respectable companies ( Gov .
certified of course ) in order to access the net .
You filthy commie pirate scum !
You 're infringing upon the rights of mega corporations to extract as much money as possible from you !
Back on topic , I think this guy should fight and make as big a spectacle of it as possible .
Especially by playing up the bit about how this could happen to anyone looking for porn.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see it leading to website "certification".
And you'll only need one guess as to who gets certified.
Big business.
Start your own blog on a home server?
Well you obviously aren't certified, so you must be doing something nasty and trying to hide it.
You're using some sort of "Hacked together community created" software?
You are obviously trying to get around the laws of our great nation which require strict DRM black-boxes created by respectable companies (Gov.
certified of course) in order to access the net.
You filthy commie pirate scum!
You're infringing upon the rights of mega corporations to extract as much money as possible from you!
Back on topic, I think this guy should fight and make as big a spectacle of it as possible.
Especially by playing up the bit about how this could happen to anyone looking for porn...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792</id>
	<title>Never volunteer anything to the cops</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1260035220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
If you don't have a warrant, you don't get entry.
</p><p>
If you want to go fishing, go fish yourself somewhere else, not on the taxpayers dime.
</p><blockquote><div><p>On advice from his lawyer, he intends to plead guilty so that he will 'hopefully' end up with 3.5 years in jail, 10 years probation and a registration as a sex offender.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Fire the lawyer.  No jury will convict.
 "Deep int he hard drive" - it is to laugh.  Must have been a really old hard drive - most of them are pretty shallow nowadays.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't have a warrant , you do n't get entry .
If you want to go fishing , go fish yourself somewhere else , not on the taxpayers dime .
On advice from his lawyer , he intends to plead guilty so that he will 'hopefully ' end up with 3.5 years in jail , 10 years probation and a registration as a sex offender .
Fire the lawyer .
No jury will convict .
" Deep int he hard drive " - it is to laugh .
Must have been a really old hard drive - most of them are pretty shallow nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If you don't have a warrant, you don't get entry.
If you want to go fishing, go fish yourself somewhere else, not on the taxpayers dime.
On advice from his lawyer, he intends to plead guilty so that he will 'hopefully' end up with 3.5 years in jail, 10 years probation and a registration as a sex offender.
Fire the lawyer.
No jury will convict.
"Deep int he hard drive" - it is to laugh.
Must have been a really old hard drive - most of them are pretty shallow nowadays.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614</id>
	<title>Call the cops</title>
	<author>KalvinB</author>
	<datestamp>1260034260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary states that if you accidentally download kiddie porn you need to call the cops asap.  Typically, people who are guilty or trying to hide something don't call the cops on themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary states that if you accidentally download kiddie porn you need to call the cops asap .
Typically , people who are guilty or trying to hide something do n't call the cops on themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary states that if you accidentally download kiddie porn you need to call the cops asap.
Typically, people who are guilty or trying to hide something don't call the cops on themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335886</id>
	<title>The tapping of the tubes is complete</title>
	<author>Dunkirk</author>
	<datestamp>1260035700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What this speaks -- loudly and clearly -- to me is that the national tapping of any and all communication lines is complete. And, when things are slow and the FBI can't find a terrorist cell or -power group to take down, they troll their logs, and look to hang someone that no one would defend.</p><p>I'm sure that both the EFF and the ACLU will jump in here any minute now...</p><p>It just makes the case for using cryptography in everything you do online. I don't know how far it goes though. It may be that they finally laid off Zimmerman because they have enough horsepower to break anything that bubbles up to the surface as potentially interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What this speaks -- loudly and clearly -- to me is that the national tapping of any and all communication lines is complete .
And , when things are slow and the FBI ca n't find a terrorist cell or -power group to take down , they troll their logs , and look to hang someone that no one would defend.I 'm sure that both the EFF and the ACLU will jump in here any minute now...It just makes the case for using cryptography in everything you do online .
I do n't know how far it goes though .
It may be that they finally laid off Zimmerman because they have enough horsepower to break anything that bubbles up to the surface as potentially interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What this speaks -- loudly and clearly -- to me is that the national tapping of any and all communication lines is complete.
And, when things are slow and the FBI can't find a terrorist cell or -power group to take down, they troll their logs, and look to hang someone that no one would defend.I'm sure that both the EFF and the ACLU will jump in here any minute now...It just makes the case for using cryptography in everything you do online.
I don't know how far it goes though.
It may be that they finally laid off Zimmerman because they have enough horsepower to break anything that bubbles up to the surface as potentially interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337340</id>
	<title>Re:FBI bait?</title>
	<author>Voulnet</author>
	<datestamp>1260044460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A judicial system whose success is defined by 'how many offenders caught' is flawed, serves no justice, and is grounds for lots of baiting attempts by the enforcers. A judicial system should focus on bringing justice by punishing those who commit a crime willingly, not trying to get them to commit one.<br><br>The poor guy should be suing the FBI, specifically mentioning how they figured out that "College Girls Gone Whatever" is child porn. They either set it up themselves or downloaded it by mistake; both methods mean the poor guy should not be arrested.<br><br>Your typical FBI agent needs to add to his achievements. Real, dangerous work is too much for him, what does he do? He uses baits and mines; success for the lazy agent is guaranteed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A judicial system whose success is defined by 'how many offenders caught ' is flawed , serves no justice , and is grounds for lots of baiting attempts by the enforcers .
A judicial system should focus on bringing justice by punishing those who commit a crime willingly , not trying to get them to commit one.The poor guy should be suing the FBI , specifically mentioning how they figured out that " College Girls Gone Whatever " is child porn .
They either set it up themselves or downloaded it by mistake ; both methods mean the poor guy should not be arrested.Your typical FBI agent needs to add to his achievements .
Real , dangerous work is too much for him , what does he do ?
He uses baits and mines ; success for the lazy agent is guaranteed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A judicial system whose success is defined by 'how many offenders caught' is flawed, serves no justice, and is grounds for lots of baiting attempts by the enforcers.
A judicial system should focus on bringing justice by punishing those who commit a crime willingly, not trying to get them to commit one.The poor guy should be suing the FBI, specifically mentioning how they figured out that "College Girls Gone Whatever" is child porn.
They either set it up themselves or downloaded it by mistake; both methods mean the poor guy should not be arrested.Your typical FBI agent needs to add to his achievements.
Real, dangerous work is too much for him, what does he do?
He uses baits and mines; success for the lazy agent is guaranteed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340736</id>
	<title>Re:FBI bait?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260029280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is also a good reason to never allow your browser to store anything for you. That includes passwords, images, and other content. If possible, also restrict flash, silverlight and whatever other plugins you have from doing the same (though I don't know how to do this).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is also a good reason to never allow your browser to store anything for you .
That includes passwords , images , and other content .
If possible , also restrict flash , silverlight and whatever other plugins you have from doing the same ( though I do n't know how to do this ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is also a good reason to never allow your browser to store anything for you.
That includes passwords, images, and other content.
If possible, also restrict flash, silverlight and whatever other plugins you have from doing the same (though I don't know how to do this).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335990</id>
	<title>He's screwed NOW</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1260036240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mathew White is ALL over the internet and news wires. Even if the prosecutors say they were mistaken and drop the charges, this poor bastard is already fucked.<p>He will never get employment and maybe he will even get killed by a vigilante who <i>knows</i> the kid is guilty. </p><p>And for those of you named Mathew White, you're going to have to deal with it too on some level - people like to jump to conclusions.</p><p>This is were the Internet shows its evil side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mathew White is ALL over the internet and news wires .
Even if the prosecutors say they were mistaken and drop the charges , this poor bastard is already fucked.He will never get employment and maybe he will even get killed by a vigilante who knows the kid is guilty .
And for those of you named Mathew White , you 're going to have to deal with it too on some level - people like to jump to conclusions.This is were the Internet shows its evil side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mathew White is ALL over the internet and news wires.
Even if the prosecutors say they were mistaken and drop the charges, this poor bastard is already fucked.He will never get employment and maybe he will even get killed by a vigilante who knows the kid is guilty.
And for those of you named Mathew White, you're going to have to deal with it too on some level - people like to jump to conclusions.This is were the Internet shows its evil side.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337080</id>
	<title>Question the story</title>
	<author>gregjsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1260042720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone is crying that this guy is being railroaded but no one is questioning the story? The guy downloaded "some" child porn images and a year later the FBI shows up? The FBI says to call authorities if you accidentally download child porn? I don't believe people plead guilty when they are innocent. I think there's a huge chunk of this article missing and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this guy was involved in some child porn ring.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone is crying that this guy is being railroaded but no one is questioning the story ?
The guy downloaded " some " child porn images and a year later the FBI shows up ?
The FBI says to call authorities if you accidentally download child porn ?
I do n't believe people plead guilty when they are innocent .
I think there 's a huge chunk of this article missing and I would n't be surprised to learn that this guy was involved in some child porn ring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone is crying that this guy is being railroaded but no one is questioning the story?
The guy downloaded "some" child porn images and a year later the FBI shows up?
The FBI says to call authorities if you accidentally download child porn?
I don't believe people plead guilty when they are innocent.
I think there's a huge chunk of this article missing and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this guy was involved in some child porn ring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30343970</id>
	<title>Re:Call the cops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260122880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Its just like buying a used car from a drug dealer and going across a border checkpoint.. The sniffing dogs smell some dope that got stashed underneath the seat and YOU are the one who gets put in prison."</p><p>Perhaps, but in drug crimes the *amount* of drugs possessed has a big influence on the punishment. One ounce of marijuana may carry a misdemeanor, one pound may carry a felony and jailtime.</p><p>This guy had *1* file, without intent to distribute. He was not running a 1000 file kiddy porn ring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Its just like buying a used car from a drug dealer and going across a border checkpoint.. The sniffing dogs smell some dope that got stashed underneath the seat and YOU are the one who gets put in prison .
" Perhaps , but in drug crimes the * amount * of drugs possessed has a big influence on the punishment .
One ounce of marijuana may carry a misdemeanor , one pound may carry a felony and jailtime.This guy had * 1 * file , without intent to distribute .
He was not running a 1000 file kiddy porn ring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Its just like buying a used car from a drug dealer and going across a border checkpoint.. The sniffing dogs smell some dope that got stashed underneath the seat and YOU are the one who gets put in prison.
"Perhaps, but in drug crimes the *amount* of drugs possessed has a big influence on the punishment.
One ounce of marijuana may carry a misdemeanor, one pound may carry a felony and jailtime.This guy had *1* file, without intent to distribute.
He was not running a 1000 file kiddy porn ring.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337490</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>tignom</author>
	<datestamp>1260045540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least in Arizona, possession requires that you <i>knowingly</i> possess kiddie porn.  I was on a jury once for a case that involved two child pornography charges and some molestation ones.  We had to acquit on one of the kiddie porn charges because it was a recovered deleted file and we couldn't establish that the guy knew it was there.  We knew he took the picture, but that was a different charge.  We deliberated on most of the case for the better part of a day, but we all agreed on the kiddie porn charges in the first hour - one guilty and one not guilty. He's serving a few decades for other crimes, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least in Arizona , possession requires that you knowingly possess kiddie porn .
I was on a jury once for a case that involved two child pornography charges and some molestation ones .
We had to acquit on one of the kiddie porn charges because it was a recovered deleted file and we could n't establish that the guy knew it was there .
We knew he took the picture , but that was a different charge .
We deliberated on most of the case for the better part of a day , but we all agreed on the kiddie porn charges in the first hour - one guilty and one not guilty .
He 's serving a few decades for other crimes , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least in Arizona, possession requires that you knowingly possess kiddie porn.
I was on a jury once for a case that involved two child pornography charges and some molestation ones.
We had to acquit on one of the kiddie porn charges because it was a recovered deleted file and we couldn't establish that the guy knew it was there.
We knew he took the picture, but that was a different charge.
We deliberated on most of the case for the better part of a day, but we all agreed on the kiddie porn charges in the first hour - one guilty and one not guilty.
He's serving a few decades for other crimes, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30347376</id>
	<title>Re:More to it...</title>
	<author>pdwalker</author>
	<datestamp>1260104880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I've done data recovery, it takes a lot less than a year for deleted files to degrade.</i></p><p>I've recovered files from ntfs file systems 3 years after they've been deleted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've done data recovery , it takes a lot less than a year for deleted files to degrade.I 've recovered files from ntfs file systems 3 years after they 've been deleted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've done data recovery, it takes a lot less than a year for deleted files to degrade.I've recovered files from ntfs file systems 3 years after they've been deleted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335976</id>
	<title>Re:Another victim in the war on child porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260036120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even better - what about turning around the MAFIAA's arguments. Since he didn't pay for the download, he clearly damaged the revenue stream of the kiddie porn peddlers. They should give him a medal!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even better - what about turning around the MAFIAA 's arguments .
Since he did n't pay for the download , he clearly damaged the revenue stream of the kiddie porn peddlers .
They should give him a medal !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even better - what about turning around the MAFIAA's arguments.
Since he didn't pay for the download, he clearly damaged the revenue stream of the kiddie porn peddlers.
They should give him a medal!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336538</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I remember that story a few weeks ago... Someone found a shotgun in their back garden (this is the UK) and called the local police station to tell them he is bringing it in. Well anyway long story short because it was loaded and the box also had ammo he ended up getting a minimum of I believe three years."</p><p>You should read: <a href="http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-paul\_clarke\_and\_british\_zero\_tolerance.html" title="thisistrue.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-paul\_clarke\_and\_british\_zero\_tolerance.html</a> [thisistrue.com]</p><p>As Randy says, that "Someone" was an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I remember that story a few weeks ago... Someone found a shotgun in their back garden ( this is the UK ) and called the local police station to tell them he is bringing it in .
Well anyway long story short because it was loaded and the box also had ammo he ended up getting a minimum of I believe three years .
" You should read : http : //www.thisistrue.com/blog-paul \ _clarke \ _and \ _british \ _zero \ _tolerance.html [ thisistrue.com ] As Randy says , that " Someone " was an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I remember that story a few weeks ago... Someone found a shotgun in their back garden (this is the UK) and called the local police station to tell them he is bringing it in.
Well anyway long story short because it was loaded and the box also had ammo he ended up getting a minimum of I believe three years.
"You should read: http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-paul\_clarke\_and\_british\_zero\_tolerance.html [thisistrue.com]As Randy says, that "Someone" was an idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339924</id>
	<title>Re:Call the cops</title>
	<author>colourmyeyes</author>
	<datestamp>1260020880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(should also work with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/random)</p></div><p>
You should use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/urandom instead -<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/random eventually runs out of entropy (it doesn't take too long, actually) and blocks.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/urandom doesn't block and is sufficient for this application.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( should also work with /dev/random ) You should use /dev/urandom instead - /dev/random eventually runs out of entropy ( it does n't take too long , actually ) and blocks .
/dev/urandom does n't block and is sufficient for this application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(should also work with /dev/random)
You should use /dev/urandom instead - /dev/random eventually runs out of entropy (it doesn't take too long, actually) and blocks.
/dev/urandom doesn't block and is sufficient for this application.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336586</id>
	<title>Re:do the math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It gets really interesting in some jurisdictions, where representations of underage people still counts as child pornography - so if there's a 19 year old PRETENDING to be a 17 year old; that could be considered child pornography.  Alternatively, it could be a drawing of a character under 18 - also considered child pornography.</p><p>So, now you're in trouble if (factually) there is an underaged person in there somewhere; but also if the context of the picture suggests that someone is underage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It gets really interesting in some jurisdictions , where representations of underage people still counts as child pornography - so if there 's a 19 year old PRETENDING to be a 17 year old ; that could be considered child pornography .
Alternatively , it could be a drawing of a character under 18 - also considered child pornography.So , now you 're in trouble if ( factually ) there is an underaged person in there somewhere ; but also if the context of the picture suggests that someone is underage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It gets really interesting in some jurisdictions, where representations of underage people still counts as child pornography - so if there's a 19 year old PRETENDING to be a 17 year old; that could be considered child pornography.
Alternatively, it could be a drawing of a character under 18 - also considered child pornography.So, now you're in trouble if (factually) there is an underaged person in there somewhere; but also if the context of the picture suggests that someone is underage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336456</id>
	<title>You can KILL someone with this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Imagine someone hating someone else (yes - that happens)</p><p>that someone gets an idea based on White's misfortune:</p><p>1) Send some kiddie porn images (or just family pictures of naked kids) to someone you hate<br>2) Do it repeatedly a few times, just to make sure they land on his harddisk<br>3) Secretly tip the Feds that he downloads child porn or has an interest in naked kids</p><p>The feds seizes his harddisk, he says someone anonymous sent it to him, but it doesn't help him - because it could be a child porn ring - which he "perhaps" is a part of, and they found them deleted on his harddisk. He's basically screwed! You just killed a man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Imagine someone hating someone else ( yes - that happens ) that someone gets an idea based on White 's misfortune : 1 ) Send some kiddie porn images ( or just family pictures of naked kids ) to someone you hate2 ) Do it repeatedly a few times , just to make sure they land on his harddisk3 ) Secretly tip the Feds that he downloads child porn or has an interest in naked kidsThe feds seizes his harddisk , he says someone anonymous sent it to him , but it does n't help him - because it could be a child porn ring - which he " perhaps " is a part of , and they found them deleted on his harddisk .
He 's basically screwed !
You just killed a man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Imagine someone hating someone else (yes - that happens)that someone gets an idea based on White's misfortune:1) Send some kiddie porn images (or just family pictures of naked kids) to someone you hate2) Do it repeatedly a few times, just to make sure they land on his harddisk3) Secretly tip the Feds that he downloads child porn or has an interest in naked kidsThe feds seizes his harddisk, he says someone anonymous sent it to him, but it doesn't help him - because it could be a child porn ring - which he "perhaps" is a part of, and they found them deleted on his harddisk.
He's basically screwed!
You just killed a man.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337652</id>
	<title>Re:Call the cops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260046560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you don't know, cops may bust down your door some months later, seize your computer, then charge you once they find a thumbnail in some cache folder that was deleted 4 months ago.</p></div><p>That works for Calgary Police Service for any law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't know , cops may bust down your door some months later , seize your computer , then charge you once they find a thumbnail in some cache folder that was deleted 4 months ago.That works for Calgary Police Service for any law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't know, cops may bust down your door some months later, seize your computer, then charge you once they find a thumbnail in some cache folder that was deleted 4 months ago.That works for Calgary Police Service for any law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336146</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260037080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I once stumbled on some child pornography while I was looking for a CD-key. Although I think and hope that it was images of young and thin adults with children's heads photoshoped to them.</p><p>The anti-child-porn lobby is lobbying for laws to make anything that looks like child porn equally as illegal as the real thing. In principle, I would have been serious sex offender if those laws were in order when I clicked that bad link.</p><p>That was the last time I browsed the web for warez. Fucking hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I once stumbled on some child pornography while I was looking for a CD-key .
Although I think and hope that it was images of young and thin adults with children 's heads photoshoped to them.The anti-child-porn lobby is lobbying for laws to make anything that looks like child porn equally as illegal as the real thing .
In principle , I would have been serious sex offender if those laws were in order when I clicked that bad link.That was the last time I browsed the web for warez .
Fucking hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once stumbled on some child pornography while I was looking for a CD-key.
Although I think and hope that it was images of young and thin adults with children's heads photoshoped to them.The anti-child-porn lobby is lobbying for laws to make anything that looks like child porn equally as illegal as the real thing.
In principle, I would have been serious sex offender if those laws were in order when I clicked that bad link.That was the last time I browsed the web for warez.
Fucking hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335804</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Ideas</title>
	<author>arpad1</author>
	<datestamp>1260035280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Umm, because you got a lazy public defender or even a lazy private attorney who'd rather you take your chances with a plea bargain then do their job?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , because you got a lazy public defender or even a lazy private attorney who 'd rather you take your chances with a plea bargain then do their job ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, because you got a lazy public defender or even a lazy private attorney who'd rather you take your chances with a plea bargain then do their job?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336544</id>
	<title>Re:Call the cops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The law makes no distinction if the child porn you possess was obtained accidentally or intentionally.</p><p>That's not true.  Disclaimer, I have been involved as an expert (not defendant, wiseass) in a limewire cp case (for the record, the defendant got a full acquittal).  In Wisconsin, conviction for possession of child porn requires proof of intent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The law makes no distinction if the child porn you possess was obtained accidentally or intentionally.That 's not true .
Disclaimer , I have been involved as an expert ( not defendant , wiseass ) in a limewire cp case ( for the record , the defendant got a full acquittal ) .
In Wisconsin , conviction for possession of child porn requires proof of intent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The law makes no distinction if the child porn you possess was obtained accidentally or intentionally.That's not true.
Disclaimer, I have been involved as an expert (not defendant, wiseass) in a limewire cp case (for the record, the defendant got a full acquittal).
In Wisconsin, conviction for possession of child porn requires proof of intent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337512</id>
	<title>Re:Wow is this scary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260045780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://eraser.heidi.ie/" title="heidi.ie" rel="nofollow">Eraser</a> [heidi.ie] has a scheduled task mode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eraser [ heidi.ie ] has a scheduled task mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eraser [heidi.ie] has a scheduled task mode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337610</id>
	<title>Eheh</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1260046380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, how does it then get burried deep inside the hard drive where a first inspection does not find it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , how does it then get burried deep inside the hard drive where a first inspection does not find it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, how does it then get burried deep inside the hard drive where a first inspection does not find it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336092</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Ideas</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1260036840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know why on earth anybody would think it would be a good idea to take something like that to the police station themselves anyways.  When you discover something like that, the smartest thing you can possibly do is you call the police and have *THEM* pick it up.   At worst, you'll have to file a police report.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know why on earth anybody would think it would be a good idea to take something like that to the police station themselves anyways .
When you discover something like that , the smartest thing you can possibly do is you call the police and have * THEM * pick it up .
At worst , you 'll have to file a police report .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know why on earth anybody would think it would be a good idea to take something like that to the police station themselves anyways.
When you discover something like that, the smartest thing you can possibly do is you call the police and have *THEM* pick it up.
At worst, you'll have to file a police report.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336956</id>
	<title>Re:Public Defender</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1260041940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if he was assigned a PD hes not paying for his attorney anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if he was assigned a PD hes not paying for his attorney anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if he was assigned a PD hes not paying for his attorney anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335752</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get a different lawyer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get a different lawyer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get a different lawyer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335720</id>
	<title>Re:Public Defender</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Poor Guy, he is screwed.</p><p>If he pleads guilty the Judge with the way public opinion is these will "throw the book"  at him.</p><p>The FBI sounds like a really dodgy organisation.</p><p>There whole way of doing things seems to be about  creating traps and then  encouraging/assisting people to commit crimes.</p><p>Then they book the person and have the perfect trial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Poor Guy , he is screwed.If he pleads guilty the Judge with the way public opinion is these will " throw the book " at him.The FBI sounds like a really dodgy organisation.There whole way of doing things seems to be about creating traps and then encouraging/assisting people to commit crimes.Then they book the person and have the perfect trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poor Guy, he is screwed.If he pleads guilty the Judge with the way public opinion is these will "throw the book"  at him.The FBI sounds like a really dodgy organisation.There whole way of doing things seems to be about  creating traps and then  encouraging/assisting people to commit crimes.Then they book the person and have the perfect trial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336104</id>
	<title>Re:Wow is this scary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260036900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Window washer has a "wash free space" tool for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Window washer has a " wash free space " tool for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Window washer has a "wash free space" tool for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337970</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1260005400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>  How do you think you would feel if you were a 14 year old girl, have a 17 year old boyfriend, and you two have sex a few times (hey it feels good right?) and then sometime later, the cops take him away and The Government sends him to prison for a few decades and everyone says bad things about him and that he did a very bad thing to you. So who is scarring who for life here? If it was clearly consensual, maybe just let the minor decide whether it was rape or not, when the minor achieves legal adulthood.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you think you would feel if you were a 14 year old girl , have a 17 year old boyfriend , and you two have sex a few times ( hey it feels good right ?
) and then sometime later , the cops take him away and The Government sends him to prison for a few decades and everyone says bad things about him and that he did a very bad thing to you .
So who is scarring who for life here ?
If it was clearly consensual , maybe just let the minor decide whether it was rape or not , when the minor achieves legal adulthood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  How do you think you would feel if you were a 14 year old girl, have a 17 year old boyfriend, and you two have sex a few times (hey it feels good right?
) and then sometime later, the cops take him away and The Government sends him to prison for a few decades and everyone says bad things about him and that he did a very bad thing to you.
So who is scarring who for life here?
If it was clearly consensual, maybe just let the minor decide whether it was rape or not, when the minor achieves legal adulthood.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337374</id>
	<title>Re:Wow is this scary</title>
	<author>Courageous</author>
	<datestamp>1260044700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most common type of marginal porn is porn from some euro-country, where the age of consent is 16. There's lots of that out there, technically quite illegal in the US. OTOH, I've gotten the impression that prosecutors leave this stuff alone, precisely because it's both somewhat difficult for anyone to tell, and because of the slight difference in moral boundaries between various countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most common type of marginal porn is porn from some euro-country , where the age of consent is 16 .
There 's lots of that out there , technically quite illegal in the US .
OTOH , I 've gotten the impression that prosecutors leave this stuff alone , precisely because it 's both somewhat difficult for anyone to tell , and because of the slight difference in moral boundaries between various countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most common type of marginal porn is porn from some euro-country, where the age of consent is 16.
There's lots of that out there, technically quite illegal in the US.
OTOH, I've gotten the impression that prosecutors leave this stuff alone, precisely because it's both somewhat difficult for anyone to tell, and because of the slight difference in moral boundaries between various countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339688</id>
	<title>Re:Never volunteer anything to the cops</title>
	<author>Dahan</author>
	<datestamp>1260018960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They almost certainly would. The prosecutor just has to make it clear that the only relevant fact is that he did download the images. It's completely irrelevant to his guilt or innocence that he immediately deleted the images. These laws leave absolutely no wiggle room with regards to intent.</p></div><p>Did you even read the <a href="http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.196006/gov.uscourts.caed.196006.1.0.pdf" title="archive.org">indictment</a> [archive.org]? The charge is that he "did <em>knowingly</em> receive and distribute<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... [a visual depiction that] involved a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" (my emphasis). So it is in fact relevant whether he knew that he was download CP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They almost certainly would .
The prosecutor just has to make it clear that the only relevant fact is that he did download the images .
It 's completely irrelevant to his guilt or innocence that he immediately deleted the images .
These laws leave absolutely no wiggle room with regards to intent.Did you even read the indictment [ archive.org ] ?
The charge is that he " did knowingly receive and distribute ... [ a visual depiction that ] involved a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct " ( my emphasis ) .
So it is in fact relevant whether he knew that he was download CP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They almost certainly would.
The prosecutor just has to make it clear that the only relevant fact is that he did download the images.
It's completely irrelevant to his guilt or innocence that he immediately deleted the images.
These laws leave absolutely no wiggle room with regards to intent.Did you even read the indictment [archive.org]?
The charge is that he "did knowingly receive and distribute ... [a visual depiction that] involved a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" (my emphasis).
So it is in fact relevant whether he knew that he was download CP.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30348678</id>
	<title>at least were lynching commies anymore</title>
	<author>ananda59</author>
	<datestamp>1260115020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please, please don't tell the FBI, but I think I may have deleted a file extolling the virtues of communism. I think I still know where it is.  Please give me time to wipe it a dozen times before you call the Feds.  I wouldn't want to be arrested for being an accidental commie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , please do n't tell the FBI , but I think I may have deleted a file extolling the virtues of communism .
I think I still know where it is .
Please give me time to wipe it a dozen times before you call the Feds .
I would n't want to be arrested for being an accidental commie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, please don't tell the FBI, but I think I may have deleted a file extolling the virtues of communism.
I think I still know where it is.
Please give me time to wipe it a dozen times before you call the Feds.
I wouldn't want to be arrested for being an accidental commie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335950</id>
	<title>Happened to me.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260035940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This happened to me, after $4,500 spent on a lawyer it went away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This happened to me , after $ 4,500 spent on a lawyer it went away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This happened to me, after $4,500 spent on a lawyer it went away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336686</id>
	<title>Re:Government.</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1260040380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The arguments against anarchy start to where thin...</p></div></blockquote><p>
So do the arguments for your education.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The arguments against anarchy start to where thin.. . So do the arguments for your education .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The arguments against anarchy start to where thin...
So do the arguments for your education.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338426</id>
	<title>WE are the ONLY ones that can stop this...</title>
	<author>EviX</author>
	<datestamp>1260008940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Lets stand up to the government! What could they do if we organized and stopped paying taxes until we fix the problems that are making this beautiful land a shi**y place to live.


The government has far too much power. If I were him I'd demand to be deported to a country that doesn't suck republican nuts...

When are we gonna have another civil war? I say we start a country wide militia and tell the federal government to shape up or get knocked down.

That is IF they haven't already put something in the water to keep us submissive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets stand up to the government !
What could they do if we organized and stopped paying taxes until we fix the problems that are making this beautiful land a shi * * y place to live .
The government has far too much power .
If I were him I 'd demand to be deported to a country that does n't suck republican nuts.. . When are we gon na have another civil war ?
I say we start a country wide militia and tell the federal government to shape up or get knocked down .
That is IF they have n't already put something in the water to keep us submissive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Lets stand up to the government!
What could they do if we organized and stopped paying taxes until we fix the problems that are making this beautiful land a shi**y place to live.
The government has far too much power.
If I were him I'd demand to be deported to a country that doesn't suck republican nuts...

When are we gonna have another civil war?
I say we start a country wide militia and tell the federal government to shape up or get knocked down.
That is IF they haven't already put something in the water to keep us submissive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335712</id>
	<title>Another victim in the war on child porn</title>
	<author>QCompson</author>
	<datestamp>1260034740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my opinion, it's irrelevant whether or not he downloaded the images on purpose.  The connection between downloading an image off of limewire and the sexual abuse of a child is so tenuous it's absurd.  The only way people can justify it is to make up crazy hypotheticals and market demand theories which are used in no other context.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my opinion , it 's irrelevant whether or not he downloaded the images on purpose .
The connection between downloading an image off of limewire and the sexual abuse of a child is so tenuous it 's absurd .
The only way people can justify it is to make up crazy hypotheticals and market demand theories which are used in no other context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my opinion, it's irrelevant whether or not he downloaded the images on purpose.
The connection between downloading an image off of limewire and the sexual abuse of a child is so tenuous it's absurd.
The only way people can justify it is to make up crazy hypotheticals and market demand theories which are used in no other context.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338178</id>
	<title>If they could have gotten a warrant</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1260006960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They wouldn't have asked. Asking first is stupid because it could tip off the suspect that they were under investigation and they'd then have time to destroy evidence and such.</p><p>So that they asked means they either realized they had insufficient evidence to get a warrant, or they'd already tried to get one and the judge said "No, you are fishing and I'm not signing off on it."</p><p>The police do things like this, try to go search when they lack the evidence to get a warrant. Many people are cooperative so it works well. Happened to a friend of mine. His roommate at the time was a problem many ways, and ended up getting himself arrested. However the police thought my friend might be involved as well. So they came back and said they wanted to search the house. My friend told them to get lost, which annoyed them, but there was nothing they could do. They didn't have any probable cause that he was doing anything illegal, they'd never get a warrant, but they could ask and if he said yes they were free to go.</p><p>It is amazing how often tricks like that work. A county attorney I know says he loves lineups. Reason? Because he asks the question "Would the guy who did it please raise his hand?" and people do! He's gotten the same person with that on more than one occasion. If crooks are willing to make it easy for the police to get them, well expect the police to take advantage.</p><p>So if you've done nothing wrong and the police come and ask to search your house, your answer should be "No, come back with a warrant." That'll most likely be the last you see of them, they wouldn't have asked if they had probable cause for a warrant. Remember: The 4th amendment is made for protecting innocent people. If we could rely on the police to be a perfectly noble and just group who would only ever search criminals, well then we'd not need a 4th amendment. It isn't there to protect criminals. However we can't thus we have one to protect innocent people from being harassed and inconvenienced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They would n't have asked .
Asking first is stupid because it could tip off the suspect that they were under investigation and they 'd then have time to destroy evidence and such.So that they asked means they either realized they had insufficient evidence to get a warrant , or they 'd already tried to get one and the judge said " No , you are fishing and I 'm not signing off on it .
" The police do things like this , try to go search when they lack the evidence to get a warrant .
Many people are cooperative so it works well .
Happened to a friend of mine .
His roommate at the time was a problem many ways , and ended up getting himself arrested .
However the police thought my friend might be involved as well .
So they came back and said they wanted to search the house .
My friend told them to get lost , which annoyed them , but there was nothing they could do .
They did n't have any probable cause that he was doing anything illegal , they 'd never get a warrant , but they could ask and if he said yes they were free to go.It is amazing how often tricks like that work .
A county attorney I know says he loves lineups .
Reason ? Because he asks the question " Would the guy who did it please raise his hand ?
" and people do !
He 's gotten the same person with that on more than one occasion .
If crooks are willing to make it easy for the police to get them , well expect the police to take advantage.So if you 've done nothing wrong and the police come and ask to search your house , your answer should be " No , come back with a warrant .
" That 'll most likely be the last you see of them , they would n't have asked if they had probable cause for a warrant .
Remember : The 4th amendment is made for protecting innocent people .
If we could rely on the police to be a perfectly noble and just group who would only ever search criminals , well then we 'd not need a 4th amendment .
It is n't there to protect criminals .
However we ca n't thus we have one to protect innocent people from being harassed and inconvenienced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They wouldn't have asked.
Asking first is stupid because it could tip off the suspect that they were under investigation and they'd then have time to destroy evidence and such.So that they asked means they either realized they had insufficient evidence to get a warrant, or they'd already tried to get one and the judge said "No, you are fishing and I'm not signing off on it.
"The police do things like this, try to go search when they lack the evidence to get a warrant.
Many people are cooperative so it works well.
Happened to a friend of mine.
His roommate at the time was a problem many ways, and ended up getting himself arrested.
However the police thought my friend might be involved as well.
So they came back and said they wanted to search the house.
My friend told them to get lost, which annoyed them, but there was nothing they could do.
They didn't have any probable cause that he was doing anything illegal, they'd never get a warrant, but they could ask and if he said yes they were free to go.It is amazing how often tricks like that work.
A county attorney I know says he loves lineups.
Reason? Because he asks the question "Would the guy who did it please raise his hand?
" and people do!
He's gotten the same person with that on more than one occasion.
If crooks are willing to make it easy for the police to get them, well expect the police to take advantage.So if you've done nothing wrong and the police come and ask to search your house, your answer should be "No, come back with a warrant.
" That'll most likely be the last you see of them, they wouldn't have asked if they had probable cause for a warrant.
Remember: The 4th amendment is made for protecting innocent people.
If we could rely on the police to be a perfectly noble and just group who would only ever search criminals, well then we'd not need a 4th amendment.
It isn't there to protect criminals.
However we can't thus we have one to protect innocent people from being harassed and inconvenienced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336322</id>
	<title>NO!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260038280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is UTTER INSANITY! It is not like he was building explosives. I don't know what TFA says but this is UNACCEPTABLE.</p><p>The young man is having his life destroyed for a THOUGHT CRIME.</p><p>When are you fuckers going to take back your country? Anyone who does nothing and says "one more poor slob" is contributing to the problem.</p><p>Used to be mine but I moved OUT. I thought I wanted to move back - and no I am not into child porn - but I absolutely hate the idea of what the U.S.A. has turned into... the LAUGHING STOCK of the WORLD. Looked at your exchange rate lately? More of that coming because the country is run by nannies, bought cops, and hypocrits with money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is UTTER INSANITY !
It is not like he was building explosives .
I do n't know what TFA says but this is UNACCEPTABLE.The young man is having his life destroyed for a THOUGHT CRIME.When are you fuckers going to take back your country ?
Anyone who does nothing and says " one more poor slob " is contributing to the problem.Used to be mine but I moved OUT .
I thought I wanted to move back - and no I am not into child porn - but I absolutely hate the idea of what the U.S.A. has turned into... the LAUGHING STOCK of the WORLD .
Looked at your exchange rate lately ?
More of that coming because the country is run by nannies , bought cops , and hypocrits with money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is UTTER INSANITY!
It is not like he was building explosives.
I don't know what TFA says but this is UNACCEPTABLE.The young man is having his life destroyed for a THOUGHT CRIME.When are you fuckers going to take back your country?
Anyone who does nothing and says "one more poor slob" is contributing to the problem.Used to be mine but I moved OUT.
I thought I wanted to move back - and no I am not into child porn - but I absolutely hate the idea of what the U.S.A. has turned into... the LAUGHING STOCK of the WORLD.
Looked at your exchange rate lately?
More of that coming because the country is run by nannies, bought cops, and hypocrits with money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338244</id>
	<title>Re:Call the cops</title>
	<author>m.ducharme</author>
	<datestamp>1260007440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep in mind that you can't trust the FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) to give you an opinion on what the law actually says (and you can't trust TFAorS either). Just because they tell you that accidentally having child pornography is illegal, doesn't make it illegal.  They are not giving you legal advice, they are making their own jobs easier. If you want to know whether something is illegal or not, read the statutes for yourself, and/or consult your lawyer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep in mind that you ca n't trust the FBI ( or any other law enforcement agency ) to give you an opinion on what the law actually says ( and you ca n't trust TFAorS either ) .
Just because they tell you that accidentally having child pornography is illegal , does n't make it illegal .
They are not giving you legal advice , they are making their own jobs easier .
If you want to know whether something is illegal or not , read the statutes for yourself , and/or consult your lawyer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep in mind that you can't trust the FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) to give you an opinion on what the law actually says (and you can't trust TFAorS either).
Just because they tell you that accidentally having child pornography is illegal, doesn't make it illegal.
They are not giving you legal advice, they are making their own jobs easier.
If you want to know whether something is illegal or not, read the statutes for yourself, and/or consult your lawyer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336416</id>
	<title>Re:Another victim in the war on child porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260038820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The overall theory behind the law is that making possession illegal it limits demand.</p><p>Where there's a demand, there's a supplier. In theory if you make possession illegal, it cuts demand drastically, therefore cutting the supply down.</p><p>Whether this works or not can be debated endlessly, but the judges on the supreme court believe it so its here to stay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The overall theory behind the law is that making possession illegal it limits demand.Where there 's a demand , there 's a supplier .
In theory if you make possession illegal , it cuts demand drastically , therefore cutting the supply down.Whether this works or not can be debated endlessly , but the judges on the supreme court believe it so its here to stay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The overall theory behind the law is that making possession illegal it limits demand.Where there's a demand, there's a supplier.
In theory if you make possession illegal, it cuts demand drastically, therefore cutting the supply down.Whether this works or not can be debated endlessly, but the judges on the supreme court believe it so its here to stay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337612</id>
	<title>Absolutely ridiculous</title>
	<author>exsequor</author>
	<datestamp>1260046380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When is the FBI going to get their heads out of their asses and realize this could happen to anyone, including them.  Just another example of how our poorly thought out justice system ruins plenty of innocent citizens lives.

Talk about taking a life and throwing it neatly in the waste receptacle</htmltext>
<tokenext>When is the FBI going to get their heads out of their asses and realize this could happen to anyone , including them .
Just another example of how our poorly thought out justice system ruins plenty of innocent citizens lives .
Talk about taking a life and throwing it neatly in the waste receptacle</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When is the FBI going to get their heads out of their asses and realize this could happen to anyone, including them.
Just another example of how our poorly thought out justice system ruins plenty of innocent citizens lives.
Talk about taking a life and throwing it neatly in the waste receptacle</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340178</id>
	<title>Never admit to anything</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1260023280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The advice to call the FBI and turn yourself in is the MOST RIDICULOUS I've seen in all that ridiculous case. They're either going to laugh at you or sue you like that poor guy. And the real advice is: never admit having done anything. Even doing something by mistake. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence.<br>Remember the magic words: "I don't recall." Those words sufficed to get a few war criminals off the hook.<br>McKinnon is getting the same kind of bullshit -- and it would never have happened had he not admitted doing anything wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The advice to call the FBI and turn yourself in is the MOST RIDICULOUS I 've seen in all that ridiculous case .
They 're either going to laugh at you or sue you like that poor guy .
And the real advice is : never admit having done anything .
Even doing something by mistake .
Even in the face of overwhelming evidence.Remember the magic words : " I do n't recall .
" Those words sufficed to get a few war criminals off the hook.McKinnon is getting the same kind of bullshit -- and it would never have happened had he not admitted doing anything wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The advice to call the FBI and turn yourself in is the MOST RIDICULOUS I've seen in all that ridiculous case.
They're either going to laugh at you or sue you like that poor guy.
And the real advice is: never admit having done anything.
Even doing something by mistake.
Even in the face of overwhelming evidence.Remember the magic words: "I don't recall.
" Those words sufficed to get a few war criminals off the hook.McKinnon is getting the same kind of bullshit -- and it would never have happened had he not admitted doing anything wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336040</id>
	<title>Use Linux</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1260036540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then Windoze + IE dosnt get to hide crap everwhere</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then Windoze + IE dosnt get to hide crap everwhere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then Windoze + IE dosnt get to hide crap everwhere</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337260</id>
	<title>Re:My $.02</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260043860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one's even mentioned yet (that I can see) how a convicted sex offender gets treated in California prison.  3.5 years?  He'll likely be killed by other inmates before then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one 's even mentioned yet ( that I can see ) how a convicted sex offender gets treated in California prison .
3.5 years ?
He 'll likely be killed by other inmates before then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one's even mentioned yet (that I can see) how a convicted sex offender gets treated in California prison.
3.5 years?
He'll likely be killed by other inmates before then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30343174</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>luther349</author>
	<datestamp>1260114960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>as you said its there line of questions they ask. they  don't what a jury that will vote agenst them and call the case bs. if they did the riaa would never win a case. the guy should take it to tril and maybe he will luck out with a halfway smart jury. if the evdance is as weak as the story clams none would convict a man over 1 degraded image.. hell anyone that uses the net has probably had this happen, i rember once on usenet there was a file labeled a game and it was relly some kid getting it. i destoryed the file with a 7 pass wipe dod standard. wonder if the fbi will be coming for me now.and anyone else that got foiled. and i agree with fragmentation over 2 years theirs no way the file could been recoverable. i have been hearing storys like this more often even on local news. and for any one that gets jury duty you do not have to do what they say. its your job to take the evdance and case and decided on what you believe is guilty or not.if you go agenst the juge ther isn't anything they can do to you other then never ask you to do jury duty again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>as you said its there line of questions they ask .
they do n't what a jury that will vote agenst them and call the case bs .
if they did the riaa would never win a case .
the guy should take it to tril and maybe he will luck out with a halfway smart jury .
if the evdance is as weak as the story clams none would convict a man over 1 degraded image.. hell anyone that uses the net has probably had this happen , i rember once on usenet there was a file labeled a game and it was relly some kid getting it .
i destoryed the file with a 7 pass wipe dod standard .
wonder if the fbi will be coming for me now.and anyone else that got foiled .
and i agree with fragmentation over 2 years theirs no way the file could been recoverable .
i have been hearing storys like this more often even on local news .
and for any one that gets jury duty you do not have to do what they say .
its your job to take the evdance and case and decided on what you believe is guilty or not.if you go agenst the juge ther is n't anything they can do to you other then never ask you to do jury duty again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as you said its there line of questions they ask.
they  don't what a jury that will vote agenst them and call the case bs.
if they did the riaa would never win a case.
the guy should take it to tril and maybe he will luck out with a halfway smart jury.
if the evdance is as weak as the story clams none would convict a man over 1 degraded image.. hell anyone that uses the net has probably had this happen, i rember once on usenet there was a file labeled a game and it was relly some kid getting it.
i destoryed the file with a 7 pass wipe dod standard.
wonder if the fbi will be coming for me now.and anyone else that got foiled.
and i agree with fragmentation over 2 years theirs no way the file could been recoverable.
i have been hearing storys like this more often even on local news.
and for any one that gets jury duty you do not have to do what they say.
its your job to take the evdance and case and decided on what you believe is guilty or not.if you go agenst the juge ther isn't anything they can do to you other then never ask you to do jury duty again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30344314</id>
	<title>Re:Wow is this scary</title>
	<author>Terrasque</author>
	<datestamp>1260125760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CCleaner have an option of safe delete, and an option for cleaning free space too (aka overwrite with gibberish).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CCleaner have an option of safe delete , and an option for cleaning free space too ( aka overwrite with gibberish ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CCleaner have an option of safe delete, and an option for cleaning free space too (aka overwrite with gibberish).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340976</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260032700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So essentially, you didn't do your job.  Way to be a good citizen!  A jury is a fact finder, nothing more.  The judge applies the juries factual findings to the law.  So, despite the admitted possession of the marijuana plants, you decided that he didn't possess them.  Way to go!  And you're calling everyone else morons?  Oh the irony...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So essentially , you did n't do your job .
Way to be a good citizen !
A jury is a fact finder , nothing more .
The judge applies the juries factual findings to the law .
So , despite the admitted possession of the marijuana plants , you decided that he did n't possess them .
Way to go !
And you 're calling everyone else morons ?
Oh the irony.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So essentially, you didn't do your job.
Way to be a good citizen!
A jury is a fact finder, nothing more.
The judge applies the juries factual findings to the law.
So, despite the admitted possession of the marijuana plants, you decided that he didn't possess them.
Way to go!
And you're calling everyone else morons?
Oh the irony...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336604</id>
	<title>Diskwipe?</title>
	<author>Gonoff</author>
	<datestamp>1260039900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do I need to regularly run some sort of secure wipe of all unused space on the possibility that I, or someone else in my house, has accidentaly downloaded something illegal?</p><p>Or would this be evidence that I had and was just covering it up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do I need to regularly run some sort of secure wipe of all unused space on the possibility that I , or someone else in my house , has accidentaly downloaded something illegal ? Or would this be evidence that I had and was just covering it up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do I need to regularly run some sort of secure wipe of all unused space on the possibility that I, or someone else in my house, has accidentaly downloaded something illegal?Or would this be evidence that I had and was just covering it up?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338278</id>
	<title>Re:The FBI is lying.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260007680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean something like this:</p><p>import sys,os,resource,random</p><p>alphanum = range(ord('0'), ord('9')) + range(ord('A'), ord('Z')) + \<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; range(ord('a'), ord('z'))</p><p>def rand\_alphanum(n):<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; s = ''<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; while len(s) \n' \% sys.argv[0])<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; sys.exit(1)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; fd = os.open(sys.argv[1], os.O\_RDWR)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; fstat = os.fstat(fd)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; fsize = fstat[6]<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; buf = resource.getpagesize() * chr(0x0)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; i = 0<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; while i  (fsize / len(buf)):<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; bytes\_written = os.write(fd, buf)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; assert (bytes\_written == len(buf))<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; i += 1<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; buf = buf[:fsize \% len(buf)]<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; bytes\_written = os.write(fd, buf)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; assert (bytes\_written == len(buf))<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; os.fsync(fd)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; os.close(fd)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; head, tail = os.path.split(sys.argv[1])<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; while True:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; newpath = os.path.join(head, rand\_alphanum(len(tail)))<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; try:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; os.stat(newpath)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; except OSError, e:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; if e.errno == 2:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; break<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; os.rename(sys.argv[1], newpath)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; sys.stdout.write('Scrambled in-place \%s (\%d bytes), renamed to: \%s\n' \% \<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (sys.argv[1], fsize, newpath))<br>#end main</p><p>if \_\_name\_\_ == "\_\_main\_\_":<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; main()</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean something like this : import sys,os,resource,randomalphanum = range ( ord ( '0 ' ) , ord ( '9 ' ) ) + range ( ord ( 'A ' ) , ord ( 'Z ' ) ) + \         range ( ord ( 'a ' ) , ord ( 'z ' ) ) def rand \ _alphanum ( n ) :         s = ' '         while len ( s ) \ n ' \ % sys.argv [ 0 ] )                 sys.exit ( 1 )         fd = os.open ( sys.argv [ 1 ] , os.O \ _RDWR )         fstat = os.fstat ( fd )         fsize = fstat [ 6 ]         buf = resource.getpagesize ( ) * chr ( 0x0 )         i = 0         while i ( fsize / len ( buf ) ) :                 bytes \ _written = os.write ( fd , buf )                 assert ( bytes \ _written = = len ( buf ) )                 i + = 1         buf = buf [ : fsize \ % len ( buf ) ]         bytes \ _written = os.write ( fd , buf )         assert ( bytes \ _written = = len ( buf ) )         os.fsync ( fd )         os.close ( fd )         head , tail = os.path.split ( sys.argv [ 1 ] )         while True :                 newpath = os.path.join ( head , rand \ _alphanum ( len ( tail ) ) )                 try :                         os.stat ( newpath )                 except OSError , e :                         if e.errno = = 2 :                                 break         os.rename ( sys.argv [ 1 ] , newpath )         sys.stdout.write ( 'Scrambled in-place \ % s ( \ % d bytes ) , renamed to : \ % s \ n ' \ % \                 ( sys.argv [ 1 ] , fsize , newpath ) ) # end mainif \ _ \ _name \ _ \ _ = = " \ _ \ _main \ _ \ _ " :         main ( )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean something like this:import sys,os,resource,randomalphanum = range(ord('0'), ord('9')) + range(ord('A'), ord('Z')) + \
        range(ord('a'), ord('z'))def rand\_alphanum(n):
        s = ''
        while len(s) \n' \% sys.argv[0])
                sys.exit(1)
        fd = os.open(sys.argv[1], os.O\_RDWR)
        fstat = os.fstat(fd)
        fsize = fstat[6]
        buf = resource.getpagesize() * chr(0x0)
        i = 0
        while i  (fsize / len(buf)):
                bytes\_written = os.write(fd, buf)
                assert (bytes\_written == len(buf))
                i += 1
        buf = buf[:fsize \% len(buf)]
        bytes\_written = os.write(fd, buf)
        assert (bytes\_written == len(buf))
        os.fsync(fd)
        os.close(fd)
        head, tail = os.path.split(sys.argv[1])
        while True:
                newpath = os.path.join(head, rand\_alphanum(len(tail)))
                try:
                        os.stat(newpath)
                except OSError, e:
                        if e.errno == 2:
                                break
        os.rename(sys.argv[1], newpath)
        sys.stdout.write('Scrambled in-place \%s (\%d bytes), renamed to: \%s\n' \% \
                (sys.argv[1], fsize, newpath))#end mainif \_\_name\_\_ == "\_\_main\_\_":
        main()</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340266</id>
	<title>Re:Never volunteer anything to the cops</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1260024300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can waive trial by jury. I'm still unsure if that's the option I would take if I were indicted. It means it takes 1 person to convict rather than 12. But there are some stupid juries out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can waive trial by jury .
I 'm still unsure if that 's the option I would take if I were indicted .
It means it takes 1 person to convict rather than 12 .
But there are some stupid juries out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can waive trial by jury.
I'm still unsure if that's the option I would take if I were indicted.
It means it takes 1 person to convict rather than 12.
But there are some stupid juries out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336074</id>
	<title>Why in the HELL would you plead guilty to this??</title>
	<author>jbeach</author>
	<datestamp>1260036720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>3 years in prison and ten years listed as a sex offender?? ffs.

This guy needs a new lawyer. Either that, or I honestly wonder if he actually is guilty of something worse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 years in prison and ten years listed as a sex offender ? ?
ffs . This guy needs a new lawyer .
Either that , or I honestly wonder if he actually is guilty of something worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3 years in prison and ten years listed as a sex offender??
ffs.

This guy needs a new lawyer.
Either that, or I honestly wonder if he actually is guilty of something worse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336596</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>If simple possession were not against the law then every one of these borderline gray area cases like this would go away.</em> </p><p>May be they should consider releasing on the net <em>simulated</em> child porn to kill demand and financial incentive for actual child porn, reducing harm to actual children. Simulated children don't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If simple possession were not against the law then every one of these borderline gray area cases like this would go away .
May be they should consider releasing on the net simulated child porn to kill demand and financial incentive for actual child porn , reducing harm to actual children .
Simulated children do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If simple possession were not against the law then every one of these borderline gray area cases like this would go away.
May be they should consider releasing on the net simulated child porn to kill demand and financial incentive for actual child porn, reducing harm to actual children.
Simulated children don't care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337564</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260046140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, if there was no one to look at the pictures, there would be no need to make the pictures and no children would have to abused. yes, simple logic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , if there was no one to look at the pictures , there would be no need to make the pictures and no children would have to abused .
yes , simple logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, if there was no one to look at the pictures, there would be no need to make the pictures and no children would have to abused.
yes, simple logic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338878</id>
	<title>Miss USA/America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260012600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why was Donald Trump's Miss USA (America?) organization not charged for possession of child pornography. The organization said they had possession of a "sex tape" with Miss California. Miss California said she was 17 at the time. Presto. Miss USA (America?) company just admitted to possession of child pornography. Why isn't the government prosecuting them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why was Donald Trump 's Miss USA ( America ?
) organization not charged for possession of child pornography .
The organization said they had possession of a " sex tape " with Miss California .
Miss California said she was 17 at the time .
Presto. Miss USA ( America ?
) company just admitted to possession of child pornography .
Why is n't the government prosecuting them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why was Donald Trump's Miss USA (America?
) organization not charged for possession of child pornography.
The organization said they had possession of a "sex tape" with Miss California.
Miss California said she was 17 at the time.
Presto. Miss USA (America?
) company just admitted to possession of child pornography.
Why isn't the government prosecuting them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337734</id>
	<title>Re:Wow is this scary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260003900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Linux, this could be accomplished by writing a cron job that fills up the the free space on hard disk with random garbage and then deletes the file.</p><p>dd if=/dev/urandom of=/home/username/scramble.bin<br>rm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home/username/scramble.bin</p><p>Set it to run everyday. Not exactly the safest, because some programs may fail due to no hard disk space in the few seconds space gets to 0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Linux , this could be accomplished by writing a cron job that fills up the the free space on hard disk with random garbage and then deletes the file.dd if = /dev/urandom of = /home/username/scramble.binrm /home/username/scramble.binSet it to run everyday .
Not exactly the safest , because some programs may fail due to no hard disk space in the few seconds space gets to 0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Linux, this could be accomplished by writing a cron job that fills up the the free space on hard disk with random garbage and then deletes the file.dd if=/dev/urandom of=/home/username/scramble.binrm /home/username/scramble.binSet it to run everyday.
Not exactly the safest, because some programs may fail due to no hard disk space in the few seconds space gets to 0.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337162</id>
	<title>Re:Never volunteer anything to the cops</title>
	<author>X-Power</author>
	<datestamp>1260043200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They most certainly would not.
If someone sends you a package full of kiddie porn to your house, do you go to jail for 20 years if you instantly burn the images?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They most certainly would not .
If someone sends you a package full of kiddie porn to your house , do you go to jail for 20 years if you instantly burn the images ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They most certainly would not.
If someone sends you a package full of kiddie porn to your house, do you go to jail for 20 years if you instantly burn the images?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30342692</id>
	<title>Re:Devil's Advocate</title>
	<author>Alsee</author>
	<datestamp>1260108660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>gateway theory, ie. that less access to child porn results in fewer child molesters, but I'd have to see the numbers before coming to conclusion.</i></p><p>I don't know of any numbers specifically on that, but there are solid numbers for general porn. In the last few decades there have been a number of countries that have passed laws either changing general porn from criminal to legal, or from legal to criminal. There are solid consistent statistics that rape and other sex crimes go DOWN when porn is legal and available.</p><p>-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>gateway theory , ie .
that less access to child porn results in fewer child molesters , but I 'd have to see the numbers before coming to conclusion.I do n't know of any numbers specifically on that , but there are solid numbers for general porn .
In the last few decades there have been a number of countries that have passed laws either changing general porn from criminal to legal , or from legal to criminal .
There are solid consistent statistics that rape and other sex crimes go DOWN when porn is legal and available.-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gateway theory, ie.
that less access to child porn results in fewer child molesters, but I'd have to see the numbers before coming to conclusion.I don't know of any numbers specifically on that, but there are solid numbers for general porn.
In the last few decades there have been a number of countries that have passed laws either changing general porn from criminal to legal, or from legal to criminal.
There are solid consistent statistics that rape and other sex crimes go DOWN when porn is legal and available.-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335554</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260033780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely ridiculous</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely ridiculous</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely ridiculous</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336358</id>
	<title>Re:Never volunteer anything to the cops</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1260038580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>However, I think it is great advice to call the FBI when you see something like that, get it on record that you accidentally downloaded kiddy porn and you want to know what the FBI is doing to catch the bastards who make and distribute it.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
The FBI is *not* there to give you legal advice, or act in your best interests.  Their job is to throw your ass in jail if you possess kiddie pr0n. They will say they have no discretion.
</p><p>
The truth is your best defense.  They admit you couldn't access it - didn't even know it was still there - then it wasn't "in his possession" - because legally in this case, possession means CONTROL OVER.  The case is shit, and he'll walk.  Even a dumb jury will "get it."  Reconstituting the bits means that, before they were reconstituted, he didn't have them either.  It's like a glass of reconstituted orange juice - until you add water, you don't have orange juice, just frozen concentrate.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , I think it is great advice to call the FBI when you see something like that , get it on record that you accidentally downloaded kiddy porn and you want to know what the FBI is doing to catch the bastards who make and distribute it .
The FBI is * not * there to give you legal advice , or act in your best interests .
Their job is to throw your ass in jail if you possess kiddie pr0n .
They will say they have no discretion .
The truth is your best defense .
They admit you could n't access it - did n't even know it was still there - then it was n't " in his possession " - because legally in this case , possession means CONTROL OVER .
The case is shit , and he 'll walk .
Even a dumb jury will " get it .
" Reconstituting the bits means that , before they were reconstituted , he did n't have them either .
It 's like a glass of reconstituted orange juice - until you add water , you do n't have orange juice , just frozen concentrate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, I think it is great advice to call the FBI when you see something like that, get it on record that you accidentally downloaded kiddy porn and you want to know what the FBI is doing to catch the bastards who make and distribute it.
The FBI is *not* there to give you legal advice, or act in your best interests.
Their job is to throw your ass in jail if you possess kiddie pr0n.
They will say they have no discretion.
The truth is your best defense.
They admit you couldn't access it - didn't even know it was still there - then it wasn't "in his possession" - because legally in this case, possession means CONTROL OVER.
The case is shit, and he'll walk.
Even a dumb jury will "get it.
"  Reconstituting the bits means that, before they were reconstituted, he didn't have them either.
It's like a glass of reconstituted orange juice - until you add water, you don't have orange juice, just frozen concentrate.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336228</id>
	<title>His crime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260037680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>was not the claimed questionable possession of kiddy porn. It was using limewire. And the sentence is so hard because MAFIAA and Micro$oft demand it. Fuck them I say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>was not the claimed questionable possession of kiddy porn .
It was using limewire .
And the sentence is so hard because MAFIAA and Micro $ oft demand it .
Fuck them I say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was not the claimed questionable possession of kiddy porn.
It was using limewire.
And the sentence is so hard because MAFIAA and Micro$oft demand it.
Fuck them I say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30356666</id>
	<title>Re:I think the right move would be...</title>
	<author>Slashdot Parent</author>
	<datestamp>1260218100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a lot easier to say that when you're not standing in that guy's shoes.</p><p>When you're 22, 20 years sounds like an awfully long time.  Hell, 20 years ago, the guy was still in diapers, and now he's facing 20 years in prison.  And given his substandard legal counsel and society's negative views on child porn, he's got to consider that 20 years is a real possibility for him.</p><p>I don't know what I'd do if I were in his shoes (well, I do know--I'd hire a good lawyer, but I've probably got a little more money than that 22-year-old kid), but I have a hard time second-guessing his reasoning.  He must believe that he is acting in his own best interest.</p><p>That being said, I am not a big fan of the "throw the book at them" criminal justice system we have.  It's not fair to make draconian penalties with the intent of offering plea deals.  "You're facing 50 years in the slammer, punk.  But if you plead guilty, you'll be out in 2."  How is that fair?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a lot easier to say that when you 're not standing in that guy 's shoes.When you 're 22 , 20 years sounds like an awfully long time .
Hell , 20 years ago , the guy was still in diapers , and now he 's facing 20 years in prison .
And given his substandard legal counsel and society 's negative views on child porn , he 's got to consider that 20 years is a real possibility for him.I do n't know what I 'd do if I were in his shoes ( well , I do know--I 'd hire a good lawyer , but I 've probably got a little more money than that 22-year-old kid ) , but I have a hard time second-guessing his reasoning .
He must believe that he is acting in his own best interest.That being said , I am not a big fan of the " throw the book at them " criminal justice system we have .
It 's not fair to make draconian penalties with the intent of offering plea deals .
" You 're facing 50 years in the slammer , punk .
But if you plead guilty , you 'll be out in 2 .
" How is that fair ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a lot easier to say that when you're not standing in that guy's shoes.When you're 22, 20 years sounds like an awfully long time.
Hell, 20 years ago, the guy was still in diapers, and now he's facing 20 years in prison.
And given his substandard legal counsel and society's negative views on child porn, he's got to consider that 20 years is a real possibility for him.I don't know what I'd do if I were in his shoes (well, I do know--I'd hire a good lawyer, but I've probably got a little more money than that 22-year-old kid), but I have a hard time second-guessing his reasoning.
He must believe that he is acting in his own best interest.That being said, I am not a big fan of the "throw the book at them" criminal justice system we have.
It's not fair to make draconian penalties with the intent of offering plea deals.
"You're facing 50 years in the slammer, punk.
But if you plead guilty, you'll be out in 2.
"  How is that fair?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</id>
	<title>Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Child porn has just become way too much of a boogeyman these days.  Even if he had downloaded the images to look at - what harm would it have caused?  He didn't ruin some girls life by looking at pictures that already exist.</p><p>Personally, just to get around stupid cases like this, I'd say that simple POSSESSION of child pornography shouldn't even be illegal.  The point is the harm done to the actual children.  By that token PRODUCTION should be illegal as that's when the harm is done.  BUYING it (through cash or barter) should also be illegal as it finances production of more material.  Other than that?  Having a picture or video on your hard drive hurts no one, and it isn't going to turn someone into a stark raving mad child molester anymore than playing GTA turns them into a murderer.</p><p>If simple possession were not against the law then every one of these borderline gray area cases like this would go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Child porn has just become way too much of a boogeyman these days .
Even if he had downloaded the images to look at - what harm would it have caused ?
He did n't ruin some girls life by looking at pictures that already exist.Personally , just to get around stupid cases like this , I 'd say that simple POSSESSION of child pornography should n't even be illegal .
The point is the harm done to the actual children .
By that token PRODUCTION should be illegal as that 's when the harm is done .
BUYING it ( through cash or barter ) should also be illegal as it finances production of more material .
Other than that ?
Having a picture or video on your hard drive hurts no one , and it is n't going to turn someone into a stark raving mad child molester anymore than playing GTA turns them into a murderer.If simple possession were not against the law then every one of these borderline gray area cases like this would go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Child porn has just become way too much of a boogeyman these days.
Even if he had downloaded the images to look at - what harm would it have caused?
He didn't ruin some girls life by looking at pictures that already exist.Personally, just to get around stupid cases like this, I'd say that simple POSSESSION of child pornography shouldn't even be illegal.
The point is the harm done to the actual children.
By that token PRODUCTION should be illegal as that's when the harm is done.
BUYING it (through cash or barter) should also be illegal as it finances production of more material.
Other than that?
Having a picture or video on your hard drive hurts no one, and it isn't going to turn someone into a stark raving mad child molester anymore than playing GTA turns them into a murderer.If simple possession were not against the law then every one of these borderline gray area cases like this would go away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30370492</id>
	<title>What a load of bullshit.</title>
	<author>Korey Kaczor</author>
	<datestamp>1260267600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The world is devoid of common sense -- people are clueless and and these worthless, scum-sucking paper pushers probably get an emotional high from "properly" following "procedure" despite all evidence pointing to "procedure" being idiotic and too encompassing to actually catch real predators but hapless peer-to-peer downloaders accidentally downloading the wrong file.  The same mentality occurs in management where your supervisor flips out because you harmlessly put something in the wrong place even though nobody with a clue cares, for example.  I'm sure people here know what I'm trying to say.</p><p>I'm going to assume the FBI was sharing CP files and collected the IPs of everyone who downloaded from them.  It makes you wonder just how many of the files they are sharing have misleading file names.  They know downloading "grannie\_goes\_wild.avi" would get someone convicted even if it was bona-fide child pornography.  They don't care, it was illegal, so in their eyes, they have to go and unleash the mangy, distempered legal dogs.</p><p>Even if this particular instance the victim of the law was actually guilty, you can bet something like this has happened before, elsewhere.  So it is best just to assume he is innocent, anyways, because somewhere down the line somebody has gotten screwed off this.</p><p>I laughed at this: "'The FBI could not comment on this specific case, but said if child pornography is ever downloaded accidentally, the user needs to call authorities immediately. They may confiscate your computer, but it's better than the alternative."</p><p>Okay, I didn't laugh, more like made a depressed sigh, because the only reason the FBI would confiscate a computer would be to ACTIVELY TRY TO BUILD A CASE AGAINST YOU.  What is the alternative they are talking about?  Thats egregious double-speak.  They're not going to confiscate your computer to show your neighbors that you're a good, law-abiding citizen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The world is devoid of common sense -- people are clueless and and these worthless , scum-sucking paper pushers probably get an emotional high from " properly " following " procedure " despite all evidence pointing to " procedure " being idiotic and too encompassing to actually catch real predators but hapless peer-to-peer downloaders accidentally downloading the wrong file .
The same mentality occurs in management where your supervisor flips out because you harmlessly put something in the wrong place even though nobody with a clue cares , for example .
I 'm sure people here know what I 'm trying to say.I 'm going to assume the FBI was sharing CP files and collected the IPs of everyone who downloaded from them .
It makes you wonder just how many of the files they are sharing have misleading file names .
They know downloading " grannie \ _goes \ _wild.avi " would get someone convicted even if it was bona-fide child pornography .
They do n't care , it was illegal , so in their eyes , they have to go and unleash the mangy , distempered legal dogs.Even if this particular instance the victim of the law was actually guilty , you can bet something like this has happened before , elsewhere .
So it is best just to assume he is innocent , anyways , because somewhere down the line somebody has gotten screwed off this.I laughed at this : " 'The FBI could not comment on this specific case , but said if child pornography is ever downloaded accidentally , the user needs to call authorities immediately .
They may confiscate your computer , but it 's better than the alternative .
" Okay , I did n't laugh , more like made a depressed sigh , because the only reason the FBI would confiscate a computer would be to ACTIVELY TRY TO BUILD A CASE AGAINST YOU .
What is the alternative they are talking about ?
Thats egregious double-speak .
They 're not going to confiscate your computer to show your neighbors that you 're a good , law-abiding citizen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The world is devoid of common sense -- people are clueless and and these worthless, scum-sucking paper pushers probably get an emotional high from "properly" following "procedure" despite all evidence pointing to "procedure" being idiotic and too encompassing to actually catch real predators but hapless peer-to-peer downloaders accidentally downloading the wrong file.
The same mentality occurs in management where your supervisor flips out because you harmlessly put something in the wrong place even though nobody with a clue cares, for example.
I'm sure people here know what I'm trying to say.I'm going to assume the FBI was sharing CP files and collected the IPs of everyone who downloaded from them.
It makes you wonder just how many of the files they are sharing have misleading file names.
They know downloading "grannie\_goes\_wild.avi" would get someone convicted even if it was bona-fide child pornography.
They don't care, it was illegal, so in their eyes, they have to go and unleash the mangy, distempered legal dogs.Even if this particular instance the victim of the law was actually guilty, you can bet something like this has happened before, elsewhere.
So it is best just to assume he is innocent, anyways, because somewhere down the line somebody has gotten screwed off this.I laughed at this: "'The FBI could not comment on this specific case, but said if child pornography is ever downloaded accidentally, the user needs to call authorities immediately.
They may confiscate your computer, but it's better than the alternative.
"Okay, I didn't laugh, more like made a depressed sigh, because the only reason the FBI would confiscate a computer would be to ACTIVELY TRY TO BUILD A CASE AGAINST YOU.
What is the alternative they are talking about?
Thats egregious double-speak.
They're not going to confiscate your computer to show your neighbors that you're a good, law-abiding citizen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339132</id>
	<title>accident? sounds fishy to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260014520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA is based on a one-sided argument. that in itself makes me suspicious. would the FBI really take the time to prosecute a first time offender for one, deleted picture that was downloaded years ago? yes it's possible but it's also not likely. i'd like to hear the other side of the case first.</p><p>why did he plead guilty when facing 3.5 years of hard time? based on the evidence just about any jury would let the guy off for a one-time accidental download that was deleted immediately. </p><p>i've downloaded an awful lot of p0rn, and i've never accidentally downloaded child pornography that i am aware of anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA is based on a one-sided argument .
that in itself makes me suspicious .
would the FBI really take the time to prosecute a first time offender for one , deleted picture that was downloaded years ago ?
yes it 's possible but it 's also not likely .
i 'd like to hear the other side of the case first.why did he plead guilty when facing 3.5 years of hard time ?
based on the evidence just about any jury would let the guy off for a one-time accidental download that was deleted immediately .
i 've downloaded an awful lot of p0rn , and i 've never accidentally downloaded child pornography that i am aware of anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA is based on a one-sided argument.
that in itself makes me suspicious.
would the FBI really take the time to prosecute a first time offender for one, deleted picture that was downloaded years ago?
yes it's possible but it's also not likely.
i'd like to hear the other side of the case first.why did he plead guilty when facing 3.5 years of hard time?
based on the evidence just about any jury would let the guy off for a one-time accidental download that was deleted immediately.
i've downloaded an awful lot of p0rn, and i've never accidentally downloaded child pornography that i am aware of anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335888</id>
	<title>Re:Another victim in the war on child porn</title>
	<author>LSD-OBS</author>
	<datestamp>1260035700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If images of child porn are so evil, how about entire MOVIES about genocide!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If images of child porn are so evil , how about entire MOVIES about genocide !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If images of child porn are so evil, how about entire MOVIES about genocide!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335616</id>
	<title>the user needs to call authorities immediately</title>
	<author>Fenax</author>
	<datestamp>1260034260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, now every 4chan user have to give his computer to the authorities and never ever see it again.
'Cos if you see a CP thread, you first downloaded the images !

But maybe 4chan is harder to monitor than a P2P network.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , now every 4chan user have to give his computer to the authorities and never ever see it again .
'Cos if you see a CP thread , you first downloaded the images !
But maybe 4chan is harder to monitor than a P2P network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, now every 4chan user have to give his computer to the authorities and never ever see it again.
'Cos if you see a CP thread, you first downloaded the images !
But maybe 4chan is harder to monitor than a P2P network.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336374</id>
	<title>Destroy the hard drive</title>
	<author>rssrss</author>
	<datestamp>1260038640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The only safe thing to do is destroy the hard drive."</p><p>Amen.</p><p>Physically and thoroughly, say with a sledge hammer. Then bury the pieces underneath Jimmy Hoffa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The only safe thing to do is destroy the hard drive .
" Amen.Physically and thoroughly , say with a sledge hammer .
Then bury the pieces underneath Jimmy Hoffa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The only safe thing to do is destroy the hard drive.
"Amen.Physically and thoroughly, say with a sledge hammer.
Then bury the pieces underneath Jimmy Hoffa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336768</id>
	<title>Re:Never volunteer anything to the cops</title>
	<author>cptdondo</author>
	<datestamp>1260040860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The true moral of the story, is quit breaking the fucking law, and if you see someone else breaking the law (like distributing child porn) fucking tell someone.  Do those two things and you'll be fine unless someone decides to railroad you.  Then you could be screwed, but your record will be your best defense.</p></div><p>The problem is that we have so many laws, and even the most innocent thing can bring down the law.  We had a case here with a roadside coffee stand on a farm.  The law says you can operate a concession incidental to the farming use.  Well,  the way the economy tanked, the farm quit making any money.  In the meantime, the coffee shop is still selling lattes, and pretty soon, it's the major money maker for these folks.  OOOOPS!  Here comes the law, they have a "nonconforming business use" and have to get laywers to keep from getting fined, shut down, have liens put on their property, all because their farm income went into the crapper.</p><p>Another case:  A guy builds a model railroad, one of those that you can ride on, where the cars are about 12" high.  He gives rides to neighbors and such.  OOOPS!  The state comes down on him for having an illegal amusement park.  All because he wanted to share his hobby with his friends.  And they actually made him dismantle the whole thing.</p><p>So, do you have any hobbies?  Any side income?  Do you do anything at all?  Then you're probably breaking the law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The true moral of the story , is quit breaking the fucking law , and if you see someone else breaking the law ( like distributing child porn ) fucking tell someone .
Do those two things and you 'll be fine unless someone decides to railroad you .
Then you could be screwed , but your record will be your best defense.The problem is that we have so many laws , and even the most innocent thing can bring down the law .
We had a case here with a roadside coffee stand on a farm .
The law says you can operate a concession incidental to the farming use .
Well , the way the economy tanked , the farm quit making any money .
In the meantime , the coffee shop is still selling lattes , and pretty soon , it 's the major money maker for these folks .
OOOOPS ! Here comes the law , they have a " nonconforming business use " and have to get laywers to keep from getting fined , shut down , have liens put on their property , all because their farm income went into the crapper.Another case : A guy builds a model railroad , one of those that you can ride on , where the cars are about 12 " high .
He gives rides to neighbors and such .
OOOPS ! The state comes down on him for having an illegal amusement park .
All because he wanted to share his hobby with his friends .
And they actually made him dismantle the whole thing.So , do you have any hobbies ?
Any side income ?
Do you do anything at all ?
Then you 're probably breaking the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The true moral of the story, is quit breaking the fucking law, and if you see someone else breaking the law (like distributing child porn) fucking tell someone.
Do those two things and you'll be fine unless someone decides to railroad you.
Then you could be screwed, but your record will be your best defense.The problem is that we have so many laws, and even the most innocent thing can bring down the law.
We had a case here with a roadside coffee stand on a farm.
The law says you can operate a concession incidental to the farming use.
Well,  the way the economy tanked, the farm quit making any money.
In the meantime, the coffee shop is still selling lattes, and pretty soon, it's the major money maker for these folks.
OOOOPS!  Here comes the law, they have a "nonconforming business use" and have to get laywers to keep from getting fined, shut down, have liens put on their property, all because their farm income went into the crapper.Another case:  A guy builds a model railroad, one of those that you can ride on, where the cars are about 12" high.
He gives rides to neighbors and such.
OOOPS!  The state comes down on him for having an illegal amusement park.
All because he wanted to share his hobby with his friends.
And they actually made him dismantle the whole thing.So, do you have any hobbies?
Any side income?
Do you do anything at all?
Then you're probably breaking the law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340570</id>
	<title>From TFA</title>
	<author>jhylkema</author>
	<datestamp>1260027420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>About a year later, FBI agents showed up at his family's home. The family <b>agreed to let agents examine the computer</b>, and at first, they couldn't find anything.</i></p><p>The mistake of a lifetime for this unfortunate young man.  The answer to that question should have been, "not just no, but FUCK NO."</p><p>If they ask for consent to search, it means they likely don't have probable cause for a search and probably can't get a warrant.</p><p>NEVER NEVER NEVER give consent to a police search.  Ever.</p><p>NEVER NEVER NEVER talk to the police voluntarily.  Ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About a year later , FBI agents showed up at his family 's home .
The family agreed to let agents examine the computer , and at first , they could n't find anything.The mistake of a lifetime for this unfortunate young man .
The answer to that question should have been , " not just no , but FUCK NO .
" If they ask for consent to search , it means they likely do n't have probable cause for a search and probably ca n't get a warrant.NEVER NEVER NEVER give consent to a police search .
Ever.NEVER NEVER NEVER talk to the police voluntarily .
Ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About a year later, FBI agents showed up at his family's home.
The family agreed to let agents examine the computer, and at first, they couldn't find anything.The mistake of a lifetime for this unfortunate young man.
The answer to that question should have been, "not just no, but FUCK NO.
"If they ask for consent to search, it means they likely don't have probable cause for a search and probably can't get a warrant.NEVER NEVER NEVER give consent to a police search.
Ever.NEVER NEVER NEVER talk to the police voluntarily.
Ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30360720</id>
	<title>2257</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260199020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anybody out there heard of Title 18 section 2257 United States Code? This is what is is. Anyone displaying pornographic pictures is required to have on file a photocopy of documents verifying the age and identity of the person or people whos pictures are displayed. This law has virtually eliminated child pornography from the internet. Anyone charged with possession of child porn should have the sites 2257 compliance records admitted as evidence. That is what this guy should have done. There are many 18 yr olds out there that look underage that start modeling/porno the day they turn 18. 2257 is your only protection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anybody out there heard of Title 18 section 2257 United States Code ?
This is what is is .
Anyone displaying pornographic pictures is required to have on file a photocopy of documents verifying the age and identity of the person or people whos pictures are displayed .
This law has virtually eliminated child pornography from the internet .
Anyone charged with possession of child porn should have the sites 2257 compliance records admitted as evidence .
That is what this guy should have done .
There are many 18 yr olds out there that look underage that start modeling/porno the day they turn 18 .
2257 is your only protection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anybody out there heard of Title 18 section 2257 United States Code?
This is what is is.
Anyone displaying pornographic pictures is required to have on file a photocopy of documents verifying the age and identity of the person or people whos pictures are displayed.
This law has virtually eliminated child pornography from the internet.
Anyone charged with possession of child porn should have the sites 2257 compliance records admitted as evidence.
That is what this guy should have done.
There are many 18 yr olds out there that look underage that start modeling/porno the day they turn 18.
2257 is your only protection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337300</id>
	<title>Re:FBI bait?</title>
	<author>Cl1mh4224rd</author>
	<datestamp>1260044160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I bet that's what the guy downloaded, given the description of how the FBI just shows up and knows exactly what to look for.</p></div><p>But if the file he downloaded was deceptively named, how could that possibly work?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet that 's what the guy downloaded , given the description of how the FBI just shows up and knows exactly what to look for.But if the file he downloaded was deceptively named , how could that possibly work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet that's what the guy downloaded, given the description of how the FBI just shows up and knows exactly what to look for.But if the file he downloaded was deceptively named, how could that possibly work?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335814</id>
	<title>Appalling</title>
	<author>Eravnrekaree</author>
	<datestamp>1260035280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is shocking and appalling and must stop. This sort of thing makes it impossible to be able to even look at webpages on the net. What if one accidentily clicks on a link without knowing what it goes to and ends up with these files in their web browser cache? Clicking on a link is not enough to show intent, we cannot go on a wild witch hunt where everyone is assumed guilty until proven innocent. Under the law, it is the act of taking pictures of children in a sexually suggestive way is what should be considered illegal. For some time it has been argued that those who were purchasing such material were helping to contribute to this. However, an accidental download of such a thing does not contribute in any material way to it whatsoever and in most cases, such as we see here, is completely accidental. There are serious problems with this. This is like arresting a person for seeing a blank sheet of paper on a sidewalk, picking it up and noticing that on the other side there was child porn, since they had simply picked it up and held it. The notion is so outrageous and this is exactly what is going on here. This has nothing to do about protecting children and these prosecutions are not protecting children. That is NOT what this dragnet is about. They are NOT protecting children but they are attacking and destroying the lives of completely innocent people. In fact, many childrens lives have already been destroyed because they took a picture of themselves and simply had the picture on their cell phone. This is about thought control and precrime, because by accidentily downloading this, no one anywhere has been harmed, all it is a copy of bits. Really, this massive abuse of the law needs to stop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is shocking and appalling and must stop .
This sort of thing makes it impossible to be able to even look at webpages on the net .
What if one accidentily clicks on a link without knowing what it goes to and ends up with these files in their web browser cache ?
Clicking on a link is not enough to show intent , we can not go on a wild witch hunt where everyone is assumed guilty until proven innocent .
Under the law , it is the act of taking pictures of children in a sexually suggestive way is what should be considered illegal .
For some time it has been argued that those who were purchasing such material were helping to contribute to this .
However , an accidental download of such a thing does not contribute in any material way to it whatsoever and in most cases , such as we see here , is completely accidental .
There are serious problems with this .
This is like arresting a person for seeing a blank sheet of paper on a sidewalk , picking it up and noticing that on the other side there was child porn , since they had simply picked it up and held it .
The notion is so outrageous and this is exactly what is going on here .
This has nothing to do about protecting children and these prosecutions are not protecting children .
That is NOT what this dragnet is about .
They are NOT protecting children but they are attacking and destroying the lives of completely innocent people .
In fact , many childrens lives have already been destroyed because they took a picture of themselves and simply had the picture on their cell phone .
This is about thought control and precrime , because by accidentily downloading this , no one anywhere has been harmed , all it is a copy of bits .
Really , this massive abuse of the law needs to stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is shocking and appalling and must stop.
This sort of thing makes it impossible to be able to even look at webpages on the net.
What if one accidentily clicks on a link without knowing what it goes to and ends up with these files in their web browser cache?
Clicking on a link is not enough to show intent, we cannot go on a wild witch hunt where everyone is assumed guilty until proven innocent.
Under the law, it is the act of taking pictures of children in a sexually suggestive way is what should be considered illegal.
For some time it has been argued that those who were purchasing such material were helping to contribute to this.
However, an accidental download of such a thing does not contribute in any material way to it whatsoever and in most cases, such as we see here, is completely accidental.
There are serious problems with this.
This is like arresting a person for seeing a blank sheet of paper on a sidewalk, picking it up and noticing that on the other side there was child porn, since they had simply picked it up and held it.
The notion is so outrageous and this is exactly what is going on here.
This has nothing to do about protecting children and these prosecutions are not protecting children.
That is NOT what this dragnet is about.
They are NOT protecting children but they are attacking and destroying the lives of completely innocent people.
In fact, many childrens lives have already been destroyed because they took a picture of themselves and simply had the picture on their cell phone.
This is about thought control and precrime, because by accidentily downloading this, no one anywhere has been harmed, all it is a copy of bits.
Really, this massive abuse of the law needs to stop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336278</id>
	<title>sdelete -z</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260037980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of an old south park episode where all the kids in town reported their parents for child abuse and a few minutes later an army of police show up and haul the parents away.</p><p>Sending emails to your enemies with embedded links which secretly download illegal material is really the ultimate way of getting even.  Perhaps throw in an anonymous tip to move the process along for good measure.</p><p>Its a shame drunk drivers get less time for killing people when someone who does not intend to break any laws gets time and a sicko label tattooed to their forehead for life for accidental downloading of something that was most likely mislabled in the first place.</p><p>Unfortunately the more I learn about our legal system the more unscientific, illogical and unfair it appears to be. (ehmm..OJ)  Even if you feel like you have nothing to hide and want to start talking or otherwise cooperating its better to just get a lawyer as unless you have law training you would be amazed at how your actions can be twisted and used against you by people with an agenda.</p><p>The most corrupt aspect are politicians continually one-uping each other for purely political (votes) reasons adding minimiums to the legal code so that judges are left with no choice but to send someone who deserves no time to jail for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of an old south park episode where all the kids in town reported their parents for child abuse and a few minutes later an army of police show up and haul the parents away.Sending emails to your enemies with embedded links which secretly download illegal material is really the ultimate way of getting even .
Perhaps throw in an anonymous tip to move the process along for good measure.Its a shame drunk drivers get less time for killing people when someone who does not intend to break any laws gets time and a sicko label tattooed to their forehead for life for accidental downloading of something that was most likely mislabled in the first place.Unfortunately the more I learn about our legal system the more unscientific , illogical and unfair it appears to be .
( ehmm..OJ ) Even if you feel like you have nothing to hide and want to start talking or otherwise cooperating its better to just get a lawyer as unless you have law training you would be amazed at how your actions can be twisted and used against you by people with an agenda.The most corrupt aspect are politicians continually one-uping each other for purely political ( votes ) reasons adding minimiums to the legal code so that judges are left with no choice but to send someone who deserves no time to jail for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of an old south park episode where all the kids in town reported their parents for child abuse and a few minutes later an army of police show up and haul the parents away.Sending emails to your enemies with embedded links which secretly download illegal material is really the ultimate way of getting even.
Perhaps throw in an anonymous tip to move the process along for good measure.Its a shame drunk drivers get less time for killing people when someone who does not intend to break any laws gets time and a sicko label tattooed to their forehead for life for accidental downloading of something that was most likely mislabled in the first place.Unfortunately the more I learn about our legal system the more unscientific, illogical and unfair it appears to be.
(ehmm..OJ)  Even if you feel like you have nothing to hide and want to start talking or otherwise cooperating its better to just get a lawyer as unless you have law training you would be amazed at how your actions can be twisted and used against you by people with an agenda.The most corrupt aspect are politicians continually one-uping each other for purely political (votes) reasons adding minimiums to the legal code so that judges are left with no choice but to send someone who deserves no time to jail for years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336424</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260038880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Someone found a shotgun in their back garden (this is the UK) and called the local police station to tell them he is bringing it in.</i></p><p>As usual, the level of outrage over that incident is inversely proportional to the accuracy of the information available.  That "someone" was previously charged with assault, and he didn't tell the police he was bringing in a gun, he told them he was "coming by", then without warning pulled a shotgun out of a bag and placed it on the table.  You might as well complain about people who joke about "bombs" at the airport being arrested.  Hint to stupid people, if you find a gun in your trash, call 911, don't fucking take it to the police station and surprise them with it, because you will be charged with a weapons offence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone found a shotgun in their back garden ( this is the UK ) and called the local police station to tell them he is bringing it in.As usual , the level of outrage over that incident is inversely proportional to the accuracy of the information available .
That " someone " was previously charged with assault , and he did n't tell the police he was bringing in a gun , he told them he was " coming by " , then without warning pulled a shotgun out of a bag and placed it on the table .
You might as well complain about people who joke about " bombs " at the airport being arrested .
Hint to stupid people , if you find a gun in your trash , call 911 , do n't fucking take it to the police station and surprise them with it , because you will be charged with a weapons offence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone found a shotgun in their back garden (this is the UK) and called the local police station to tell them he is bringing it in.As usual, the level of outrage over that incident is inversely proportional to the accuracy of the information available.
That "someone" was previously charged with assault, and he didn't tell the police he was bringing in a gun, he told them he was "coming by", then without warning pulled a shotgun out of a bag and placed it on the table.
You might as well complain about people who joke about "bombs" at the airport being arrested.
Hint to stupid people, if you find a gun in your trash, call 911, don't fucking take it to the police station and surprise them with it, because you will be charged with a weapons offence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339810</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260019980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's either more to this, or they're ignoring federal law.</p><p>Federal law provides a defense for a person who stumbles across CP so long as they either:</p><p>A)  Delete it quickly and show no one.<br>B)  Save it only to show it to the police.</p><p>But it looks like they got a probably innocent guy with their bait.  Hopefully this will get sorted out, but if the guy has any sense, he'll get a good lawyer and fight for all he's worth.  If you wait for the cops to figure out that you're innocent, you'll spend a long time in prison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's either more to this , or they 're ignoring federal law.Federal law provides a defense for a person who stumbles across CP so long as they either : A ) Delete it quickly and show no one.B ) Save it only to show it to the police.But it looks like they got a probably innocent guy with their bait .
Hopefully this will get sorted out , but if the guy has any sense , he 'll get a good lawyer and fight for all he 's worth .
If you wait for the cops to figure out that you 're innocent , you 'll spend a long time in prison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's either more to this, or they're ignoring federal law.Federal law provides a defense for a person who stumbles across CP so long as they either:A)  Delete it quickly and show no one.B)  Save it only to show it to the police.But it looks like they got a probably innocent guy with their bait.
Hopefully this will get sorted out, but if the guy has any sense, he'll get a good lawyer and fight for all he's worth.
If you wait for the cops to figure out that you're innocent, you'll spend a long time in prison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338080</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1260006120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The juries are hand-picked and thoroughly screened to reject intelligence.  Anyone who understands Jury Nullification or has as much as a twinkle in his eye about understanding what the actual role of the Jury is supposed to be (a counterbalance to the government, when necessary) is all but guaranteed to be excluded!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The juries are hand-picked and thoroughly screened to reject intelligence .
Anyone who understands Jury Nullification or has as much as a twinkle in his eye about understanding what the actual role of the Jury is supposed to be ( a counterbalance to the government , when necessary ) is all but guaranteed to be excluded !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The juries are hand-picked and thoroughly screened to reject intelligence.
Anyone who understands Jury Nullification or has as much as a twinkle in his eye about understanding what the actual role of the Jury is supposed to be (a counterbalance to the government, when necessary) is all but guaranteed to be excluded!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335978</id>
	<title>I wonder who decided to hunt him down and why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260036120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember when the cops used to lant pot and guns on people?</p><p>Maybe now they are planting porn<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>This report still looks like a "yes men" prank.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when the cops used to lant pot and guns on people ? Maybe now they are planting porn ..This report still looks like a " yes men " prank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when the cops used to lant pot and guns on people?Maybe now they are planting porn ..This report still looks like a "yes men" prank.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking the same thing.</p><p>I remember that story a few weeks ago... Someone found a shotgun in their back garden (this is the UK) and called the local police station to tell them he is bringing it in. Well anyway long story short because it was loaded and the box also had ammo he ended up getting a minimum of I believe three years.</p><p>Yet another story, this time from the US.... Someone finds Meth, attempts to turn it into the police... Gets hit with possession of drugs. This anecdote was on a cops-like show no less.</p><p>So too bad for us that common sense fails so often even in a legal system that is designed to have "common sense" designed into it at at least three levels (Police, Prosecutors Office, and Judge). They love to use the excuse that they enforce the laws as written (when in reality laws are meant to be interpreted so exactly this kind of thing doesn't happen!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking the same thing.I remember that story a few weeks ago... Someone found a shotgun in their back garden ( this is the UK ) and called the local police station to tell them he is bringing it in .
Well anyway long story short because it was loaded and the box also had ammo he ended up getting a minimum of I believe three years.Yet another story , this time from the US.... Someone finds Meth , attempts to turn it into the police... Gets hit with possession of drugs .
This anecdote was on a cops-like show no less.So too bad for us that common sense fails so often even in a legal system that is designed to have " common sense " designed into it at at least three levels ( Police , Prosecutors Office , and Judge ) .
They love to use the excuse that they enforce the laws as written ( when in reality laws are meant to be interpreted so exactly this kind of thing does n't happen !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking the same thing.I remember that story a few weeks ago... Someone found a shotgun in their back garden (this is the UK) and called the local police station to tell them he is bringing it in.
Well anyway long story short because it was loaded and the box also had ammo he ended up getting a minimum of I believe three years.Yet another story, this time from the US.... Someone finds Meth, attempts to turn it into the police... Gets hit with possession of drugs.
This anecdote was on a cops-like show no less.So too bad for us that common sense fails so often even in a legal system that is designed to have "common sense" designed into it at at least three levels (Police, Prosecutors Office, and Judge).
They love to use the excuse that they enforce the laws as written (when in reality laws are meant to be interpreted so exactly this kind of thing doesn't happen!
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337878</id>
	<title>Re:I think the right move would be...</title>
	<author>Myrimos</author>
	<datestamp>1260004800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Stranger things have happened.</p></div><p>Such as?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stranger things have happened.Such as ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stranger things have happened.Such as?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336260</id>
	<title>So... how did they find this guy?</title>
	<author>DrBuzzo</author>
	<datestamp>1260037860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting that they would suddenly come by his house two years or more later.   How exactly did this happen?   They somehow managed to sniff all the traffic on a major filing sharing network, then they found the IP's of everyone who had downloaded a certain file and then they just sat on it for two years before going after someone who had downloaded it?    First of all, that's bullshit to go after someone who downloaded it once, when they really should be going after the producers and the distributes of this stuff.   On a p2p network, mislabeled stuff always is going to lead to mistaken downloads.   If someone downloads this stuff several times and shares for long periods of time, that indicates that they actually are into this shit and not just some poor sap who's cruising the net for some regular porn.
<br> <br>
Secondly, if this is their typical method of going after people, it assures that they will ONLY catch the casual browser and never catch the actual distributes or even producers of this stuff.  Anyone who is a habitual cyber criminal is going to know better than to keep stuff like that on an unsecure hard-drive for any period of time.  They'll likely securely delete and wipe their drives regularly.   These idiots were so completely out of it that they thought it was a good idea to suddenly consider it urgent to go after someone who once did something two years ago and has apparently not done so since?
<br> <br>
Well, if there was any chance that I'd ever report anything I saw online to the FBI, it's now gone.   If I were to download a RAR file that was supposed to contain a service pack update and I find it's full of illegal images, complete with the address and phone number of the person who produced them, I probably would have, at one time, turned it over to authorities.   Now, there's no way I would.   I'd go get a new hard drive and take an acetylene torch to the old one</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting that they would suddenly come by his house two years or more later .
How exactly did this happen ?
They somehow managed to sniff all the traffic on a major filing sharing network , then they found the IP 's of everyone who had downloaded a certain file and then they just sat on it for two years before going after someone who had downloaded it ?
First of all , that 's bullshit to go after someone who downloaded it once , when they really should be going after the producers and the distributes of this stuff .
On a p2p network , mislabeled stuff always is going to lead to mistaken downloads .
If someone downloads this stuff several times and shares for long periods of time , that indicates that they actually are into this shit and not just some poor sap who 's cruising the net for some regular porn .
Secondly , if this is their typical method of going after people , it assures that they will ONLY catch the casual browser and never catch the actual distributes or even producers of this stuff .
Anyone who is a habitual cyber criminal is going to know better than to keep stuff like that on an unsecure hard-drive for any period of time .
They 'll likely securely delete and wipe their drives regularly .
These idiots were so completely out of it that they thought it was a good idea to suddenly consider it urgent to go after someone who once did something two years ago and has apparently not done so since ?
Well , if there was any chance that I 'd ever report anything I saw online to the FBI , it 's now gone .
If I were to download a RAR file that was supposed to contain a service pack update and I find it 's full of illegal images , complete with the address and phone number of the person who produced them , I probably would have , at one time , turned it over to authorities .
Now , there 's no way I would .
I 'd go get a new hard drive and take an acetylene torch to the old one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting that they would suddenly come by his house two years or more later.
How exactly did this happen?
They somehow managed to sniff all the traffic on a major filing sharing network, then they found the IP's of everyone who had downloaded a certain file and then they just sat on it for two years before going after someone who had downloaded it?
First of all, that's bullshit to go after someone who downloaded it once, when they really should be going after the producers and the distributes of this stuff.
On a p2p network, mislabeled stuff always is going to lead to mistaken downloads.
If someone downloads this stuff several times and shares for long periods of time, that indicates that they actually are into this shit and not just some poor sap who's cruising the net for some regular porn.
Secondly, if this is their typical method of going after people, it assures that they will ONLY catch the casual browser and never catch the actual distributes or even producers of this stuff.
Anyone who is a habitual cyber criminal is going to know better than to keep stuff like that on an unsecure hard-drive for any period of time.
They'll likely securely delete and wipe their drives regularly.
These idiots were so completely out of it that they thought it was a good idea to suddenly consider it urgent to go after someone who once did something two years ago and has apparently not done so since?
Well, if there was any chance that I'd ever report anything I saw online to the FBI, it's now gone.
If I were to download a RAR file that was supposed to contain a service pack update and I find it's full of illegal images, complete with the address and phone number of the person who produced them, I probably would have, at one time, turned it over to authorities.
Now, there's no way I would.
I'd go get a new hard drive and take an acetylene torch to the old one</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340612</id>
	<title>Re:You can KILL someone with this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260027780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Scientology already do this, as it is extremely effective. Plant a couple of files remotely via virus of the month, call in the local paper, then let the feds involve themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Scientology already do this , as it is extremely effective .
Plant a couple of files remotely via virus of the month , call in the local paper , then let the feds involve themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Scientology already do this, as it is extremely effective.
Plant a couple of files remotely via virus of the month, call in the local paper, then let the feds involve themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335910</id>
	<title>If you&rsquo;re ever concerned that she looks unde</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260035820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...best to
<ol>
 <li>Delete all files</li><li>Clear your browser cache</li><li>Burn the hard-drive</li><li>Move house</li><li>Phone the FBI and tell them that you definitely haven&rsquo;t downloaded anything.</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>...best to Delete all filesClear your browser cacheBurn the hard-driveMove housePhone the FBI and tell them that you definitely haven    t downloaded anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...best to

 Delete all filesClear your browser cacheBurn the hard-driveMove housePhone the FBI and tell them that you definitely haven’t downloaded anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337916</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260005100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Possession means you don't have to prove they owner took the pictures.  Before possession was illegal, production certainly was.  Too many cases went by where the possessor claimed he didn't do it, he just downloaded it from somewhere else.  Where else?  How do I know, it could be any of 1000 sites I've been to.  Case dismissed.</p><p>Possession is now illegal, which means they don't have to prove production.  They just assume that if you have it, you probably did take them yourself, or would if you had the chance.</p><p>Same reason why a pound of marijuana is typically intent to distribute - even if you're taking it for chemotherapy pain and nausea and it was easier to buy by the pound.  That way they don't have to catch you selling it, just tell a jury there's no way one person can consume it before it "goes bad" so the only thing left is intent to sell.</p><p>These, and zero tolerance type laws, simplify the executive and prosecutorial process so you don't have to waste time proving things - you have evidence and a law that says the evidence means intent, or production, and that carries a minimum sentence.  All they have to do now is figure out who's holding something illegal and the prison population increases - no muss, no fuss.</p><p>And as someone else pointed out, no common sense required.  Which means no one is responsible.  The system just operates and we are just cogs.  Brazil, The Wall, 1984, take your pick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Possession means you do n't have to prove they owner took the pictures .
Before possession was illegal , production certainly was .
Too many cases went by where the possessor claimed he did n't do it , he just downloaded it from somewhere else .
Where else ?
How do I know , it could be any of 1000 sites I 've been to .
Case dismissed.Possession is now illegal , which means they do n't have to prove production .
They just assume that if you have it , you probably did take them yourself , or would if you had the chance.Same reason why a pound of marijuana is typically intent to distribute - even if you 're taking it for chemotherapy pain and nausea and it was easier to buy by the pound .
That way they do n't have to catch you selling it , just tell a jury there 's no way one person can consume it before it " goes bad " so the only thing left is intent to sell.These , and zero tolerance type laws , simplify the executive and prosecutorial process so you do n't have to waste time proving things - you have evidence and a law that says the evidence means intent , or production , and that carries a minimum sentence .
All they have to do now is figure out who 's holding something illegal and the prison population increases - no muss , no fuss.And as someone else pointed out , no common sense required .
Which means no one is responsible .
The system just operates and we are just cogs .
Brazil , The Wall , 1984 , take your pick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Possession means you don't have to prove they owner took the pictures.
Before possession was illegal, production certainly was.
Too many cases went by where the possessor claimed he didn't do it, he just downloaded it from somewhere else.
Where else?
How do I know, it could be any of 1000 sites I've been to.
Case dismissed.Possession is now illegal, which means they don't have to prove production.
They just assume that if you have it, you probably did take them yourself, or would if you had the chance.Same reason why a pound of marijuana is typically intent to distribute - even if you're taking it for chemotherapy pain and nausea and it was easier to buy by the pound.
That way they don't have to catch you selling it, just tell a jury there's no way one person can consume it before it "goes bad" so the only thing left is intent to sell.These, and zero tolerance type laws, simplify the executive and prosecutorial process so you don't have to waste time proving things - you have evidence and a law that says the evidence means intent, or production, and that carries a minimum sentence.
All they have to do now is figure out who's holding something illegal and the prison population increases - no muss, no fuss.And as someone else pointed out, no common sense required.
Which means no one is responsible.
The system just operates and we are just cogs.
Brazil, The Wall, 1984, take your pick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30372420</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260277860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if he had downloaded the images to look at - what harm would it have caused?</p></div><p>The harm in allowing it is the harm it would have caused. By allowing such action it would provide an avenue of protection for those that really need to be put behind bars.</p><p>Scenario:<br>download child porn from location A<br>Make over priced purchase at online auction site</p><p>If no law banning download of child porn then the one who paid to have the child harmed would not even be able to be investigated to find the connection to the payment and therefore the child that is being harmed.</p><p>The implementation is currently flawed by being over political. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to be corrected any time soon due to the prejudice people have on the subject as mentioned by others here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if he had downloaded the images to look at - what harm would it have caused ? The harm in allowing it is the harm it would have caused .
By allowing such action it would provide an avenue of protection for those that really need to be put behind bars.Scenario : download child porn from location AMake over priced purchase at online auction siteIf no law banning download of child porn then the one who paid to have the child harmed would not even be able to be investigated to find the connection to the payment and therefore the child that is being harmed.The implementation is currently flawed by being over political .
Unfortunately , it is unlikely to be corrected any time soon due to the prejudice people have on the subject as mentioned by others here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if he had downloaded the images to look at - what harm would it have caused?The harm in allowing it is the harm it would have caused.
By allowing such action it would provide an avenue of protection for those that really need to be put behind bars.Scenario:download child porn from location AMake over priced purchase at online auction siteIf no law banning download of child porn then the one who paid to have the child harmed would not even be able to be investigated to find the connection to the payment and therefore the child that is being harmed.The implementation is currently flawed by being over political.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely to be corrected any time soon due to the prejudice people have on the subject as mentioned by others here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336018</id>
	<title>Another alternative</title>
	<author>cyfer2000</author>
	<datestamp>1260036420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get a Mac or Hackintosh, use "Secure Empty Trash".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get a Mac or Hackintosh , use " Secure Empty Trash " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get a Mac or Hackintosh, use "Secure Empty Trash".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340300</id>
	<title>no way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260024600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've tried to recover deleted files on my computer before. 2 hours after I deleted them and some sectors were already overwritten with new data. A week later and all sectors were overwritten. This guy says they were recovered files a year later? No way.</p><p>"The FBI could not comment on this specific case" We're hearing only one side of this case. I'm sure the FBI has a stronger case then the story suggests.</p><p>And don't even get me started on the fine accuracy of TV news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've tried to recover deleted files on my computer before .
2 hours after I deleted them and some sectors were already overwritten with new data .
A week later and all sectors were overwritten .
This guy says they were recovered files a year later ?
No way .
" The FBI could not comment on this specific case " We 're hearing only one side of this case .
I 'm sure the FBI has a stronger case then the story suggests.And do n't even get me started on the fine accuracy of TV news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've tried to recover deleted files on my computer before.
2 hours after I deleted them and some sectors were already overwritten with new data.
A week later and all sectors were overwritten.
This guy says they were recovered files a year later?
No way.
"The FBI could not comment on this specific case" We're hearing only one side of this case.
I'm sure the FBI has a stronger case then the story suggests.And don't even get me started on the fine accuracy of TV news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338048</id>
	<title>Re:My $.02</title>
	<author>myowntrueself</author>
	<datestamp>1260005880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Public Defenders' offices are criminally underfunded compared to the DAs, who have the full backing of the State.</p> </div><p>But... funding the public defenders office would almost be like funding public healthcare or maybe even unemployment benefit. It sounds almost... *socialist*</p><p>Hell, if America funded Public Defenders offices, it'd be just a slippery slope to communism!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Public Defenders ' offices are criminally underfunded compared to the DAs , who have the full backing of the State .
But... funding the public defenders office would almost be like funding public healthcare or maybe even unemployment benefit .
It sounds almost... * socialist * Hell , if America funded Public Defenders offices , it 'd be just a slippery slope to communism !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Public Defenders' offices are criminally underfunded compared to the DAs, who have the full backing of the State.
But... funding the public defenders office would almost be like funding public healthcare or maybe even unemployment benefit.
It sounds almost... *socialist*Hell, if America funded Public Defenders offices, it'd be just a slippery slope to communism!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337836</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260004500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  Thanks for having some sense.  You are absolutely right - pictures of robberies don't make me a robber, but simple pictures of naked children - even my own - would make me a child abuser.  Most people are unaware that much supposed kiddie porn is merely text files detailing fictitious abuse, and people are being imprisoned for this.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; It seems that a rational system would have to include the idea that if no harm can be shown to have occurred, no penalty can be imposed, which would make this sort of insanity impossible.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; For the time being all we can do is cover our asses, do absolutely anything we can to protect the innocent, and - which is very difficult - when someone is accused of a crime, ask not whether they are guilty, because it is easy to equate guilt with wrongdoing and the distasteful with the criminal, but whether they have harmed anyone other than themself.  If not, they are the victim and those who arrest and prosecute them are - as so often at the present time - the most awful type of criminals.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The promises we have of decent and fair treatment from out elected officials and hired protectors don't really apply any more, and we must start protecting each other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for having some sense .
You are absolutely right - pictures of robberies do n't make me a robber , but simple pictures of naked children - even my own - would make me a child abuser .
Most people are unaware that much supposed kiddie porn is merely text files detailing fictitious abuse , and people are being imprisoned for this .
    It seems that a rational system would have to include the idea that if no harm can be shown to have occurred , no penalty can be imposed , which would make this sort of insanity impossible .
    For the time being all we can do is cover our asses , do absolutely anything we can to protect the innocent , and - which is very difficult - when someone is accused of a crime , ask not whether they are guilty , because it is easy to equate guilt with wrongdoing and the distasteful with the criminal , but whether they have harmed anyone other than themself .
If not , they are the victim and those who arrest and prosecute them are - as so often at the present time - the most awful type of criminals .
    The promises we have of decent and fair treatment from out elected officials and hired protectors do n't really apply any more , and we must start protecting each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Thanks for having some sense.
You are absolutely right - pictures of robberies don't make me a robber, but simple pictures of naked children - even my own - would make me a child abuser.
Most people are unaware that much supposed kiddie porn is merely text files detailing fictitious abuse, and people are being imprisoned for this.
    It seems that a rational system would have to include the idea that if no harm can be shown to have occurred, no penalty can be imposed, which would make this sort of insanity impossible.
    For the time being all we can do is cover our asses, do absolutely anything we can to protect the innocent, and - which is very difficult - when someone is accused of a crime, ask not whether they are guilty, because it is easy to equate guilt with wrongdoing and the distasteful with the criminal, but whether they have harmed anyone other than themself.
If not, they are the victim and those who arrest and prosecute them are - as so often at the present time - the most awful type of criminals.
    The promises we have of decent and fair treatment from out elected officials and hired protectors don't really apply any more, and we must start protecting each other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337514</id>
	<title>Dude your Screwed. Step up and help yourself</title>
	<author>redkcir</author>
	<datestamp>1260045780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>   Why were the FBI wanting to search his computer in the first place? The fact that they had to ask meant they didn't have a warrant. American law allows you to confront your accuser. That means a person or persons who told the FBI he had CP on his computer. Unless the FBI did an illegal search with some kind of stealth program to access his computer with out his knowledge or someone turned him in they wouldn't have been there in the first place.
   It is never a good idea to let the authorities search any place or possession (like a car) when they ask. I don't care is I get pulled over for speeding or not having my seatbelt on  I would never allow a search request. You give up a lot of rights by allowing it. Just the fact you can be arrested for doing what is right shows you can't expect fair an honest treatment form any law-enforcement agency.
   It's a fact you can download anything with any name and it not be what you thought or expected to get. It's a fact that should you get something of that nature it's hard to get rid of without leaving a trace. It's a fact that you can not count on any government agency to do what is right. It's a fact that a PD doesn't have the same motivation a paid for lawyer has in getting you cleared of what ever you are charged with.
  It is also a fact that there are those in the system who will do whats right. You just can't take the chance all of those people will be the ones working on your case. And of course there is those twelve jurors who, for the most part haven't got a clue, being manipulated by the court.
   If you believe you are innocent of what ever charges hove been brought against you, pleading guilty can seal your fate. Should new evidence show up at a later date your "confession" could torpedo any chances of your getting out even if proved innocent.
  My point is that neither he nor any other person is doing him/her self a favor by accepting a plea bargain. It's not much of a bargain for you. Just them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why were the FBI wanting to search his computer in the first place ?
The fact that they had to ask meant they did n't have a warrant .
American law allows you to confront your accuser .
That means a person or persons who told the FBI he had CP on his computer .
Unless the FBI did an illegal search with some kind of stealth program to access his computer with out his knowledge or someone turned him in they would n't have been there in the first place .
It is never a good idea to let the authorities search any place or possession ( like a car ) when they ask .
I do n't care is I get pulled over for speeding or not having my seatbelt on I would never allow a search request .
You give up a lot of rights by allowing it .
Just the fact you can be arrested for doing what is right shows you ca n't expect fair an honest treatment form any law-enforcement agency .
It 's a fact you can download anything with any name and it not be what you thought or expected to get .
It 's a fact that should you get something of that nature it 's hard to get rid of without leaving a trace .
It 's a fact that you can not count on any government agency to do what is right .
It 's a fact that a PD does n't have the same motivation a paid for lawyer has in getting you cleared of what ever you are charged with .
It is also a fact that there are those in the system who will do whats right .
You just ca n't take the chance all of those people will be the ones working on your case .
And of course there is those twelve jurors who , for the most part have n't got a clue , being manipulated by the court .
If you believe you are innocent of what ever charges hove been brought against you , pleading guilty can seal your fate .
Should new evidence show up at a later date your " confession " could torpedo any chances of your getting out even if proved innocent .
My point is that neither he nor any other person is doing him/her self a favor by accepting a plea bargain .
It 's not much of a bargain for you .
Just them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   Why were the FBI wanting to search his computer in the first place?
The fact that they had to ask meant they didn't have a warrant.
American law allows you to confront your accuser.
That means a person or persons who told the FBI he had CP on his computer.
Unless the FBI did an illegal search with some kind of stealth program to access his computer with out his knowledge or someone turned him in they wouldn't have been there in the first place.
It is never a good idea to let the authorities search any place or possession (like a car) when they ask.
I don't care is I get pulled over for speeding or not having my seatbelt on  I would never allow a search request.
You give up a lot of rights by allowing it.
Just the fact you can be arrested for doing what is right shows you can't expect fair an honest treatment form any law-enforcement agency.
It's a fact you can download anything with any name and it not be what you thought or expected to get.
It's a fact that should you get something of that nature it's hard to get rid of without leaving a trace.
It's a fact that you can not count on any government agency to do what is right.
It's a fact that a PD doesn't have the same motivation a paid for lawyer has in getting you cleared of what ever you are charged with.
It is also a fact that there are those in the system who will do whats right.
You just can't take the chance all of those people will be the ones working on your case.
And of course there is those twelve jurors who, for the most part haven't got a clue, being manipulated by the court.
If you believe you are innocent of what ever charges hove been brought against you, pleading guilty can seal your fate.
Should new evidence show up at a later date your "confession" could torpedo any chances of your getting out even if proved innocent.
My point is that neither he nor any other person is doing him/her self a favor by accepting a plea bargain.
It's not much of a bargain for you.
Just them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336440</id>
	<title>Re:Never volunteer anything to the cops</title>
	<author>bhtooefr</author>
	<datestamp>1260038940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, when there's secret laws, and so many laws that lawyers have to <b>specialize in small sections of the law, and still get it wrong</b>, it's impossible to be a law-abiding citizen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , when there 's secret laws , and so many laws that lawyers have to specialize in small sections of the law , and still get it wrong , it 's impossible to be a law-abiding citizen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, when there's secret laws, and so many laws that lawyers have to specialize in small sections of the law, and still get it wrong, it's impossible to be a law-abiding citizen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337484</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Logic and Reason</author>
	<datestamp>1260045480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>BUYING it (through cash or barter) should also be illegal as it finances production of more material.</p></div><p>What if it is hosted on an ad-supported site? Are you not "bartering" your time and attention in that case? That alone would be a big enough loophole for the feds to nail almost anyone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BUYING it ( through cash or barter ) should also be illegal as it finances production of more material.What if it is hosted on an ad-supported site ?
Are you not " bartering " your time and attention in that case ?
That alone would be a big enough loophole for the feds to nail almost anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BUYING it (through cash or barter) should also be illegal as it finances production of more material.What if it is hosted on an ad-supported site?
Are you not "bartering" your time and attention in that case?
That alone would be a big enough loophole for the feds to nail almost anyone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30344126</id>
	<title>Re:You can KILL someone with this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260124200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Been saying this for years.  Do this with every computer in the upper management of ASCAP, BMI, and every other **AA affiliated company</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Been saying this for years .
Do this with every computer in the upper management of ASCAP , BMI , and every other * * AA affiliated company</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Been saying this for years.
Do this with every computer in the upper management of ASCAP, BMI, and every other **AA affiliated company</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336958</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1260041940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Where does the government keep finding 12 morons to vote guilty in the jury box? I know this particular guy's case isn't going to a jury, but his lawyer seems to think he's screwed if he does."</p><p>Most people don't think critically most of the time.  Hence stupid jury verdicts.  But the verdicts mostly flow from the strict laws being enforced by well meaning law abiding citizens.</p><p>He is screwed because the law makes possession illegal and he was in possession.  So to to be found not guilty he has to convince at least one person on the jury that this was accidental and not enforce the law as it is written.  Jury nullification if you will.  Remember that the jury, like most people, are going to assume you are guilty because you are on trial (why would the police go through all the trouble....)</p><p>So, he can plead guilty and get a few years and maybe have a life or go to trial, be found guilty and get a few decades.  Plea deals are made because they are easier and most defendents are guilty.  It really sucks to be an innocent defendent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Where does the government keep finding 12 morons to vote guilty in the jury box ?
I know this particular guy 's case is n't going to a jury , but his lawyer seems to think he 's screwed if he does .
" Most people do n't think critically most of the time .
Hence stupid jury verdicts .
But the verdicts mostly flow from the strict laws being enforced by well meaning law abiding citizens.He is screwed because the law makes possession illegal and he was in possession .
So to to be found not guilty he has to convince at least one person on the jury that this was accidental and not enforce the law as it is written .
Jury nullification if you will .
Remember that the jury , like most people , are going to assume you are guilty because you are on trial ( why would the police go through all the trouble.... ) So , he can plead guilty and get a few years and maybe have a life or go to trial , be found guilty and get a few decades .
Plea deals are made because they are easier and most defendents are guilty .
It really sucks to be an innocent defendent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Where does the government keep finding 12 morons to vote guilty in the jury box?
I know this particular guy's case isn't going to a jury, but his lawyer seems to think he's screwed if he does.
"Most people don't think critically most of the time.
Hence stupid jury verdicts.
But the verdicts mostly flow from the strict laws being enforced by well meaning law abiding citizens.He is screwed because the law makes possession illegal and he was in possession.
So to to be found not guilty he has to convince at least one person on the jury that this was accidental and not enforce the law as it is written.
Jury nullification if you will.
Remember that the jury, like most people, are going to assume you are guilty because you are on trial (why would the police go through all the trouble....)So, he can plead guilty and get a few years and maybe have a life or go to trial, be found guilty and get a few decades.
Plea deals are made because they are easier and most defendents are guilty.
It really sucks to be an innocent defendent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335722</id>
	<title>I think the right move would be...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>... to fire his attorney and enter a plea of not guilty.  If I were him I would fight to the end to avoid the felony conviction.  They said he is in his early twenties with no criminal record - why screw that up now?  Even if he spent years fighting the charges, and drove himself to bankruptcy in the process, it would still be less of a problem to his future than taking the felony conviction and serving 3.5 years in prison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... to fire his attorney and enter a plea of not guilty .
If I were him I would fight to the end to avoid the felony conviction .
They said he is in his early twenties with no criminal record - why screw that up now ?
Even if he spent years fighting the charges , and drove himself to bankruptcy in the process , it would still be less of a problem to his future than taking the felony conviction and serving 3.5 years in prison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... to fire his attorney and enter a plea of not guilty.
If I were him I would fight to the end to avoid the felony conviction.
They said he is in his early twenties with no criminal record - why screw that up now?
Even if he spent years fighting the charges, and drove himself to bankruptcy in the process, it would still be less of a problem to his future than taking the felony conviction and serving 3.5 years in prison.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341432</id>
	<title>Re:Never volunteer anything to the cops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop breathing, you're breaking the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop breathing , you 're breaking the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop breathing, you're breaking the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336026</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Ideas</title>
	<author>Angostura</author>
	<datestamp>1260036480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm, actually in the UK case, apparently the guy found shotgun and phoned the chief constable to request a chat (no mention of the gun, IIRC). He then came into the chief cop's office and bought forth the loaded gun. Said cop was not amused. Yes, I think the sentence was probably daft - but not as daft as the guy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , actually in the UK case , apparently the guy found shotgun and phoned the chief constable to request a chat ( no mention of the gun , IIRC ) .
He then came into the chief cop 's office and bought forth the loaded gun .
Said cop was not amused .
Yes , I think the sentence was probably daft - but not as daft as the guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, actually in the UK case, apparently the guy found shotgun and phoned the chief constable to request a chat (no mention of the gun, IIRC).
He then came into the chief cop's office and bought forth the loaded gun.
Said cop was not amused.
Yes, I think the sentence was probably daft - but not as daft as the guy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30342480</id>
	<title>Re:Never volunteer anything to the cops - TRUE</title>
	<author>MoeDumb</author>
	<datestamp>1260103920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And never get involved with them about anything for any reason if you can at all help it. Not in this increasingly oppressive culture. Stay out of their clutches. They are about making busts and arrests to the max; the innocent can "tell it to the judge."</htmltext>
<tokenext>And never get involved with them about anything for any reason if you can at all help it .
Not in this increasingly oppressive culture .
Stay out of their clutches .
They are about making busts and arrests to the max ; the innocent can " tell it to the judge .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And never get involved with them about anything for any reason if you can at all help it.
Not in this increasingly oppressive culture.
Stay out of their clutches.
They are about making busts and arrests to the max; the innocent can "tell it to the judge.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338402</id>
	<title>Safer to go outside</title>
	<author>heidaro</author>
	<datestamp>1260008760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For a paedophile, it is probably a lot safer to actually go molest some kids nowadays rather than look for pictures on the internet.

They should use all these resources to hunt down real criminals (bankers) instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For a paedophile , it is probably a lot safer to actually go molest some kids nowadays rather than look for pictures on the internet .
They should use all these resources to hunt down real criminals ( bankers ) instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a paedophile, it is probably a lot safer to actually go molest some kids nowadays rather than look for pictures on the internet.
They should use all these resources to hunt down real criminals (bankers) instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336562</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>when in reality laws are meant to be interpreted so exactly this kind of thing doesn't happen!</p></div><p>But if they actually interpret the laws like they're supposed to, then they get excoriated as "activist judges" who are "legislating from the bench" and various tuff-on-crahm groups start lobbying for new laws to remove any possibility of discretion from the judge's decisions.</p><p>
&nbsp; Reminds me of the girl I knew in high school who argued, with a straight face, that anyone who was in prison was worthless and should be executed, and that appeals were a waste of time and money. (She was also a rabid anti-abortion nut like her parents. Probably a corollary. "Life is <i>PRECIOUS!</i> Until it leaves the womb. Then FOAD!")</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>when in reality laws are meant to be interpreted so exactly this kind of thing does n't happen ! But if they actually interpret the laws like they 're supposed to , then they get excoriated as " activist judges " who are " legislating from the bench " and various tuff-on-crahm groups start lobbying for new laws to remove any possibility of discretion from the judge 's decisions .
  Reminds me of the girl I knew in high school who argued , with a straight face , that anyone who was in prison was worthless and should be executed , and that appeals were a waste of time and money .
( She was also a rabid anti-abortion nut like her parents .
Probably a corollary .
" Life is PRECIOUS !
Until it leaves the womb .
Then FOAD !
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when in reality laws are meant to be interpreted so exactly this kind of thing doesn't happen!But if they actually interpret the laws like they're supposed to, then they get excoriated as "activist judges" who are "legislating from the bench" and various tuff-on-crahm groups start lobbying for new laws to remove any possibility of discretion from the judge's decisions.
  Reminds me of the girl I knew in high school who argued, with a straight face, that anyone who was in prison was worthless and should be executed, and that appeals were a waste of time and money.
(She was also a rabid anti-abortion nut like her parents.
Probably a corollary.
"Life is PRECIOUS!
Until it leaves the womb.
Then FOAD!
")
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336318</id>
	<title>Re:It happens</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1260038280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I mean... I've bought second-hand HDD's that have been zeroe'd and formatted. Could I be potentially liable if the previous owner had been a kiddie-porn freako? The images might still be buried deep in the disk after all.</i></p><p>There is no way to retrieve the data after zero'ing.  Being able to do so is a computer myth for the most part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean... I 've bought second-hand HDD 's that have been zeroe 'd and formatted .
Could I be potentially liable if the previous owner had been a kiddie-porn freako ?
The images might still be buried deep in the disk after all.There is no way to retrieve the data after zero'ing .
Being able to do so is a computer myth for the most part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean... I've bought second-hand HDD's that have been zeroe'd and formatted.
Could I be potentially liable if the previous owner had been a kiddie-porn freako?
The images might still be buried deep in the disk after all.There is no way to retrieve the data after zero'ing.
Being able to do so is a computer myth for the most part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338288</id>
	<title>Possesion of anything should never be illegal</title>
	<author>BetterSense</author>
	<datestamp>1260007800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If only because it's so easy to 'plant' nearly anything, whether it's the police doing the planting, someone who does not like you, a trojan/malware, or accident...possession laws are basically "you are guilty because you are".</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only because it 's so easy to 'plant ' nearly anything , whether it 's the police doing the planting , someone who does not like you , a trojan/malware , or accident...possession laws are basically " you are guilty because you are " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only because it's so easy to 'plant' nearly anything, whether it's the police doing the planting, someone who does not like you, a trojan/malware, or accident...possession laws are basically "you are guilty because you are".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336042</id>
	<title>Re:Wow is this scary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260036540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>something pretty close to that<br>http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Using-cipherexe.html?printversion</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>something pretty close to thathttp : //www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Using-cipherexe.html ? printversion</tokentext>
<sentencetext>something pretty close to thathttp://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Using-cipherexe.html?printversion</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30343462</id>
	<title>Re:Never volunteer anything to the cops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260118260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>However, I think it is great advice to call the FBI when you see something like that, get it on record that you accidentally downloaded kiddy porn and you want to know what the FBI is doing to catch the bastards who make and distribute it.</i></p><p>Horrible, horrible, horrible advice.  You can tell the FBI that it was accidental, but *that will not be admissible in court*.  You won't be able to repeat anything you said to the FBI in court to defend yourself.  Remember the text of the Miranda warning?  "Anything you do or say can and will be used against you in the court of law."  Well, there's an adjunct to that which isn't part of the Miranda warning: Nothing you say can be used *for* you in the court of law.  It can only be used against you.  So suppose you tell the police "I downloaded it accidentally." Fast forward to trial: "Officer, what did the defendant tell you about the download?"  "Objection, hearsay."  "Sustained."  And you are screwed.</p><p>DON'T TALK TO THE FUCKING POLICE YOU MORON!!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , I think it is great advice to call the FBI when you see something like that , get it on record that you accidentally downloaded kiddy porn and you want to know what the FBI is doing to catch the bastards who make and distribute it.Horrible , horrible , horrible advice .
You can tell the FBI that it was accidental , but * that will not be admissible in court * .
You wo n't be able to repeat anything you said to the FBI in court to defend yourself .
Remember the text of the Miranda warning ?
" Anything you do or say can and will be used against you in the court of law .
" Well , there 's an adjunct to that which is n't part of the Miranda warning : Nothing you say can be used * for * you in the court of law .
It can only be used against you .
So suppose you tell the police " I downloaded it accidentally .
" Fast forward to trial : " Officer , what did the defendant tell you about the download ?
" " Objection , hearsay .
" " Sustained .
" And you are screwed.DO N'T TALK TO THE FUCKING POLICE YOU MORON ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, I think it is great advice to call the FBI when you see something like that, get it on record that you accidentally downloaded kiddy porn and you want to know what the FBI is doing to catch the bastards who make and distribute it.Horrible, horrible, horrible advice.
You can tell the FBI that it was accidental, but *that will not be admissible in court*.
You won't be able to repeat anything you said to the FBI in court to defend yourself.
Remember the text of the Miranda warning?
"Anything you do or say can and will be used against you in the court of law.
"  Well, there's an adjunct to that which isn't part of the Miranda warning: Nothing you say can be used *for* you in the court of law.
It can only be used against you.
So suppose you tell the police "I downloaded it accidentally.
" Fast forward to trial: "Officer, what did the defendant tell you about the download?
"  "Objection, hearsay.
"  "Sustained.
"  And you are screwed.DON'T TALK TO THE FUCKING POLICE YOU MORON!!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341024</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260033360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another armchair Slashdot attorney who knows absolutely nothing about the law, and if they did, wouldn't make such a retarded ass comment.</p><p>18 USC 2252(c) makes it an affirmative defense to a charge of possession to, among other things: (1) have a good faith possession of less than 3 instances of the pornography; and (2) "report[] the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction."</p><p>So I wonder who is more qualified to give advice on the law?  The FBI, or the know-nothing idiot originator of this post?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another armchair Slashdot attorney who knows absolutely nothing about the law , and if they did , would n't make such a retarded ass comment.18 USC 2252 ( c ) makes it an affirmative defense to a charge of possession to , among other things : ( 1 ) have a good faith possession of less than 3 instances of the pornography ; and ( 2 ) " report [ ] the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction .
" So I wonder who is more qualified to give advice on the law ?
The FBI , or the know-nothing idiot originator of this post ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another armchair Slashdot attorney who knows absolutely nothing about the law, and if they did, wouldn't make such a retarded ass comment.18 USC 2252(c) makes it an affirmative defense to a charge of possession to, among other things: (1) have a good faith possession of less than 3 instances of the pornography; and (2) "report[] the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.
"So I wonder who is more qualified to give advice on the law?
The FBI, or the know-nothing idiot originator of this post?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336164</id>
	<title>Should have used GNU/Linux</title>
	<author>RMS Eats Toejam</author>
	<datestamp>1260037200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No doubt about it.  This is a classic case where the users should have been using GNU/Linux.  This is because GNU/Linux is designed and created by people who enjoy child pornography just as much as you do.  It's the only OS with the security and reliability needed to keep your private collection of "good pics" safe from prying eyes.  If you care about freedom, you'll use FOSS.  Simple as that.  People who use proprietary software are the <i>real</i> pedophiles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No doubt about it .
This is a classic case where the users should have been using GNU/Linux .
This is because GNU/Linux is designed and created by people who enjoy child pornography just as much as you do .
It 's the only OS with the security and reliability needed to keep your private collection of " good pics " safe from prying eyes .
If you care about freedom , you 'll use FOSS .
Simple as that .
People who use proprietary software are the real pedophiles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No doubt about it.
This is a classic case where the users should have been using GNU/Linux.
This is because GNU/Linux is designed and created by people who enjoy child pornography just as much as you do.
It's the only OS with the security and reliability needed to keep your private collection of "good pics" safe from prying eyes.
If you care about freedom, you'll use FOSS.
Simple as that.
People who use proprietary software are the real pedophiles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30354762</id>
	<title>Totally gross!</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1260208860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just goes to show how incompetent the feds are these days!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just goes to show how incompetent the feds are these days !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just goes to show how incompetent the feds are these days!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341596</id>
	<title>Re:Call the cops</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1260042420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; When one considers the fact that nearly all if not all american currency has some traces of drugs on it, then anyone who has a dollar bill in his or her pocket can be busted, if the authority on the spot needs an excuse.</p><p>
&nbsp; We have the sheer arrogant gall to call ourselves a "civilized" society. Oh, please; we are at the least generations away from being so. Just because we think we're better than most of what has come before us does not make us the end to all. Many societies in history have thought the same way.</p><p>
&nbsp; Humanity in general has a long goddamned ways to go before it gets past the petulant teenager stage. Assuming we're that far, I'm not so sure.</p><p>
&nbsp; I hate to say it, but it seems to me - having lived before and after - that the greatest advance in information dissemination in human history has made us collectively stupider. But then it wasn't the technology that did so, it was the exposure of common idiocy.</p><p>
&nbsp; Let's see how long the United States of America survives it. Not long, in my estimation. But time, and history, move on.</p><p>SB</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  When one considers the fact that nearly all if not all american currency has some traces of drugs on it , then anyone who has a dollar bill in his or her pocket can be busted , if the authority on the spot needs an excuse .
  We have the sheer arrogant gall to call ourselves a " civilized " society .
Oh , please ; we are at the least generations away from being so .
Just because we think we 're better than most of what has come before us does not make us the end to all .
Many societies in history have thought the same way .
  Humanity in general has a long goddamned ways to go before it gets past the petulant teenager stage .
Assuming we 're that far , I 'm not so sure .
  I hate to say it , but it seems to me - having lived before and after - that the greatest advance in information dissemination in human history has made us collectively stupider .
But then it was n't the technology that did so , it was the exposure of common idiocy .
  Let 's see how long the United States of America survives it .
Not long , in my estimation .
But time , and history , move on.SB  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  When one considers the fact that nearly all if not all american currency has some traces of drugs on it, then anyone who has a dollar bill in his or her pocket can be busted, if the authority on the spot needs an excuse.
  We have the sheer arrogant gall to call ourselves a "civilized" society.
Oh, please; we are at the least generations away from being so.
Just because we think we're better than most of what has come before us does not make us the end to all.
Many societies in history have thought the same way.
  Humanity in general has a long goddamned ways to go before it gets past the petulant teenager stage.
Assuming we're that far, I'm not so sure.
  I hate to say it, but it seems to me - having lived before and after - that the greatest advance in information dissemination in human history has made us collectively stupider.
But then it wasn't the technology that did so, it was the exposure of common idiocy.
  Let's see how long the United States of America survives it.
Not long, in my estimation.
But time, and history, move on.SB
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339752</id>
	<title>Re:More to it...</title>
	<author>Cal27</author>
	<datestamp>1260019500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've done data recovery, it takes a lot less than a year for deleted files to degrade.</p></div><p>Not necessarily. Depending on the usage patterns, it could take even longer. I've found files that were deleted well over a year ago when doing an undelete. Files won't spontaneously degrade from a hard drive under normal conditions; they will sit there until they are overwritten.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've done data recovery , it takes a lot less than a year for deleted files to degrade.Not necessarily .
Depending on the usage patterns , it could take even longer .
I 've found files that were deleted well over a year ago when doing an undelete .
Files wo n't spontaneously degrade from a hard drive under normal conditions ; they will sit there until they are overwritten .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've done data recovery, it takes a lot less than a year for deleted files to degrade.Not necessarily.
Depending on the usage patterns, it could take even longer.
I've found files that were deleted well over a year ago when doing an undelete.
Files won't spontaneously degrade from a hard drive under normal conditions; they will sit there until they are overwritten.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335898</id>
	<title>Re:Another victim in the war on child porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260035760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's not forget the right of the abused child to privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's not forget the right of the abused child to privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's not forget the right of the abused child to privacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340748</id>
	<title>Like a Second- or Third-world justice system</title>
	<author>fishexe</author>
	<datestamp>1260029460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On advice from his lawyer, he intends to plead guilty...</p></div><p>

You know, as a teenager I watched the movie <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red\_Corner" title="wikipedia.org"> Red Corner </a> [wikipedia.org] and felt glad *I* didn't live in a country where public defenders urge every client to plead guilty whether they are or not, simply because they're never going to win anyway.  You know, one of those Communist ones without a real justice system.  Ah, the folly of youth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On advice from his lawyer , he intends to plead guilty.. . You know , as a teenager I watched the movie Red Corner [ wikipedia.org ] and felt glad * I * did n't live in a country where public defenders urge every client to plead guilty whether they are or not , simply because they 're never going to win anyway .
You know , one of those Communist ones without a real justice system .
Ah , the folly of youth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On advice from his lawyer, he intends to plead guilty...

You know, as a teenager I watched the movie  Red Corner  [wikipedia.org] and felt glad *I* didn't live in a country where public defenders urge every client to plead guilty whether they are or not, simply because they're never going to win anyway.
You know, one of those Communist ones without a real justice system.
Ah, the folly of youth.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341058</id>
	<title>where is the limit?</title>
	<author>nomind</author>
	<datestamp>1260033900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can any underage make their own porn, post it to a public server like youtube then report to and get FBI to confiscate the server(s)? And can they also sent their porn to anyone they hate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can any underage make their own porn , post it to a public server like youtube then report to and get FBI to confiscate the server ( s ) ?
And can they also sent their porn to anyone they hate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can any underage make their own porn, post it to a public server like youtube then report to and get FBI to confiscate the server(s)?
And can they also sent their porn to anyone they hate?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340284</id>
	<title>Did they "ask" or did they show up with a warrant?</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1260024420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reinforces my belief that one should never <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865#" title="google.com">volunteer any information to any law enforcement official</a> [google.com].</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reinforces my belief that one should never volunteer any information to any law enforcement official [ google.com ] .-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reinforces my belief that one should never volunteer any information to any law enforcement official [google.com].-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339176</id>
	<title>Re:Never volunteer anything to the cops</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1260014760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A jury normally consists of people to stupid to think up an excuse to get out of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A jury normally consists of people to stupid to think up an excuse to get out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A jury normally consists of people to stupid to think up an excuse to get out of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30345750</id>
	<title>Re:do the math</title>
	<author>KingAlanI</author>
	<datestamp>1260093180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The solution is clearly to develop a taste for MILFs...:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution is clearly to develop a taste for MILFs... : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution is clearly to develop a taste for MILFs...:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335690</id>
	<title>"Call the authorities on yourself immediately!"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My Ass!<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.dban.org/" title="dban.org" rel="nofollow">Dariks Boot and Nuke</a> [dban.org]+<a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/NewProduct.aspx?Item=N82E16822148506" title="newegg.com" rel="nofollow">Replace</a> [newegg.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>My Ass !
Dariks Boot and Nuke [ dban.org ] + Replace [ newegg.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Ass!
Dariks Boot and Nuke [dban.org]+Replace [newegg.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337540</id>
	<title>Let's Take Justice Back into OUR Hands</title>
	<author>IonOtter</author>
	<datestamp>1260046020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you want to make a difference in this?</p><p>Start Twittering <a href="http://bit.ly/jurynull" title="bit.ly">http://bit.ly/jurynull</a> [bit.ly] with the hashtag #jury-nullification.</p><p>To HELL with the law, bring justice back to the hands of the people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you want to make a difference in this ? Start Twittering http : //bit.ly/jurynull [ bit.ly ] with the hashtag # jury-nullification.To HELL with the law , bring justice back to the hands of the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you want to make a difference in this?Start Twittering http://bit.ly/jurynull [bit.ly] with the hashtag #jury-nullification.To HELL with the law, bring justice back to the hands of the people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336614</id>
	<title>Re:the real lesson</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1260039900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since warrants are easy to get, the correct response is to press a button mounted near your doorknob that initiates the thermite destruction of all your drives, which are of course encrypted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since warrants are easy to get , the correct response is to press a button mounted near your doorknob that initiates the thermite destruction of all your drives , which are of course encrypted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since warrants are easy to get, the correct response is to press a button mounted near your doorknob that initiates the thermite destruction of all your drives, which are of course encrypted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336810</id>
	<title>Fuck You.</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1260041100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just downloaded: <a href="http://eraser.heidi.ie/" title="heidi.ie">Eraser</a> [heidi.ie].  I'm running the erase free space on all my drives now.  Let them come for me.  If they say I am destroying evidence I will counter with innocent until proven guilty.  I am enhancing my privacy in case totalitarian-ist thought comes and tries to railroad me into something I am not guilty of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just downloaded : Eraser [ heidi.ie ] .
I 'm running the erase free space on all my drives now .
Let them come for me .
If they say I am destroying evidence I will counter with innocent until proven guilty .
I am enhancing my privacy in case totalitarian-ist thought comes and tries to railroad me into something I am not guilty of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just downloaded: Eraser [heidi.ie].
I'm running the erase free space on all my drives now.
Let them come for me.
If they say I am destroying evidence I will counter with innocent until proven guilty.
I am enhancing my privacy in case totalitarian-ist thought comes and tries to railroad me into something I am not guilty of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337214</id>
	<title>Re:Devil's Advocate</title>
	<author>Virak</author>
	<datestamp>1260043560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>She pointed out that the ample psychological harm caused by kid rape is compounded by the victim's awareness that depictions of the act are being spread and "enjoyed."</p></div></blockquote><p>So then they just lie to the children and say the police will get the bad guys and completely prevent all copying of the images and videos. Just like they're doing now. What, did you think they can really track down every copy in the world and destroy them and arrest the people who made those copies? As the saying goes, the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. Even censorship of things you think ought to be censored. Any effort to completely remove information there is any demand for from the Internet is doomed to failure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>She pointed out that the ample psychological harm caused by kid rape is compounded by the victim 's awareness that depictions of the act are being spread and " enjoyed .
" So then they just lie to the children and say the police will get the bad guys and completely prevent all copying of the images and videos .
Just like they 're doing now .
What , did you think they can really track down every copy in the world and destroy them and arrest the people who made those copies ?
As the saying goes , the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it .
Even censorship of things you think ought to be censored .
Any effort to completely remove information there is any demand for from the Internet is doomed to failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She pointed out that the ample psychological harm caused by kid rape is compounded by the victim's awareness that depictions of the act are being spread and "enjoyed.
"So then they just lie to the children and say the police will get the bad guys and completely prevent all copying of the images and videos.
Just like they're doing now.
What, did you think they can really track down every copy in the world and destroy them and arrest the people who made those copies?
As the saying goes, the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.
Even censorship of things you think ought to be censored.
Any effort to completely remove information there is any demand for from the Internet is doomed to failure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30347302</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260104340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>DO NOT CALL THE AUTHORITIES</p><p>Worst idea ever. If you actually have undeleted CP on your computer you will get 20 years.
The only safe thing to do is destroy the hard drive.</p></div><p>To be fair, the police generally use a bit of discretion, at least in my experience; and my guess is that in most of these "outrageous" cases, the police had more information than was made public in court,</p><p>I certainly know that I was browsing the interbuttz looking for free porn, and came across an advert that had pictures of 4 or 5 kids being abused. I copied the link to the page that the ad was on, as well as the link to the site that the pictures went through to, and as the site appeared to be US based, forwarded them to the FBI.</p><p>

Now it's a fact that those thumbs must have been in my cache, but I never heard anything about it, so this idea that your door's gonna be smashed down just because they can get an arrest, is pure BS IMO.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DO NOT CALL THE AUTHORITIESWorst idea ever .
If you actually have undeleted CP on your computer you will get 20 years .
The only safe thing to do is destroy the hard drive.To be fair , the police generally use a bit of discretion , at least in my experience ; and my guess is that in most of these " outrageous " cases , the police had more information than was made public in court,I certainly know that I was browsing the interbuttz looking for free porn , and came across an advert that had pictures of 4 or 5 kids being abused .
I copied the link to the page that the ad was on , as well as the link to the site that the pictures went through to , and as the site appeared to be US based , forwarded them to the FBI .
Now it 's a fact that those thumbs must have been in my cache , but I never heard anything about it , so this idea that your door 's gon na be smashed down just because they can get an arrest , is pure BS IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DO NOT CALL THE AUTHORITIESWorst idea ever.
If you actually have undeleted CP on your computer you will get 20 years.
The only safe thing to do is destroy the hard drive.To be fair, the police generally use a bit of discretion, at least in my experience; and my guess is that in most of these "outrageous" cases, the police had more information than was made public in court,I certainly know that I was browsing the interbuttz looking for free porn, and came across an advert that had pictures of 4 or 5 kids being abused.
I copied the link to the page that the ad was on, as well as the link to the site that the pictures went through to, and as the site appeared to be US based, forwarded them to the FBI.
Now it's a fact that those thumbs must have been in my cache, but I never heard anything about it, so this idea that your door's gonna be smashed down just because they can get an arrest, is pure BS IMO.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337114</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260042900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say that regardless of harm it should be legal because it's quite impossible for them to arrest most or even a significant amount of the people who possess child pornography, and thus their efforts are largely ineffectual for reducing harm, and also because these laws provide easy PR for law enforcement for doing very little, and thus they put their focus on that instead of going after the people who are actually producing it and are causing far more harm than copying an image ever could.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say that regardless of harm it should be legal because it 's quite impossible for them to arrest most or even a significant amount of the people who possess child pornography , and thus their efforts are largely ineffectual for reducing harm , and also because these laws provide easy PR for law enforcement for doing very little , and thus they put their focus on that instead of going after the people who are actually producing it and are causing far more harm than copying an image ever could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say that regardless of harm it should be legal because it's quite impossible for them to arrest most or even a significant amount of the people who possess child pornography, and thus their efforts are largely ineffectual for reducing harm, and also because these laws provide easy PR for law enforcement for doing very little, and thus they put their focus on that instead of going after the people who are actually producing it and are causing far more harm than copying an image ever could.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335676</id>
	<title>Honest question: watching pictures is wrong?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please someone answer me as honestly as they can: even if that guy happened to willingly watch child porn images, what damage does that do to society? Obviously exploiting children to take those pictures is a bad thing. Yet, we are talking about a random person who never harmed or abused a child. He even downloaded them from a P2P network, which means that he didn't indirectly supported harming children by financing it. How will society improve itself if the justice system throws that man in jail for yeas to come? What is there to be gained?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// Posted anonymously to avoid all that social stigma that is promptly associated with those that question society's knee jerk reaction regarding child pornography.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please someone answer me as honestly as they can : even if that guy happened to willingly watch child porn images , what damage does that do to society ?
Obviously exploiting children to take those pictures is a bad thing .
Yet , we are talking about a random person who never harmed or abused a child .
He even downloaded them from a P2P network , which means that he did n't indirectly supported harming children by financing it .
How will society improve itself if the justice system throws that man in jail for yeas to come ?
What is there to be gained ?
// Posted anonymously to avoid all that social stigma that is promptly associated with those that question society 's knee jerk reaction regarding child pornography .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please someone answer me as honestly as they can: even if that guy happened to willingly watch child porn images, what damage does that do to society?
Obviously exploiting children to take those pictures is a bad thing.
Yet, we are talking about a random person who never harmed or abused a child.
He even downloaded them from a P2P network, which means that he didn't indirectly supported harming children by financing it.
How will society improve itself if the justice system throws that man in jail for yeas to come?
What is there to be gained?
// Posted anonymously to avoid all that social stigma that is promptly associated with those that question society's knee jerk reaction regarding child pornography.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30354756</id>
	<title>Re:FBI bait?</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1260208800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The FBI bait sites are awesome, because they don't care how downloaded the image, just that you made the request. So, people have found out what the bait images are, apparently, and like to "FBI Roll" people by either linking to them directly, or even better, putting them as a 1x1 image hidden somewhere on an innocuous page. That way you never even see it, but it's in your browser cache now, so when the FBI comes knocking after your download, it'll be there. <b> <i>Somebody</i> </b> needs to step this program up a notch, and start FBI rolling every major newscaster, reporter, media executive, and politician (big and small). Until that happens, nobody gives a shit.</p></div></blockquote><p>Everybody complains but nobody wants to be that "somebody".  So my guess is that will never happen on a large enough scale to get the attention of your overlords.<br>In the case that isolated incidents do happen, the ruling class will either use the opportunity to prune its ranks and provide some scapegoats, or just sweep it under the rug (after all, laws *are* selectively enforced).</p><p>The system works as intended.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The FBI bait sites are awesome , because they do n't care how downloaded the image , just that you made the request .
So , people have found out what the bait images are , apparently , and like to " FBI Roll " people by either linking to them directly , or even better , putting them as a 1x1 image hidden somewhere on an innocuous page .
That way you never even see it , but it 's in your browser cache now , so when the FBI comes knocking after your download , it 'll be there .
Somebody needs to step this program up a notch , and start FBI rolling every major newscaster , reporter , media executive , and politician ( big and small ) .
Until that happens , nobody gives a shit.Everybody complains but nobody wants to be that " somebody " .
So my guess is that will never happen on a large enough scale to get the attention of your overlords.In the case that isolated incidents do happen , the ruling class will either use the opportunity to prune its ranks and provide some scapegoats , or just sweep it under the rug ( after all , laws * are * selectively enforced ) .The system works as intended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FBI bait sites are awesome, because they don't care how downloaded the image, just that you made the request.
So, people have found out what the bait images are, apparently, and like to "FBI Roll" people by either linking to them directly, or even better, putting them as a 1x1 image hidden somewhere on an innocuous page.
That way you never even see it, but it's in your browser cache now, so when the FBI comes knocking after your download, it'll be there.
Somebody  needs to step this program up a notch, and start FBI rolling every major newscaster, reporter, media executive, and politician (big and small).
Until that happens, nobody gives a shit.Everybody complains but nobody wants to be that "somebody".
So my guess is that will never happen on a large enough scale to get the attention of your overlords.In the case that isolated incidents do happen, the ruling class will either use the opportunity to prune its ranks and provide some scapegoats, or just sweep it under the rug (after all, laws *are* selectively enforced).The system works as intended.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580</id>
	<title>Public Defender</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Matt is pleading guilty on the advice of his public defender in hopes of getting a three and a half year sentence.</i></p><p>In other words, he doesn't have the money to actually fight this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Matt is pleading guilty on the advice of his public defender in hopes of getting a three and a half year sentence.In other words , he does n't have the money to actually fight this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Matt is pleading guilty on the advice of his public defender in hopes of getting a three and a half year sentence.In other words, he doesn't have the money to actually fight this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336556</id>
	<title>Re:My $.02</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[Citation needed]<br>Having too much work means one or both of these things:<br>- More personnel is needed<br>- You have too much stuff to do now because you spent last week/month slacking off</p><p>And if your boss seems to think you aren't doing your job properly and fires you... Hey, you're a lawyer, you know what to do.<br>And if the pay is too measly in your opinion... Hey, you're a lawyer, you know what to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Citation needed ] Having too much work means one or both of these things : - More personnel is needed- You have too much stuff to do now because you spent last week/month slacking offAnd if your boss seems to think you are n't doing your job properly and fires you... Hey , you 're a lawyer , you know what to do.And if the pay is too measly in your opinion... Hey , you 're a lawyer , you know what to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Citation needed]Having too much work means one or both of these things:- More personnel is needed- You have too much stuff to do now because you spent last week/month slacking offAnd if your boss seems to think you aren't doing your job properly and fires you... Hey, you're a lawyer, you know what to do.And if the pay is too measly in your opinion... Hey, you're a lawyer, you know what to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341506</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260040860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really, because then any parent who has pictures of their child naked for whatever reason would then be accused of creating child pornography.</p><p>And if you think this is crazy, go find someone who works in a photo lab and find out their policies on reporting photos of criminal acts.  If you happen to have a friend there, you can probably get some stories out of them about the times they have.</p><p>I asked this of someone who works at a photo lab, and she told me of a grandma who had to be reported because the film contained pictures of her grandchildren playing in the bathtub.  You know, those sorts of pictures that are in every parent's photo album just for the sole purpose of bringing out when we are older to embarrass us?</p><p>A happy child in a bath playing with his rubber ducky isn't child porn, but yet the law can make that be so.  Think about the poor innocent grandmas!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really , because then any parent who has pictures of their child naked for whatever reason would then be accused of creating child pornography.And if you think this is crazy , go find someone who works in a photo lab and find out their policies on reporting photos of criminal acts .
If you happen to have a friend there , you can probably get some stories out of them about the times they have.I asked this of someone who works at a photo lab , and she told me of a grandma who had to be reported because the film contained pictures of her grandchildren playing in the bathtub .
You know , those sorts of pictures that are in every parent 's photo album just for the sole purpose of bringing out when we are older to embarrass us ? A happy child in a bath playing with his rubber ducky is n't child porn , but yet the law can make that be so .
Think about the poor innocent grandmas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really, because then any parent who has pictures of their child naked for whatever reason would then be accused of creating child pornography.And if you think this is crazy, go find someone who works in a photo lab and find out their policies on reporting photos of criminal acts.
If you happen to have a friend there, you can probably get some stories out of them about the times they have.I asked this of someone who works at a photo lab, and she told me of a grandma who had to be reported because the film contained pictures of her grandchildren playing in the bathtub.
You know, those sorts of pictures that are in every parent's photo album just for the sole purpose of bringing out when we are older to embarrass us?A happy child in a bath playing with his rubber ducky isn't child porn, but yet the law can make that be so.
Think about the poor innocent grandmas!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341032</id>
	<title>Once I would have posted with my name</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260033540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but not anymore.</p><p>I've been to 4chan - once. I clicked a link on the Wikipedia page (because I heard so much about it) and got to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/b/. On that page were 4 very obviously CP images, all in my browser cache. I cleared my cache and didn't think twice about it.</p><p>Thankfully that was a few years ago and I haven't heard anything since.</p><p>But since then I've downloaded a lot of porn from P2P networks. Anyone who's been on Gnutella knows that a search for pretty much any type of porn will have "underage lolita xxx pussy dog teen 16" appended to it, even if the contents are two people clearly over the age of 18 (think sagging). Many people just append a bunch of terms to the end of the filename; there's no reason to heed them.</p><p>I've never downloaded a single CP file from P2P, accidentally or otherwise. I'm not that stupid. But a full half of my downloads had terms in them that indicated that they would be CP. If one file ever did, I'd be screwed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but not anymore.I 've been to 4chan - once .
I clicked a link on the Wikipedia page ( because I heard so much about it ) and got to /b/ .
On that page were 4 very obviously CP images , all in my browser cache .
I cleared my cache and did n't think twice about it.Thankfully that was a few years ago and I have n't heard anything since.But since then I 've downloaded a lot of porn from P2P networks .
Anyone who 's been on Gnutella knows that a search for pretty much any type of porn will have " underage lolita xxx pussy dog teen 16 " appended to it , even if the contents are two people clearly over the age of 18 ( think sagging ) .
Many people just append a bunch of terms to the end of the filename ; there 's no reason to heed them.I 've never downloaded a single CP file from P2P , accidentally or otherwise .
I 'm not that stupid .
But a full half of my downloads had terms in them that indicated that they would be CP .
If one file ever did , I 'd be screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but not anymore.I've been to 4chan - once.
I clicked a link on the Wikipedia page (because I heard so much about it) and got to /b/.
On that page were 4 very obviously CP images, all in my browser cache.
I cleared my cache and didn't think twice about it.Thankfully that was a few years ago and I haven't heard anything since.But since then I've downloaded a lot of porn from P2P networks.
Anyone who's been on Gnutella knows that a search for pretty much any type of porn will have "underage lolita xxx pussy dog teen 16" appended to it, even if the contents are two people clearly over the age of 18 (think sagging).
Many people just append a bunch of terms to the end of the filename; there's no reason to heed them.I've never downloaded a single CP file from P2P, accidentally or otherwise.
I'm not that stupid.
But a full half of my downloads had terms in them that indicated that they would be CP.
If one file ever did, I'd be screwed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339370</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260016140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is not well reasoned. If possesion is legal, porn creators will find a much bigger market. Yes, even if buying it is ilegal, as long as there's money to do with it (through advertising other porn sites and the like) increased consumption will create increased creation. So legalizing consumption of child porn would definitely ruin the lifes of thousands of children.<br>In addition to that, by watching some child porn you DO produce harm to the kid. While the probability of you ever meeting that child is small, the collective probability of the child ever meeting someone that has ever seen him or her being abused is not that low. The more people that sees them, the bigger the chance. And having been abused is bad enough, meeting people that saw it is much worse.<br>So it is good that real, intentional possesion of child pornography is punished. At least, it should be considered proof of mental illness, but jail is OK in my view.<br>But punishing accidental possesion of child porn, or possesion of simulated child porn (with adults posing as children), virtual child porn, drawings and the like is stupid. It even harms the victims of child pornography (I bet that if virtual child pornography was allowed, fewer children would get exploited to get the real thing).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is not well reasoned .
If possesion is legal , porn creators will find a much bigger market .
Yes , even if buying it is ilegal , as long as there 's money to do with it ( through advertising other porn sites and the like ) increased consumption will create increased creation .
So legalizing consumption of child porn would definitely ruin the lifes of thousands of children.In addition to that , by watching some child porn you DO produce harm to the kid .
While the probability of you ever meeting that child is small , the collective probability of the child ever meeting someone that has ever seen him or her being abused is not that low .
The more people that sees them , the bigger the chance .
And having been abused is bad enough , meeting people that saw it is much worse.So it is good that real , intentional possesion of child pornography is punished .
At least , it should be considered proof of mental illness , but jail is OK in my view.But punishing accidental possesion of child porn , or possesion of simulated child porn ( with adults posing as children ) , virtual child porn , drawings and the like is stupid .
It even harms the victims of child pornography ( I bet that if virtual child pornography was allowed , fewer children would get exploited to get the real thing ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is not well reasoned.
If possesion is legal, porn creators will find a much bigger market.
Yes, even if buying it is ilegal, as long as there's money to do with it (through advertising other porn sites and the like) increased consumption will create increased creation.
So legalizing consumption of child porn would definitely ruin the lifes of thousands of children.In addition to that, by watching some child porn you DO produce harm to the kid.
While the probability of you ever meeting that child is small, the collective probability of the child ever meeting someone that has ever seen him or her being abused is not that low.
The more people that sees them, the bigger the chance.
And having been abused is bad enough, meeting people that saw it is much worse.So it is good that real, intentional possesion of child pornography is punished.
At least, it should be considered proof of mental illness, but jail is OK in my view.But punishing accidental possesion of child porn, or possesion of simulated child porn (with adults posing as children), virtual child porn, drawings and the like is stupid.
It even harms the victims of child pornography (I bet that if virtual child pornography was allowed, fewer children would get exploited to get the real thing).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338214</id>
	<title>ACLU</title>
	<author>ub3r n3u7r4l1st</author>
	<datestamp>1260007200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember this organization? No need for public defender.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember this organization ?
No need for public defender .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember this organization?
No need for public defender.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336900</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260041520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this idiot insightful?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this idiot insightful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this idiot insightful?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338870</id>
	<title>Re:Call the cops</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1260012540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Best thing to do is a low-level multi-pass format...</p></div><p>Even that isn't a guarantee. If they are aware at all about what happened they have logs of the transfer and can still charge you with receipt. This, incidentally, carries heavier penalties (5 year minimum jail time) than plain possession (no minimum). The anti-CP laws are truly fucked up. Largely because it isn't politically feasible for any moderate legislator to stand up against the harsh punishment when some zealot (in this case Thurmond and Helms) introduces whacked out bills "for the children".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Best thing to do is a low-level multi-pass format...Even that is n't a guarantee .
If they are aware at all about what happened they have logs of the transfer and can still charge you with receipt .
This , incidentally , carries heavier penalties ( 5 year minimum jail time ) than plain possession ( no minimum ) .
The anti-CP laws are truly fucked up .
Largely because it is n't politically feasible for any moderate legislator to stand up against the harsh punishment when some zealot ( in this case Thurmond and Helms ) introduces whacked out bills " for the children " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best thing to do is a low-level multi-pass format...Even that isn't a guarantee.
If they are aware at all about what happened they have logs of the transfer and can still charge you with receipt.
This, incidentally, carries heavier penalties (5 year minimum jail time) than plain possession (no minimum).
The anti-CP laws are truly fucked up.
Largely because it isn't politically feasible for any moderate legislator to stand up against the harsh punishment when some zealot (in this case Thurmond and Helms) introduces whacked out bills "for the children".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341704</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1260131400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>nonsense. The which hunt is not attack. Attack would be to get the picture and sent it to the judge, jury and everyone in the court room. That way they're all guilty if they "accidentally" get the picture on their computer.A friends brother left their computer with auto-accept on DCC and someone uploaded a kiddie pic on his computer. He also faced 25-years in prison. The judge saw past the prosecutors nonsense and put him on probation. But before that, FBI raided his house, and took computers and what not.T</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>nonsense .
The which hunt is not attack .
Attack would be to get the picture and sent it to the judge , jury and everyone in the court room .
That way they 're all guilty if they " accidentally " get the picture on their computer.A friends brother left their computer with auto-accept on DCC and someone uploaded a kiddie pic on his computer .
He also faced 25-years in prison .
The judge saw past the prosecutors nonsense and put him on probation .
But before that , FBI raided his house , and took computers and what not.T</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nonsense.
The which hunt is not attack.
Attack would be to get the picture and sent it to the judge, jury and everyone in the court room.
That way they're all guilty if they "accidentally" get the picture on their computer.A friends brother left their computer with auto-accept on DCC and someone uploaded a kiddie pic on his computer.
He also faced 25-years in prison.
The judge saw past the prosecutors nonsense and put him on probation.
But before that, FBI raided his house, and took computers and what not.T</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335798</id>
	<title>Re:Call the cops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260035220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The summary states that if you accidentally download kiddie porn you need to call the cops asap. Typically, people who are guilty or trying to hide something don't call the cops on themselves.</p></div><p>Yes but the summary also states that accidentally downloading child porn will get you 22 years in prison.</p><p>No thank you, I will not be calling the cops to have myself sent to prison for 22 years for not doing anything wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary states that if you accidentally download kiddie porn you need to call the cops asap .
Typically , people who are guilty or trying to hide something do n't call the cops on themselves.Yes but the summary also states that accidentally downloading child porn will get you 22 years in prison.No thank you , I will not be calling the cops to have myself sent to prison for 22 years for not doing anything wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary states that if you accidentally download kiddie porn you need to call the cops asap.
Typically, people who are guilty or trying to hide something don't call the cops on themselves.Yes but the summary also states that accidentally downloading child porn will get you 22 years in prison.No thank you, I will not be calling the cops to have myself sent to prison for 22 years for not doing anything wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335770</id>
	<title>Oblig.</title>
	<author>omuls are tasty</author>
	<datestamp>1260035040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pics or it didn't happen!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pics or it did n't happen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pics or it didn't happen!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832</id>
	<title>Re:Call the cops</title>
	<author>Collapsing Empire</author>
	<datestamp>1260035400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The law makes no distinction if the child porn you possess was obtained accidentally or intentionally.</p><p>Its just like buying a used car from a drug dealer and going across a border checkpoint.. The sniffing dogs smell some dope that got stashed underneath the seat and YOU are the one who gets put in prison.</p><p>I'm not a libertarian but even I can see how utterly broke and immoral the system has become to get to such a point.</p><p>Calling the cops is a complete gamble. The cops will likely say "you have child porn, I am required to arrest you and charge you with possession, you can explain it to the judge".</p><p>Best thing to do is a low-level multi-pass format, or a new HD. But that is if you *know* that you downloaded CP. If you don't know, cops may bust down your door some months later, seize your computer, then charge you once they find a thumbnail in some cache folder that was deleted 4 months ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The law makes no distinction if the child porn you possess was obtained accidentally or intentionally.Its just like buying a used car from a drug dealer and going across a border checkpoint.. The sniffing dogs smell some dope that got stashed underneath the seat and YOU are the one who gets put in prison.I 'm not a libertarian but even I can see how utterly broke and immoral the system has become to get to such a point.Calling the cops is a complete gamble .
The cops will likely say " you have child porn , I am required to arrest you and charge you with possession , you can explain it to the judge " .Best thing to do is a low-level multi-pass format , or a new HD .
But that is if you * know * that you downloaded CP .
If you do n't know , cops may bust down your door some months later , seize your computer , then charge you once they find a thumbnail in some cache folder that was deleted 4 months ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law makes no distinction if the child porn you possess was obtained accidentally or intentionally.Its just like buying a used car from a drug dealer and going across a border checkpoint.. The sniffing dogs smell some dope that got stashed underneath the seat and YOU are the one who gets put in prison.I'm not a libertarian but even I can see how utterly broke and immoral the system has become to get to such a point.Calling the cops is a complete gamble.
The cops will likely say "you have child porn, I am required to arrest you and charge you with possession, you can explain it to the judge".Best thing to do is a low-level multi-pass format, or a new HD.
But that is if you *know* that you downloaded CP.
If you don't know, cops may bust down your door some months later, seize your computer, then charge you once they find a thumbnail in some cache folder that was deleted 4 months ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337942</id>
	<title>Tell that to the child!</title>
	<author>Doug52392</author>
	<datestamp>1260005220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The connection between downloading an image off of limewire and the sexual abuse of a child is so tenuous it's absurd."</p><p>Oh really? Tell that to the face of the child in the image he downloaded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The connection between downloading an image off of limewire and the sexual abuse of a child is so tenuous it 's absurd .
" Oh really ?
Tell that to the face of the child in the image he downloaded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The connection between downloading an image off of limewire and the sexual abuse of a child is so tenuous it's absurd.
"Oh really?
Tell that to the face of the child in the image he downloaded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335808</id>
	<title>Re:Don't plead guilty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260035280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are assuming you would get a sane jury, and not one like:</p><p>Prosecutor: "Is it true the FBI found child porn pictures on your computer?"<br>You: "*Deleted* pictures"<br>Prosecutor: "And you admit downloading these files via Limewire"<br>You: "By *accident*"<br>Prosecutor: "I rest my case"<br>Jury: "He admitted downloading child porn, where's the nearest tree to hang him?"<br>Judge: "You can only give him 20 years in prison"<br>Jury: *grumble* "Well, 20 years it is then"</p><p>Seems like one of the most dangerous things you could possibly do in the US these days is search for something like "sex" on P2P and just set the whole bunch to download. I mean clearly anyone who'd do that is so perverted they deserve life in prison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are assuming you would get a sane jury , and not one like : Prosecutor : " Is it true the FBI found child porn pictures on your computer ?
" You : " * Deleted * pictures " Prosecutor : " And you admit downloading these files via Limewire " You : " By * accident * " Prosecutor : " I rest my case " Jury : " He admitted downloading child porn , where 's the nearest tree to hang him ?
" Judge : " You can only give him 20 years in prison " Jury : * grumble * " Well , 20 years it is then " Seems like one of the most dangerous things you could possibly do in the US these days is search for something like " sex " on P2P and just set the whole bunch to download .
I mean clearly anyone who 'd do that is so perverted they deserve life in prison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are assuming you would get a sane jury, and not one like:Prosecutor: "Is it true the FBI found child porn pictures on your computer?
"You: "*Deleted* pictures"Prosecutor: "And you admit downloading these files via Limewire"You: "By *accident*"Prosecutor: "I rest my case"Jury: "He admitted downloading child porn, where's the nearest tree to hang him?
"Judge: "You can only give him 20 years in prison"Jury: *grumble* "Well, 20 years it is then"Seems like one of the most dangerous things you could possibly do in the US these days is search for something like "sex" on P2P and just set the whole bunch to download.
I mean clearly anyone who'd do that is so perverted they deserve life in prison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336350</id>
	<title>Perspective from the Trenches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260038460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've provided technical services to public defenders for fifteen years and have worked on a number of cases similar to this one. Every legal case has a huge set of facts surrounding it that the general public isn't privy to. Some of those are exposed to the jury, if there is one. More are exposed to the judge. Still more are available to the DA and/or defense attorney. They all affect the legal strategy. Based on the tip of the iceberg we, the general public, are presented with, it's virtually impossible to say anything meaningful, let alone insightful. Acknowledging that massive limitation, here is my perspective:</p><p>From the video, the kid presents well. If his record is clean, I question why his attorney isn't aiming for a plea of "not guilty" and a trial. PDs have a reputation for laziness and incompetence. Some of them deserve it. Others are better than the best attorneys money can buy. So this kid may be getting solid counsel - in which case, there is a good reason for him to avoid going to trial - or he may be stuck with a lousy attorney who doesn't want to work or doesn't know how to handle a case like this and wants to see it go away.</p><p>In theory, if he's gonna plead guilty, the kid should enter an Alford plea. This is a variation of the guilty plea that says, "I maintain my innocence, but will plead guilty to get the best outcome." That said, DAs will often reject such a plea. The DA may be making an out-and-out guilty plea a requirement to plea bargain at all. Too, he may be aiming for an Alford plea and the press just isn't reporting it that way.</p><p>Being put on the sex offender registry is a big deal. Your rights are significantly curtailed - for life. You'd be better off taking more prison time in lieu of the registry... if the DA is willing to even entertain such a deal.</p><p>I would add that the legal system is mind-bogglingly inept when it comes to even mildly technical issues. I am considered an expert in my local legal community and have testified as such on multiple occasions. I consider myself to be competent but by no means expert. Watching / reviewing the testimony of other "experts" is blood curdling. You just wouldn't believe the junk "forensic science" presented (and accepted) as evidence. Attorneys, judges, and local law enforcement are quite clueless and accept what they're told, if it sounds sufficiently complicated or is delivered with adequate certainty. I've not dealt with the FBI before but would assume they are much more competent than that. With them on the prosecution's side, the defense would have a very hard time in court, regardless of the facts. I will say that the law enforcement unit in charge of investigating kiddie porn locally is pretty lame - their understanding of technical issues is superficial and their expertise focused on the usage of particular forensic software (specifically Encase).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've provided technical services to public defenders for fifteen years and have worked on a number of cases similar to this one .
Every legal case has a huge set of facts surrounding it that the general public is n't privy to .
Some of those are exposed to the jury , if there is one .
More are exposed to the judge .
Still more are available to the DA and/or defense attorney .
They all affect the legal strategy .
Based on the tip of the iceberg we , the general public , are presented with , it 's virtually impossible to say anything meaningful , let alone insightful .
Acknowledging that massive limitation , here is my perspective : From the video , the kid presents well .
If his record is clean , I question why his attorney is n't aiming for a plea of " not guilty " and a trial .
PDs have a reputation for laziness and incompetence .
Some of them deserve it .
Others are better than the best attorneys money can buy .
So this kid may be getting solid counsel - in which case , there is a good reason for him to avoid going to trial - or he may be stuck with a lousy attorney who does n't want to work or does n't know how to handle a case like this and wants to see it go away.In theory , if he 's gon na plead guilty , the kid should enter an Alford plea .
This is a variation of the guilty plea that says , " I maintain my innocence , but will plead guilty to get the best outcome .
" That said , DAs will often reject such a plea .
The DA may be making an out-and-out guilty plea a requirement to plea bargain at all .
Too , he may be aiming for an Alford plea and the press just is n't reporting it that way.Being put on the sex offender registry is a big deal .
Your rights are significantly curtailed - for life .
You 'd be better off taking more prison time in lieu of the registry... if the DA is willing to even entertain such a deal.I would add that the legal system is mind-bogglingly inept when it comes to even mildly technical issues .
I am considered an expert in my local legal community and have testified as such on multiple occasions .
I consider myself to be competent but by no means expert .
Watching / reviewing the testimony of other " experts " is blood curdling .
You just would n't believe the junk " forensic science " presented ( and accepted ) as evidence .
Attorneys , judges , and local law enforcement are quite clueless and accept what they 're told , if it sounds sufficiently complicated or is delivered with adequate certainty .
I 've not dealt with the FBI before but would assume they are much more competent than that .
With them on the prosecution 's side , the defense would have a very hard time in court , regardless of the facts .
I will say that the law enforcement unit in charge of investigating kiddie porn locally is pretty lame - their understanding of technical issues is superficial and their expertise focused on the usage of particular forensic software ( specifically Encase ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've provided technical services to public defenders for fifteen years and have worked on a number of cases similar to this one.
Every legal case has a huge set of facts surrounding it that the general public isn't privy to.
Some of those are exposed to the jury, if there is one.
More are exposed to the judge.
Still more are available to the DA and/or defense attorney.
They all affect the legal strategy.
Based on the tip of the iceberg we, the general public, are presented with, it's virtually impossible to say anything meaningful, let alone insightful.
Acknowledging that massive limitation, here is my perspective:From the video, the kid presents well.
If his record is clean, I question why his attorney isn't aiming for a plea of "not guilty" and a trial.
PDs have a reputation for laziness and incompetence.
Some of them deserve it.
Others are better than the best attorneys money can buy.
So this kid may be getting solid counsel - in which case, there is a good reason for him to avoid going to trial - or he may be stuck with a lousy attorney who doesn't want to work or doesn't know how to handle a case like this and wants to see it go away.In theory, if he's gonna plead guilty, the kid should enter an Alford plea.
This is a variation of the guilty plea that says, "I maintain my innocence, but will plead guilty to get the best outcome.
" That said, DAs will often reject such a plea.
The DA may be making an out-and-out guilty plea a requirement to plea bargain at all.
Too, he may be aiming for an Alford plea and the press just isn't reporting it that way.Being put on the sex offender registry is a big deal.
Your rights are significantly curtailed - for life.
You'd be better off taking more prison time in lieu of the registry... if the DA is willing to even entertain such a deal.I would add that the legal system is mind-bogglingly inept when it comes to even mildly technical issues.
I am considered an expert in my local legal community and have testified as such on multiple occasions.
I consider myself to be competent but by no means expert.
Watching / reviewing the testimony of other "experts" is blood curdling.
You just wouldn't believe the junk "forensic science" presented (and accepted) as evidence.
Attorneys, judges, and local law enforcement are quite clueless and accept what they're told, if it sounds sufficiently complicated or is delivered with adequate certainty.
I've not dealt with the FBI before but would assume they are much more competent than that.
With them on the prosecution's side, the defense would have a very hard time in court, regardless of the facts.
I will say that the law enforcement unit in charge of investigating kiddie porn locally is pretty lame - their understanding of technical issues is superficial and their expertise focused on the usage of particular forensic software (specifically Encase).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337812</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>rehtlog</author>
	<datestamp>1260004320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lucky for him you shaped your answers accordingly.  Had the DA thought you had anything more than a brain stem, he probably would have found any way to remove you from the jury.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lucky for him you shaped your answers accordingly .
Had the DA thought you had anything more than a brain stem , he probably would have found any way to remove you from the jury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lucky for him you shaped your answers accordingly.
Had the DA thought you had anything more than a brain stem, he probably would have found any way to remove you from the jury.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337590</id>
	<title>Re:Public Defender</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260046260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that for all this trouble, the guy could have molested a real kid instead of downloading a picture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that for all this trouble , the guy could have molested a real kid instead of downloading a picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that for all this trouble, the guy could have molested a real kid instead of downloading a picture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336220</id>
	<title>We need some judges wit balls.</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1260037620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone that can, upon hearing the facts, charge the prosecutor with abuse of process and dismiss the case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone that can , upon hearing the facts , charge the prosecutor with abuse of process and dismiss the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone that can, upon hearing the facts, charge the prosecutor with abuse of process and dismiss the case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337838</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260004500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, you are my hero.</p><p>Most people with a life or a job, don't want jury duty.  I was a full-time employee once, and I *wanted* to do my jury duty to see what it was like, but my employer said they wouldn't pay me for that time.  Which means outside of the rare exceptions like yourself, the jury is mostly filled with people with nothing better to do, or who couldn't get out of it.   Not exactly a jury of your peers.</p><p>But this raises an interesting question in our justice system.  If a judge instructs the jury to *only* decide yes or no, whether or not the defendant broke this statute, therefore he is guilty, or whether the jury has any room to consider the validity of that statue to begin with, or extenuating circumstances that alleviate his responsibility, even if the statue was broken.  I assumed the jury had that latitude in determining a verdict.</p><p>I was watching a policy discussion from the Cato Institute concerning three strikes.  A two-time felon was replacing his carpet, and found an old bullet underneath, and set it on his dresser.  The police asked to enter for suspicion of an unrelated charge, found the bullet, and he got like 20 years for mandatory minimums on his 3rd strike for possession of the bullet.  No guns or boxes of ammo, just a single bullet he found under his carpet.</p><p>WTH.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , you are my hero.Most people with a life or a job , do n't want jury duty .
I was a full-time employee once , and I * wanted * to do my jury duty to see what it was like , but my employer said they would n't pay me for that time .
Which means outside of the rare exceptions like yourself , the jury is mostly filled with people with nothing better to do , or who could n't get out of it .
Not exactly a jury of your peers.But this raises an interesting question in our justice system .
If a judge instructs the jury to * only * decide yes or no , whether or not the defendant broke this statute , therefore he is guilty , or whether the jury has any room to consider the validity of that statue to begin with , or extenuating circumstances that alleviate his responsibility , even if the statue was broken .
I assumed the jury had that latitude in determining a verdict.I was watching a policy discussion from the Cato Institute concerning three strikes .
A two-time felon was replacing his carpet , and found an old bullet underneath , and set it on his dresser .
The police asked to enter for suspicion of an unrelated charge , found the bullet , and he got like 20 years for mandatory minimums on his 3rd strike for possession of the bullet .
No guns or boxes of ammo , just a single bullet he found under his carpet.WTH .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, you are my hero.Most people with a life or a job, don't want jury duty.
I was a full-time employee once, and I *wanted* to do my jury duty to see what it was like, but my employer said they wouldn't pay me for that time.
Which means outside of the rare exceptions like yourself, the jury is mostly filled with people with nothing better to do, or who couldn't get out of it.
Not exactly a jury of your peers.But this raises an interesting question in our justice system.
If a judge instructs the jury to *only* decide yes or no, whether or not the defendant broke this statute, therefore he is guilty, or whether the jury has any room to consider the validity of that statue to begin with, or extenuating circumstances that alleviate his responsibility, even if the statue was broken.
I assumed the jury had that latitude in determining a verdict.I was watching a policy discussion from the Cato Institute concerning three strikes.
A two-time felon was replacing his carpet, and found an old bullet underneath, and set it on his dresser.
The police asked to enter for suspicion of an unrelated charge, found the bullet, and he got like 20 years for mandatory minimums on his 3rd strike for possession of the bullet.
No guns or boxes of ammo, just a single bullet he found under his carpet.WTH.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339434</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260016680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, but now you're talking about actually attacking the \_real issue\_ at the heart of the child porn debacle. And solving real issues is hard. Really hard. Politicians don't go for hard things, they go for easy things that win them votes. And what could be easier than just jailing everyone who's ever seen kiddie porn, even if it makes no difference?</p><p>I doubt we'll see any politician ever talking about or showing some understanding of the real issues in our society that lead to the production/distribution of child pornography. Politicians are a great tool for simple problems, but not for this. This is far from simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , but now you 're talking about actually attacking the \ _real issue \ _ at the heart of the child porn debacle .
And solving real issues is hard .
Really hard .
Politicians do n't go for hard things , they go for easy things that win them votes .
And what could be easier than just jailing everyone who 's ever seen kiddie porn , even if it makes no difference ? I doubt we 'll see any politician ever talking about or showing some understanding of the real issues in our society that lead to the production/distribution of child pornography .
Politicians are a great tool for simple problems , but not for this .
This is far from simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, but now you're talking about actually attacking the \_real issue\_ at the heart of the child porn debacle.
And solving real issues is hard.
Really hard.
Politicians don't go for hard things, they go for easy things that win them votes.
And what could be easier than just jailing everyone who's ever seen kiddie porn, even if it makes no difference?I doubt we'll see any politician ever talking about or showing some understanding of the real issues in our society that lead to the production/distribution of child pornography.
Politicians are a great tool for simple problems, but not for this.
This is far from simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335724</id>
	<title>I do all surfing/download from a VM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do a fresh install into a VM. Clear your caches/history. Then you snapshot the VM in a pristine state.</p><p>Whenever you get a malware nasty or other nonsense, you just restore to your pristine snapshot.</p><p>To avoid the possession, you could add some secure erase utility to the management to the snapshot file so there is no remainder of the "dirty" snapshot for the FBI to find on your host filesystem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do a fresh install into a VM .
Clear your caches/history .
Then you snapshot the VM in a pristine state.Whenever you get a malware nasty or other nonsense , you just restore to your pristine snapshot.To avoid the possession , you could add some secure erase utility to the management to the snapshot file so there is no remainder of the " dirty " snapshot for the FBI to find on your host filesystem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do a fresh install into a VM.
Clear your caches/history.
Then you snapshot the VM in a pristine state.Whenever you get a malware nasty or other nonsense, you just restore to your pristine snapshot.To avoid the possession, you could add some secure erase utility to the management to the snapshot file so there is no remainder of the "dirty" snapshot for the FBI to find on your host filesystem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337778</id>
	<title>Re:Wow is this scary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260004140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://eraser.heidi.ie/" title="heidi.ie" rel="nofollow">http://eraser.heidi.ie/</a> [heidi.ie] Eraser.</p><p>Secure erases files, and wipes unused HD space, as securely as you like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //eraser.heidi.ie/ [ heidi.ie ] Eraser.Secure erases files , and wipes unused HD space , as securely as you like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://eraser.heidi.ie/ [heidi.ie] Eraser.Secure erases files, and wipes unused HD space, as securely as you like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339720</id>
	<title>What you describe might not work.</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1260019200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Delete it, preferably with a file shredder that opens up the file, overwrites each block with random bytes, closes the file, flushes the cache, THEN deletes the file.</p></div><p>I don't think that's going to work that well with a journalling or versioning file system; it'll store the new version of the file (the random-contents blocks) in a set of blocks disjoint from those storing the child porn.  Fine, you flush those to disk, then unlink.  The CP is still there.</p><p>You want to shred unallocated space once in a while.</p><p>(Whether or not you'll have this problem of course depends on the implementation decisions of your particular file system.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Delete it , preferably with a file shredder that opens up the file , overwrites each block with random bytes , closes the file , flushes the cache , THEN deletes the file.I do n't think that 's going to work that well with a journalling or versioning file system ; it 'll store the new version of the file ( the random-contents blocks ) in a set of blocks disjoint from those storing the child porn .
Fine , you flush those to disk , then unlink .
The CP is still there.You want to shred unallocated space once in a while .
( Whether or not you 'll have this problem of course depends on the implementation decisions of your particular file system .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Delete it, preferably with a file shredder that opens up the file, overwrites each block with random bytes, closes the file, flushes the cache, THEN deletes the file.I don't think that's going to work that well with a journalling or versioning file system; it'll store the new version of the file (the random-contents blocks) in a set of blocks disjoint from those storing the child porn.
Fine, you flush those to disk, then unlink.
The CP is still there.You want to shred unallocated space once in a while.
(Whether or not you'll have this problem of course depends on the implementation decisions of your particular file system.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336028</id>
	<title>why we know not to call the cops</title>
	<author>shadowofwind</author>
	<datestamp>1260036480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the police and prosecutors cared about justice, then this sort of story wouldn't happen.  So just the fact that they say you should call the police shows that you're probably screwed if you do.  At least if you call police like them.</p><p>I don't see censorship of child porn as even being the issue here.  This is like someone getting 3 years for walking out of a store with the clerk's pen.  The solution isn't to legalize theft, its to try to do something about the corruption of the 'justice' system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the police and prosecutors cared about justice , then this sort of story would n't happen .
So just the fact that they say you should call the police shows that you 're probably screwed if you do .
At least if you call police like them.I do n't see censorship of child porn as even being the issue here .
This is like someone getting 3 years for walking out of a store with the clerk 's pen .
The solution is n't to legalize theft , its to try to do something about the corruption of the 'justice ' system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the police and prosecutors cared about justice, then this sort of story wouldn't happen.
So just the fact that they say you should call the police shows that you're probably screwed if you do.
At least if you call police like them.I don't see censorship of child porn as even being the issue here.
This is like someone getting 3 years for walking out of a store with the clerk's pen.
The solution isn't to legalize theft, its to try to do something about the corruption of the 'justice' system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340386</id>
	<title>Re:I think the right move would be...</title>
	<author>fishexe</author>
	<datestamp>1260025500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if he spent years fighting the charges, and drove himself to bankruptcy in the process, it would still be less of a problem to his future than taking the felony conviction and serving 3.5 years in prison.</p></div><p>Not to mention being a registered sex offender.  Say goodbye to ever having a job again.  They won't even ask you why, they'll just see that you're on the list and that's that.  What kind of a moron lawyer tells him not to fight that?  If it were me I'd risk the extra 16.5 years because registered sex offender status lasts YOUR WHOLE LIFE.
<br> <br>
All that for some Girls Gone Wild.  Can we get them to put Joe Francis away too?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if he spent years fighting the charges , and drove himself to bankruptcy in the process , it would still be less of a problem to his future than taking the felony conviction and serving 3.5 years in prison.Not to mention being a registered sex offender .
Say goodbye to ever having a job again .
They wo n't even ask you why , they 'll just see that you 're on the list and that 's that .
What kind of a moron lawyer tells him not to fight that ?
If it were me I 'd risk the extra 16.5 years because registered sex offender status lasts YOUR WHOLE LIFE .
All that for some Girls Gone Wild .
Can we get them to put Joe Francis away too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if he spent years fighting the charges, and drove himself to bankruptcy in the process, it would still be less of a problem to his future than taking the felony conviction and serving 3.5 years in prison.Not to mention being a registered sex offender.
Say goodbye to ever having a job again.
They won't even ask you why, they'll just see that you're on the list and that's that.
What kind of a moron lawyer tells him not to fight that?
If it were me I'd risk the extra 16.5 years because registered sex offender status lasts YOUR WHOLE LIFE.
All that for some Girls Gone Wild.
Can we get them to put Joe Francis away too?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339228</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260015120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like a great way, say, to let off a KKK member who lynches a black man in a racist area. Ostracism in general was policy in Ancient Greece - why not go the whole hog and let a man off if he kills an unpopular guy?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"It doesn't matter if I think he did anything wrong, the judge said he did wrong" (that last one, I SWEAR TO GOD, was uttered word for word, i will never forget a syllable).</p></div><p>You realise that a jury member following his version of justice works both ways, right? So many people who appear to fit an evil stereotype will be convicted because the jury is filled by people like you who aren't interested in determining  the guilt of an individual, but are using the case as a way to express their feeling about some group.</p><p>Watch<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/12 Angry Men/. You aren't the hero interested in determining an objective answer; you're the bitter father who applies his prejudices, revelling in the morsel of power he cannot normally apply. That this time your principle has let someone go free is an aberration; it's much more likely to lock up the innocent or let the popular run rampage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like a great way , say , to let off a KKK member who lynches a black man in a racist area .
Ostracism in general was policy in Ancient Greece - why not go the whole hog and let a man off if he kills an unpopular guy ?
" It does n't matter if I think he did anything wrong , the judge said he did wrong " ( that last one , I SWEAR TO GOD , was uttered word for word , i will never forget a syllable ) .You realise that a jury member following his version of justice works both ways , right ?
So many people who appear to fit an evil stereotype will be convicted because the jury is filled by people like you who are n't interested in determining the guilt of an individual , but are using the case as a way to express their feeling about some group.Watch /12 Angry Men/ .
You are n't the hero interested in determining an objective answer ; you 're the bitter father who applies his prejudices , revelling in the morsel of power he can not normally apply .
That this time your principle has let someone go free is an aberration ; it 's much more likely to lock up the innocent or let the popular run rampage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like a great way, say, to let off a KKK member who lynches a black man in a racist area.
Ostracism in general was policy in Ancient Greece - why not go the whole hog and let a man off if he kills an unpopular guy?
"It doesn't matter if I think he did anything wrong, the judge said he did wrong" (that last one, I SWEAR TO GOD, was uttered word for word, i will never forget a syllable).You realise that a jury member following his version of justice works both ways, right?
So many people who appear to fit an evil stereotype will be convicted because the jury is filled by people like you who aren't interested in determining  the guilt of an individual, but are using the case as a way to express their feeling about some group.Watch /12 Angry Men/.
You aren't the hero interested in determining an objective answer; you're the bitter father who applies his prejudices, revelling in the morsel of power he cannot normally apply.
That this time your principle has let someone go free is an aberration; it's much more likely to lock up the innocent or let the popular run rampage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336990</id>
	<title>"*Asked* to search"</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1260042180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, request denied per the protection granted by the 4th amendment of our constitution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , request denied per the protection granted by the 4th amendment of our constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, request denied per the protection granted by the 4th amendment of our constitution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337196</id>
	<title>This is an opportunity, people!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260043500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you have some way of sending someone within the US an email with child pornography, his/her life is ruined forever! WHY KILL SOMEONE WHEN YOU CAN GIVE HIM ETERNAL DAMNATION?<br> <br>
Look! This is a actually balance of power. Corporates have to hire lawyers to ruin your life. Cults likes CoS have to get a bunch of fanatical believers. You? It's just an email. One email to send one person to eternal damnation. You can ruin the lives of everyone you hate this way. Let everyone you hate live their lives in eternal pain and agony - death is too good for them. Start acting now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have some way of sending someone within the US an email with child pornography , his/her life is ruined forever !
WHY KILL SOMEONE WHEN YOU CAN GIVE HIM ETERNAL DAMNATION ?
Look ! This is a actually balance of power .
Corporates have to hire lawyers to ruin your life .
Cults likes CoS have to get a bunch of fanatical believers .
You ? It 's just an email .
One email to send one person to eternal damnation .
You can ruin the lives of everyone you hate this way .
Let everyone you hate live their lives in eternal pain and agony - death is too good for them .
Start acting now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have some way of sending someone within the US an email with child pornography, his/her life is ruined forever!
WHY KILL SOMEONE WHEN YOU CAN GIVE HIM ETERNAL DAMNATION?
Look! This is a actually balance of power.
Corporates have to hire lawyers to ruin your life.
Cults likes CoS have to get a bunch of fanatical believers.
You? It's just an email.
One email to send one person to eternal damnation.
You can ruin the lives of everyone you hate this way.
Let everyone you hate live their lives in eternal pain and agony - death is too good for them.
Start acting now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336564</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, don't have a username here.</p><p>Downloading it shows that there is a market for child porn. The central idea of capitalism (and trafficking): if people want it, sell it. Preferably at the highest profit margin. How do you determine if people want it, and how to make more people like it? Make some, give it away for free, listen to feedback.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , do n't have a username here.Downloading it shows that there is a market for child porn .
The central idea of capitalism ( and trafficking ) : if people want it , sell it .
Preferably at the highest profit margin .
How do you determine if people want it , and how to make more people like it ?
Make some , give it away for free , listen to feedback .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, don't have a username here.Downloading it shows that there is a market for child porn.
The central idea of capitalism (and trafficking): if people want it, sell it.
Preferably at the highest profit margin.
How do you determine if people want it, and how to make more people like it?
Make some, give it away for free, listen to feedback.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30362834</id>
	<title>An interpretive goof like all of us once were.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260264360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Non-disclosure is without liability, and the controlling matter to what law adapts to said property as trespass is covered in Admiralty mode upon the principle controlling interest, not a trustee concealed as a government agency or federal employee giving the alleged law-breaker the second-hand treatment as being a beneficiary in the use or mis-use of said property despite being also the grantor.  There is a Principle and Agent Doctrine that is in effect yet eschewed by attornies, lawyers of attornies, trustees, judges of trustees, and now YOU.</p><blockquote><div><p>The true moral of the story, is quit breaking the fucking law, and if you see someone else breaking the law (like distributing child porn) fucking tell someone. Do those two things and you'll be fine unless someone decides to railroad you. Then you could be screwed, but your record will be your best defense.</p></div></blockquote><p>Too many laws? You're a fucking liawyer, not a scientist.  Get disclosure.  If there is no disclosure through notice and grace, then there is no liability and whomever asserting an interest in prosecuting is nothing more than a champerain and counterfeiter.  Here in this instance, you confuse with a man outside his capacity of person as "farmer" to sell his own f*cking property no different than waiting for offers from anyone passing-by to his reception.  He isn't selling a commercial product.  It's his property and can trade or redeem for whatever banknote or coin he pleases; it's a sale when he accepts a cheque or draft as would a Promisory Note or Bill of Exchange within a similar written clause of Warehouse Receipt in its maturity.  As well, people don't "do business" or even be construed liable as "nonconforming business use" until they are enfranchised by their person employed by a corporation; the same goes in the matter that a corporation buys time(re-appraised as labor) through the trust of that employed person hosted by said man; it's the corporation profiting and reselling the wages of said labor, not the man.  A "person" in statutory law always includes corporations and natural persons, yet the business clauses are diversity of citizenship issues where at their peak of limited liability would only apply to person/corporation not natural person.  It's only been construed recently to spread surveilance, predatory business practices and monopolies, tyranny, intimidation, fear, and stupidity.  Farm income you say: what is farm income to do with his dispensing with unneeded excess property also retained by him?</p><blockquote><div><p>The problem is that we have so many laws, and even the most innocent thing can bring down the law. We had a case here with a roadside coffee stand on a farm. The law says you can operate a concession incidental to the farming use. Well, the way the economy tanked, the farm quit making any money. In the meantime, the coffee shop is still selling lattes, and pretty soon, it's the major money maker for these folks. OOOOPS! Here comes the law, they have a "nonconforming business use" and have to get laywers to keep from getting fined, shut down, have liens put on their property, all because their farm income went into the crapper.</p></div></blockquote><p>You are confusing an amusement park with the joy and happiness of neighborly affection.  I also don't use that word "hobby" because it would cannote other reasons by some tyrannical government office deriving an implied trust to regulate anyone in the bounds of their definition of "hobby" construed from their mission statement.</p><blockquote><div><p>Another case: A guy builds a model railroad, one of those that you can ride on, where the cars are about 12" high. He gives rides to neighbors and such. OOOPS! The state comes down on him for having an illegal amusement park. All because he wanted to share his hobby with his friends. And they actually made him dismantle the whole thing.</p></div></blockquote><p>Come on.  Does the NASA build Space Shuttles that break the Law of Gravity or over-rule it with brute force without the efficient graceful Extra-terrestrial intellect that would achieve to repel liability to said Law of Gravity?  Governments are not natural, the are artificial and composed by eloquen men likely to be religious tards persuaded through freemasons/jews/muslims/christians/hindus/CoS/FSM/et al.  Natural man is regenerate and honest just as the Almighty MADE us to be on the last spankfest.</p><blockquote><div><p>So, do you have any hobbies? Any side income? Do you do anything at all? Then you're probably breaking the law.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Non-disclosure is without liability , and the controlling matter to what law adapts to said property as trespass is covered in Admiralty mode upon the principle controlling interest , not a trustee concealed as a government agency or federal employee giving the alleged law-breaker the second-hand treatment as being a beneficiary in the use or mis-use of said property despite being also the grantor .
There is a Principle and Agent Doctrine that is in effect yet eschewed by attornies , lawyers of attornies , trustees , judges of trustees , and now YOU.The true moral of the story , is quit breaking the fucking law , and if you see someone else breaking the law ( like distributing child porn ) fucking tell someone .
Do those two things and you 'll be fine unless someone decides to railroad you .
Then you could be screwed , but your record will be your best defense.Too many laws ?
You 're a fucking liawyer , not a scientist .
Get disclosure .
If there is no disclosure through notice and grace , then there is no liability and whomever asserting an interest in prosecuting is nothing more than a champerain and counterfeiter .
Here in this instance , you confuse with a man outside his capacity of person as " farmer " to sell his own f * cking property no different than waiting for offers from anyone passing-by to his reception .
He is n't selling a commercial product .
It 's his property and can trade or redeem for whatever banknote or coin he pleases ; it 's a sale when he accepts a cheque or draft as would a Promisory Note or Bill of Exchange within a similar written clause of Warehouse Receipt in its maturity .
As well , people do n't " do business " or even be construed liable as " nonconforming business use " until they are enfranchised by their person employed by a corporation ; the same goes in the matter that a corporation buys time ( re-appraised as labor ) through the trust of that employed person hosted by said man ; it 's the corporation profiting and reselling the wages of said labor , not the man .
A " person " in statutory law always includes corporations and natural persons , yet the business clauses are diversity of citizenship issues where at their peak of limited liability would only apply to person/corporation not natural person .
It 's only been construed recently to spread surveilance , predatory business practices and monopolies , tyranny , intimidation , fear , and stupidity .
Farm income you say : what is farm income to do with his dispensing with unneeded excess property also retained by him ? The problem is that we have so many laws , and even the most innocent thing can bring down the law .
We had a case here with a roadside coffee stand on a farm .
The law says you can operate a concession incidental to the farming use .
Well , the way the economy tanked , the farm quit making any money .
In the meantime , the coffee shop is still selling lattes , and pretty soon , it 's the major money maker for these folks .
OOOOPS ! Here comes the law , they have a " nonconforming business use " and have to get laywers to keep from getting fined , shut down , have liens put on their property , all because their farm income went into the crapper.You are confusing an amusement park with the joy and happiness of neighborly affection .
I also do n't use that word " hobby " because it would cannote other reasons by some tyrannical government office deriving an implied trust to regulate anyone in the bounds of their definition of " hobby " construed from their mission statement.Another case : A guy builds a model railroad , one of those that you can ride on , where the cars are about 12 " high .
He gives rides to neighbors and such .
OOOPS ! The state comes down on him for having an illegal amusement park .
All because he wanted to share his hobby with his friends .
And they actually made him dismantle the whole thing.Come on .
Does the NASA build Space Shuttles that break the Law of Gravity or over-rule it with brute force without the efficient graceful Extra-terrestrial intellect that would achieve to repel liability to said Law of Gravity ?
Governments are not natural , the are artificial and composed by eloquen men likely to be religious tards persuaded through freemasons/jews/muslims/christians/hindus/CoS/FSM/et al .
Natural man is regenerate and honest just as the Almighty MADE us to be on the last spankfest.So , do you have any hobbies ?
Any side income ?
Do you do anything at all ?
Then you 're probably breaking the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Non-disclosure is without liability, and the controlling matter to what law adapts to said property as trespass is covered in Admiralty mode upon the principle controlling interest, not a trustee concealed as a government agency or federal employee giving the alleged law-breaker the second-hand treatment as being a beneficiary in the use or mis-use of said property despite being also the grantor.
There is a Principle and Agent Doctrine that is in effect yet eschewed by attornies, lawyers of attornies, trustees, judges of trustees, and now YOU.The true moral of the story, is quit breaking the fucking law, and if you see someone else breaking the law (like distributing child porn) fucking tell someone.
Do those two things and you'll be fine unless someone decides to railroad you.
Then you could be screwed, but your record will be your best defense.Too many laws?
You're a fucking liawyer, not a scientist.
Get disclosure.
If there is no disclosure through notice and grace, then there is no liability and whomever asserting an interest in prosecuting is nothing more than a champerain and counterfeiter.
Here in this instance, you confuse with a man outside his capacity of person as "farmer" to sell his own f*cking property no different than waiting for offers from anyone passing-by to his reception.
He isn't selling a commercial product.
It's his property and can trade or redeem for whatever banknote or coin he pleases; it's a sale when he accepts a cheque or draft as would a Promisory Note or Bill of Exchange within a similar written clause of Warehouse Receipt in its maturity.
As well, people don't "do business" or even be construed liable as "nonconforming business use" until they are enfranchised by their person employed by a corporation; the same goes in the matter that a corporation buys time(re-appraised as labor) through the trust of that employed person hosted by said man; it's the corporation profiting and reselling the wages of said labor, not the man.
A "person" in statutory law always includes corporations and natural persons, yet the business clauses are diversity of citizenship issues where at their peak of limited liability would only apply to person/corporation not natural person.
It's only been construed recently to spread surveilance, predatory business practices and monopolies, tyranny, intimidation, fear, and stupidity.
Farm income you say: what is farm income to do with his dispensing with unneeded excess property also retained by him?The problem is that we have so many laws, and even the most innocent thing can bring down the law.
We had a case here with a roadside coffee stand on a farm.
The law says you can operate a concession incidental to the farming use.
Well, the way the economy tanked, the farm quit making any money.
In the meantime, the coffee shop is still selling lattes, and pretty soon, it's the major money maker for these folks.
OOOOPS! Here comes the law, they have a "nonconforming business use" and have to get laywers to keep from getting fined, shut down, have liens put on their property, all because their farm income went into the crapper.You are confusing an amusement park with the joy and happiness of neighborly affection.
I also don't use that word "hobby" because it would cannote other reasons by some tyrannical government office deriving an implied trust to regulate anyone in the bounds of their definition of "hobby" construed from their mission statement.Another case: A guy builds a model railroad, one of those that you can ride on, where the cars are about 12" high.
He gives rides to neighbors and such.
OOOPS! The state comes down on him for having an illegal amusement park.
All because he wanted to share his hobby with his friends.
And they actually made him dismantle the whole thing.Come on.
Does the NASA build Space Shuttles that break the Law of Gravity or over-rule it with brute force without the efficient graceful Extra-terrestrial intellect that would achieve to repel liability to said Law of Gravity?
Governments are not natural, the are artificial and composed by eloquen men likely to be religious tards persuaded through freemasons/jews/muslims/christians/hindus/CoS/FSM/et al.
Natural man is regenerate and honest just as the Almighty MADE us to be on the last spankfest.So, do you have any hobbies?
Any side income?
Do you do anything at all?
Then you're probably breaking the law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335600</id>
	<title>Don't plead guilty</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1260034080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should always maintain your innocence in these type of cases because the guilty plea will haunt you the rest of your life.  3.5 years is still ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should always maintain your innocence in these type of cases because the guilty plea will haunt you the rest of your life .
3.5 years is still ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should always maintain your innocence in these type of cases because the guilty plea will haunt you the rest of your life.
3.5 years is still ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340534</id>
	<title>Re:Appalling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260026820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It WILL stop, when people actually START FIGHTING CHARGES. For the record, the cellphone charges usually ended up with sentences like community service, and a juvenile convivtion that remains on record for 3 or 4 years at most. Many of the cases were just dropped altogether (usually the ones that were fought), and the rest were downgraded to misdemeanor charges. But the point is that they ALL count toward the arrest statistics that get reported each month, so give the police an excuse to say "oh look, we're doing a good job", since most people who see the statistic don't realize that over half of those cases were bullshit.</p><p>Notice how these cases practically disappeared when people starting fighting the cases and human rights groups got involved earlier this year?</p><p>That's all it's about, numbers. Cold, cynical numbers. Cases like this are the easiest targets, so that's what they go for, until people get wise to it, at which point they move onto another similar target.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It WILL stop , when people actually START FIGHTING CHARGES .
For the record , the cellphone charges usually ended up with sentences like community service , and a juvenile convivtion that remains on record for 3 or 4 years at most .
Many of the cases were just dropped altogether ( usually the ones that were fought ) , and the rest were downgraded to misdemeanor charges .
But the point is that they ALL count toward the arrest statistics that get reported each month , so give the police an excuse to say " oh look , we 're doing a good job " , since most people who see the statistic do n't realize that over half of those cases were bullshit.Notice how these cases practically disappeared when people starting fighting the cases and human rights groups got involved earlier this year ? That 's all it 's about , numbers .
Cold , cynical numbers .
Cases like this are the easiest targets , so that 's what they go for , until people get wise to it , at which point they move onto another similar target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It WILL stop, when people actually START FIGHTING CHARGES.
For the record, the cellphone charges usually ended up with sentences like community service, and a juvenile convivtion that remains on record for 3 or 4 years at most.
Many of the cases were just dropped altogether (usually the ones that were fought), and the rest were downgraded to misdemeanor charges.
But the point is that they ALL count toward the arrest statistics that get reported each month, so give the police an excuse to say "oh look, we're doing a good job", since most people who see the statistic don't realize that over half of those cases were bullshit.Notice how these cases practically disappeared when people starting fighting the cases and human rights groups got involved earlier this year?That's all it's about, numbers.
Cold, cynical numbers.
Cases like this are the easiest targets, so that's what they go for, until people get wise to it, at which point they move onto another similar target.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336086</id>
	<title>Public defenders almost always do this.</title>
	<author>ericbg05</author>
	<datestamp>1260036780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Matt is pleading guilty on the advice of his public defender in hopes of getting a three and a half year sentence."</p><p>

In other words, he doesn't have the money to actually fight this.</p></div><p>... where by "he" you mean the PD himself.</p><p>

Look, public defenders almost *always* encourage their clients to settle, because their compensation structure incentivizes them that way.  PDs barely make ends meet, and they get compensated by the number of cases they take on, with very little marginal compensation for taking a case to trial.  So they wind up taking on 50, 100 cases at a time.  The faster they can get rid of you, the faster they can take on another case.</p><p>

Notice that the merits of your case didn't appear in the above reasoning chain.</p><p>

Of course if the client insists on going to trial, the PD is legally obliged to do so--but how many criminal defendants know enough AND have the cojones to argue with their lawyer when their liberty is at stake?</p><p>

The PD compensation system is b0rkd, and innocent people are in jail because of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Matt is pleading guilty on the advice of his public defender in hopes of getting a three and a half year sentence .
" In other words , he does n't have the money to actually fight this.... where by " he " you mean the PD himself .
Look , public defenders almost * always * encourage their clients to settle , because their compensation structure incentivizes them that way .
PDs barely make ends meet , and they get compensated by the number of cases they take on , with very little marginal compensation for taking a case to trial .
So they wind up taking on 50 , 100 cases at a time .
The faster they can get rid of you , the faster they can take on another case .
Notice that the merits of your case did n't appear in the above reasoning chain .
Of course if the client insists on going to trial , the PD is legally obliged to do so--but how many criminal defendants know enough AND have the cojones to argue with their lawyer when their liberty is at stake ?
The PD compensation system is b0rkd , and innocent people are in jail because of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Matt is pleading guilty on the advice of his public defender in hopes of getting a three and a half year sentence.
"

In other words, he doesn't have the money to actually fight this.... where by "he" you mean the PD himself.
Look, public defenders almost *always* encourage their clients to settle, because their compensation structure incentivizes them that way.
PDs barely make ends meet, and they get compensated by the number of cases they take on, with very little marginal compensation for taking a case to trial.
So they wind up taking on 50, 100 cases at a time.
The faster they can get rid of you, the faster they can take on another case.
Notice that the merits of your case didn't appear in the above reasoning chain.
Of course if the client insists on going to trial, the PD is legally obliged to do so--but how many criminal defendants know enough AND have the cojones to argue with their lawyer when their liberty is at stake?
The PD compensation system is b0rkd, and innocent people are in jail because of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336270</id>
	<title>Re:Never volunteer anything to the cops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260037980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if a jury did convict, no judge should let them.  And yes, a judge can override a jury, and even the prosecutor, by refusing to implement such a gross injustice.</p><p>Somebody give me that lawyer's name, I'd like to report him or her to the state bar for an investigation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if a jury did convict , no judge should let them .
And yes , a judge can override a jury , and even the prosecutor , by refusing to implement such a gross injustice.Somebody give me that lawyer 's name , I 'd like to report him or her to the state bar for an investigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if a jury did convict, no judge should let them.
And yes, a judge can override a jury, and even the prosecutor, by refusing to implement such a gross injustice.Somebody give me that lawyer's name, I'd like to report him or her to the state bar for an investigation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30352810</id>
	<title>Limited government rather than no government.</title>
	<author>elucido</author>
	<datestamp>1260200520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We do need a government to protect human rights, the constitution, and to keep us from being enslaved by other governments.<br>When our government starts to enslave us then government is too big and must be limited in its role.</p><p>So all victimless crimes should be evaluated. We should do the statistics to determine the percentage of individuals in prison for victimless crimes.<br>And if the government only exists to put us in prison, that government has to be changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do need a government to protect human rights , the constitution , and to keep us from being enslaved by other governments.When our government starts to enslave us then government is too big and must be limited in its role.So all victimless crimes should be evaluated .
We should do the statistics to determine the percentage of individuals in prison for victimless crimes.And if the government only exists to put us in prison , that government has to be changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We do need a government to protect human rights, the constitution, and to keep us from being enslaved by other governments.When our government starts to enslave us then government is too big and must be limited in its role.So all victimless crimes should be evaluated.
We should do the statistics to determine the percentage of individuals in prison for victimless crimes.And if the government only exists to put us in prison, that government has to be changed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338248</id>
	<title>Especially if you are perfectly innocent</title>
	<author>BetterSense</author>
	<datestamp>1260007440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Talking to the police is a great way to get yourself considered non-innocent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Talking to the police is a great way to get yourself considered non-innocent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talking to the police is a great way to get yourself considered non-innocent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336174</id>
	<title>Re:Never volunteer anything to the cops</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1260037320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
You know...  with enough forensic work, any arbitrary sequence of bits (even one with a completely random distribution) can be turned into illegal porn.
</p><p>
It just requires applying the right decoding algorithm  (aka transformation mask)  to the bits.
</p><p>
And the justification for the "transformation mask" can always be,  "this popped up, while applying our highly-specialized scientific algorithm to compensate for disk recording technology bit-fade"
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know... with enough forensic work , any arbitrary sequence of bits ( even one with a completely random distribution ) can be turned into illegal porn .
It just requires applying the right decoding algorithm ( aka transformation mask ) to the bits .
And the justification for the " transformation mask " can always be , " this popped up , while applying our highly-specialized scientific algorithm to compensate for disk recording technology bit-fade "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You know...  with enough forensic work, any arbitrary sequence of bits (even one with a completely random distribution) can be turned into illegal porn.
It just requires applying the right decoding algorithm  (aka transformation mask)  to the bits.
And the justification for the "transformation mask" can always be,  "this popped up, while applying our highly-specialized scientific algorithm to compensate for disk recording technology bit-fade"
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336522</id>
	<title>it's like illegal immigration...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you make possession of it <b>painfully</b> illegal then that *will* cut down on production of it because demand for it will be reduced.</p><p>This is the same reasoning that folks use when they suggest that if employers of illegal immigrants would be severely (financially, usually) punished for employing illegal immigrants then a lot less people would break our immigration laws because they would have less of a chance of benefiting from doing so.</p><p>And before you try to claim the war-on-drugs laws as a counter instance of this reasoning, consider that the drug possession laws of which you are thinking have rather mild penalties.  An appropriate comparison within the war-on-drugs laws related to possession are the laws which made it so painfully illegal (some even claim disproportionately* so) to possess "crack" cocaine.  Congress passed a law that made <i>simple possession</i> of crack cocaine a <b>mandatory 5 year minimum</b> sentence -- it didn't take long before the "crack epidemic" was GONE.</p><p>*while I personally cringe any time someone "plays the race card", I do think it's weird that Congress (or some State legislature) hasn't applied the same technique to squash the "meth epidemic" and wonder if that is because there seem to be meth heads in all skin tones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you make possession of it painfully illegal then that * will * cut down on production of it because demand for it will be reduced.This is the same reasoning that folks use when they suggest that if employers of illegal immigrants would be severely ( financially , usually ) punished for employing illegal immigrants then a lot less people would break our immigration laws because they would have less of a chance of benefiting from doing so.And before you try to claim the war-on-drugs laws as a counter instance of this reasoning , consider that the drug possession laws of which you are thinking have rather mild penalties .
An appropriate comparison within the war-on-drugs laws related to possession are the laws which made it so painfully illegal ( some even claim disproportionately * so ) to possess " crack " cocaine .
Congress passed a law that made simple possession of crack cocaine a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence -- it did n't take long before the " crack epidemic " was GONE .
* while I personally cringe any time someone " plays the race card " , I do think it 's weird that Congress ( or some State legislature ) has n't applied the same technique to squash the " meth epidemic " and wonder if that is because there seem to be meth heads in all skin tones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you make possession of it painfully illegal then that *will* cut down on production of it because demand for it will be reduced.This is the same reasoning that folks use when they suggest that if employers of illegal immigrants would be severely (financially, usually) punished for employing illegal immigrants then a lot less people would break our immigration laws because they would have less of a chance of benefiting from doing so.And before you try to claim the war-on-drugs laws as a counter instance of this reasoning, consider that the drug possession laws of which you are thinking have rather mild penalties.
An appropriate comparison within the war-on-drugs laws related to possession are the laws which made it so painfully illegal (some even claim disproportionately* so) to possess "crack" cocaine.
Congress passed a law that made simple possession of crack cocaine a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence -- it didn't take long before the "crack epidemic" was GONE.
*while I personally cringe any time someone "plays the race card", I do think it's weird that Congress (or some State legislature) hasn't applied the same technique to squash the "meth epidemic" and wonder if that is because there seem to be meth heads in all skin tones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337076</id>
	<title>Re:It happens</title>
	<author>Tangentc</author>
	<datestamp>1260042720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And the public defender encouraging him to plead guilty? That lawyer should be fired for incompetance. How can someone be guilty of a crime they never had any intention of committing, and took active steps to actually avoid committing it?</p></div><p>Well, there's a concept called mens rea in the U.S. legal system (and appears in some form in many others) that states that this <i>shouldn't</i> be allowed to happen specifically because he had no intention of committing the crime. The actus reus (actual guilt of the crime accused)in <i>most</i> cases needs to be paired with the fact that they willfully and knowingly committed the crime. Barring negligence or recklessness most crimes in the U.S. do have some requirement of mens rea. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens\_rea" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens\_rea</a> [wikipedia.org] for more details.

So, not being a lawyer, I too think there would be a pretty decent case for the kid if they took it to court. Of course, not being a lawyer, I have a pretty damned limited understanding of this stuff. Though I'd really like to see the EFF take a stance on this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the public defender encouraging him to plead guilty ?
That lawyer should be fired for incompetance .
How can someone be guilty of a crime they never had any intention of committing , and took active steps to actually avoid committing it ? Well , there 's a concept called mens rea in the U.S. legal system ( and appears in some form in many others ) that states that this should n't be allowed to happen specifically because he had no intention of committing the crime .
The actus reus ( actual guilt of the crime accused ) in most cases needs to be paired with the fact that they willfully and knowingly committed the crime .
Barring negligence or recklessness most crimes in the U.S. do have some requirement of mens rea .
See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens \ _rea [ wikipedia.org ] for more details .
So , not being a lawyer , I too think there would be a pretty decent case for the kid if they took it to court .
Of course , not being a lawyer , I have a pretty damned limited understanding of this stuff .
Though I 'd really like to see the EFF take a stance on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the public defender encouraging him to plead guilty?
That lawyer should be fired for incompetance.
How can someone be guilty of a crime they never had any intention of committing, and took active steps to actually avoid committing it?Well, there's a concept called mens rea in the U.S. legal system (and appears in some form in many others) that states that this shouldn't be allowed to happen specifically because he had no intention of committing the crime.
The actus reus (actual guilt of the crime accused)in most cases needs to be paired with the fact that they willfully and knowingly committed the crime.
Barring negligence or recklessness most crimes in the U.S. do have some requirement of mens rea.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens\_rea [wikipedia.org] for more details.
So, not being a lawyer, I too think there would be a pretty decent case for the kid if they took it to court.
Of course, not being a lawyer, I have a pretty damned limited understanding of this stuff.
Though I'd really like to see the EFF take a stance on this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340244</id>
	<title>Re:do the math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260023940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do believe if someone is one day away from turning 18 years old, they meet the qualifictions of being a minor when it comes to child pornography.</p><p><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc\_sec\_18\_00002256----000-.html" title="cornell.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc\_sec\_18\_00002256----000-.html</a> [cornell.edu]</p><p>But as I said in another post, these people need to be treated as if they have a mental disease, rather than ruining their lives with massive prison sentences. (Well, unless they are distributing it, then that's another problem entirely.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do believe if someone is one day away from turning 18 years old , they meet the qualifictions of being a minor when it comes to child pornography.http : //www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc \ _sec \ _18 \ _00002256----000-.html [ cornell.edu ] But as I said in another post , these people need to be treated as if they have a mental disease , rather than ruining their lives with massive prison sentences .
( Well , unless they are distributing it , then that 's another problem entirely .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do believe if someone is one day away from turning 18 years old, they meet the qualifictions of being a minor when it comes to child pornography.http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc\_sec\_18\_00002256----000-.html [cornell.edu]But as I said in another post, these people need to be treated as if they have a mental disease, rather than ruining their lives with massive prison sentences.
(Well, unless they are distributing it, then that's another problem entirely.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339580</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260017760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Even if he had downloaded the images to look at - what harm would it have caused? He didn't ruin some girls life by looking at pictures that already exist.</p></div></blockquote><p>Really? Would you say the same if this was <i>your</i> daughter? For that matter, how would you feel if <i>you</i> were that girl, knowing that not were you victimized by the creep who took your pictures (and probably did more than just take pictures), but now every pervert pedophile on the planet is going to be jacking off to your pictures? What if your wife got raped, and some jackass at the hospital posted her rape kit photos onto a porn site? How would you feel about people downloading her pictures just to "look at"? Is that not essentially the same thing?</p><p>Don't you find it just a little bit ironic that here on Slashdot, we have dozens of YRO articles where people get all up in arms about the government invading our privacy (anything from tapping phone calls to simply issuing a subpoena to discover some anonymous blogger's true identity), but somehow you think that having naked pictures of someone being passed around the Internet against their will is harmless act?</p><p>I agree wholeheartedly that this CP thing is fast becoming a witch hunt, and that accidentally downloading something should not be a crime. But to suggest that there's no "harm" in intentionally downloading pictures like this is way beyond absurd.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if he had downloaded the images to look at - what harm would it have caused ?
He did n't ruin some girls life by looking at pictures that already exist.Really ?
Would you say the same if this was your daughter ?
For that matter , how would you feel if you were that girl , knowing that not were you victimized by the creep who took your pictures ( and probably did more than just take pictures ) , but now every pervert pedophile on the planet is going to be jacking off to your pictures ?
What if your wife got raped , and some jackass at the hospital posted her rape kit photos onto a porn site ?
How would you feel about people downloading her pictures just to " look at " ?
Is that not essentially the same thing ? Do n't you find it just a little bit ironic that here on Slashdot , we have dozens of YRO articles where people get all up in arms about the government invading our privacy ( anything from tapping phone calls to simply issuing a subpoena to discover some anonymous blogger 's true identity ) , but somehow you think that having naked pictures of someone being passed around the Internet against their will is harmless act ? I agree wholeheartedly that this CP thing is fast becoming a witch hunt , and that accidentally downloading something should not be a crime .
But to suggest that there 's no " harm " in intentionally downloading pictures like this is way beyond absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if he had downloaded the images to look at - what harm would it have caused?
He didn't ruin some girls life by looking at pictures that already exist.Really?
Would you say the same if this was your daughter?
For that matter, how would you feel if you were that girl, knowing that not were you victimized by the creep who took your pictures (and probably did more than just take pictures), but now every pervert pedophile on the planet is going to be jacking off to your pictures?
What if your wife got raped, and some jackass at the hospital posted her rape kit photos onto a porn site?
How would you feel about people downloading her pictures just to "look at"?
Is that not essentially the same thing?Don't you find it just a little bit ironic that here on Slashdot, we have dozens of YRO articles where people get all up in arms about the government invading our privacy (anything from tapping phone calls to simply issuing a subpoena to discover some anonymous blogger's true identity), but somehow you think that having naked pictures of someone being passed around the Internet against their will is harmless act?I agree wholeheartedly that this CP thing is fast becoming a witch hunt, and that accidentally downloading something should not be a crime.
But to suggest that there's no "harm" in intentionally downloading pictures like this is way beyond absurd.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338814</id>
	<title>Donations?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260012060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone know if there's some way we can donate to his legal defense fund?  Or is there someway we can get ACLU or some other interest group involved?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone know if there 's some way we can donate to his legal defense fund ?
Or is there someway we can get ACLU or some other interest group involved ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone know if there's some way we can donate to his legal defense fund?
Or is there someway we can get ACLU or some other interest group involved?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337738</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>unitron</author>
	<datestamp>1260003900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if he had downloaded the images to look at - what harm would it have caused? He didn't ruin some girls life by looking at pictures that already exist.</p></div><p>It's still an invasion of their privacy, therefore wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if he had downloaded the images to look at - what harm would it have caused ?
He did n't ruin some girls life by looking at pictures that already exist.It 's still an invasion of their privacy , therefore wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if he had downloaded the images to look at - what harm would it have caused?
He didn't ruin some girls life by looking at pictures that already exist.It's still an invasion of their privacy, therefore wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336166</id>
	<title>Filenames</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260037200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are the filenames? If he downloaded "girls-gone-wild-ep6654.mpg" than there's no issue, it was an accident. But if he downloaded a filename with kiddie porn in it... well then....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are the filenames ?
If he downloaded " girls-gone-wild-ep6654.mpg " than there 's no issue , it was an accident .
But if he downloaded a filename with kiddie porn in it... well then... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are the filenames?
If he downloaded "girls-gone-wild-ep6654.mpg" than there's no issue, it was an accident.
But if he downloaded a filename with kiddie porn in it... well then....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337166</id>
	<title>It just goes to show...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260043320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...always get your porn from a reliable source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...always get your porn from a reliable source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...always get your porn from a reliable source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338994</id>
	<title>Re:My $.02</title>
	<author>mdmkolbe</author>
	<datestamp>1260013620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Public Defenders' offices are criminally underfunded compared to the DAs, who have the full backing of the State.</p></div><p>Sounds like we need to pass a law requiring the PD's office to have the same amount of funding as the DA's office.  (Anyone have a cite with the current funding numbers?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Public Defenders ' offices are criminally underfunded compared to the DAs , who have the full backing of the State.Sounds like we need to pass a law requiring the PD 's office to have the same amount of funding as the DA 's office .
( Anyone have a cite with the current funding numbers ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Public Defenders' offices are criminally underfunded compared to the DAs, who have the full backing of the State.Sounds like we need to pass a law requiring the PD's office to have the same amount of funding as the DA's office.
(Anyone have a cite with the current funding numbers?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338668</id>
	<title>Re:Honest question: watching pictures is wrong?</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1260010920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Please someone answer me as honestly as they can: even if that guy happened to willingly watch child porn images, what damage does that do to society?</i></p><p>Putting aside the the hypotheticals and tenuous claims that another poster referred to, I'd say that realistically, damage can come in two forms:</p><p>1.  Loss of Productivity. Consider what happens when someone regularly indulges themselves on a diet of porn, any kind of porn.  If it doesn't involve sitting around the house, eating Cheetos or pizza, it would be an anomoly.  The same could be said for watching too much violence.</p><p>2.  Moral Outrage. The origin for most of these laws date back to the Reagan era (the Meese commission, specifically) and political ascendency of the Christian right and various women's rights groups.  That those groups still wield significant power and continue to maintain near-dogmatic positions prevents society as a whole from engaging in any kind of reasonable discussion.  When issues become black and white, what's left but draconian legislation, increased incarceration, and hysteria?</p><p>So why we can't allow someone to watch child porn?  We can't, because the idea of allowing it is simply too outrageous.  Not too hard to understand.</p><p>If you did a poll that asked "Are you creeped out by the thought of a Cheetos-eating scumbag whacking off to pictures of your daughter, or someone that looks like your daughter, or someone the same age as your daughter?", the answer would be yes.  Even from Cheetos-eating scumbags.</p><p>What is hard to understand is how we allowed ourselves as a society to take that "creeped out" reaction, and codify it into more and more laws that turn ordinary citizens into criminals of the worst kind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please someone answer me as honestly as they can : even if that guy happened to willingly watch child porn images , what damage does that do to society ? Putting aside the the hypotheticals and tenuous claims that another poster referred to , I 'd say that realistically , damage can come in two forms : 1 .
Loss of Productivity .
Consider what happens when someone regularly indulges themselves on a diet of porn , any kind of porn .
If it does n't involve sitting around the house , eating Cheetos or pizza , it would be an anomoly .
The same could be said for watching too much violence.2 .
Moral Outrage .
The origin for most of these laws date back to the Reagan era ( the Meese commission , specifically ) and political ascendency of the Christian right and various women 's rights groups .
That those groups still wield significant power and continue to maintain near-dogmatic positions prevents society as a whole from engaging in any kind of reasonable discussion .
When issues become black and white , what 's left but draconian legislation , increased incarceration , and hysteria ? So why we ca n't allow someone to watch child porn ?
We ca n't , because the idea of allowing it is simply too outrageous .
Not too hard to understand.If you did a poll that asked " Are you creeped out by the thought of a Cheetos-eating scumbag whacking off to pictures of your daughter , or someone that looks like your daughter , or someone the same age as your daughter ?
" , the answer would be yes .
Even from Cheetos-eating scumbags.What is hard to understand is how we allowed ourselves as a society to take that " creeped out " reaction , and codify it into more and more laws that turn ordinary citizens into criminals of the worst kind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please someone answer me as honestly as they can: even if that guy happened to willingly watch child porn images, what damage does that do to society?Putting aside the the hypotheticals and tenuous claims that another poster referred to, I'd say that realistically, damage can come in two forms:1.
Loss of Productivity.
Consider what happens when someone regularly indulges themselves on a diet of porn, any kind of porn.
If it doesn't involve sitting around the house, eating Cheetos or pizza, it would be an anomoly.
The same could be said for watching too much violence.2.
Moral Outrage.
The origin for most of these laws date back to the Reagan era (the Meese commission, specifically) and political ascendency of the Christian right and various women's rights groups.
That those groups still wield significant power and continue to maintain near-dogmatic positions prevents society as a whole from engaging in any kind of reasonable discussion.
When issues become black and white, what's left but draconian legislation, increased incarceration, and hysteria?So why we can't allow someone to watch child porn?
We can't, because the idea of allowing it is simply too outrageous.
Not too hard to understand.If you did a poll that asked "Are you creeped out by the thought of a Cheetos-eating scumbag whacking off to pictures of your daughter, or someone that looks like your daughter, or someone the same age as your daughter?
", the answer would be yes.
Even from Cheetos-eating scumbags.What is hard to understand is how we allowed ourselves as a society to take that "creeped out" reaction, and codify it into more and more laws that turn ordinary citizens into criminals of the worst kind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336524</id>
	<title>Re:self-incrimination</title>
	<author>oddaddresstrap</author>
	<datestamp>1260039420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that your system appears to have been sanitized has been used in some cases to indicate guilt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that your system appears to have been sanitized has been used in some cases to indicate guilt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that your system appears to have been sanitized has been used in some cases to indicate guilt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335906</id>
	<title>My $.02</title>
	<author>sexybomber</author>
	<datestamp>1260035760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I posted something similar to this in the comments to the article, but I thought I would start the discussion here too.  For those of you who are inclined to rip on the public defender for letting this guy take the plea, bear in mind that the PD is probably handling about a thousand other cases (no exaggeration), not to mention that he barely makes a living wage. Public Defenders' offices are <i>criminally</i> underfunded compared to the DAs, who have the full backing of the State.  <br>
<br>
Matt White's attorney probably had no choice <i>but</i> to take the plea and dispose of the case quickly. The system is designed so that the PDs can't take anything to trial on account of the sheer volume of cases they have to manage; they're forced to plead everything out and pray they get a good deal.  (If they took even a small fraction of their cases to trial, their other clients would be waiting for <i>years</i> to have their cases heard, and there's this pesky little piece of paper that guarantees people the right to a speedy trial.  (Of course, it also guarantees the right to effective counsel, but the bar for what constitutes "effective" is ridiculously low.)<br>
<br>
It's a win-win for the people who matter: the DA gets to scratch another kill mark into his desk, the prison system gets another warm body it can use to justify its budget, the politicians who depend on prisons to keep the headcounts in their districts high get another "constituent" who can't vote, plus they get to claim they're "tough on crime" and are "protecting the children". <br>
<br>
The fact that an (arguably) innocent man has his life ruined as a result doesn't even factor into the equation. He and the public defender are pawns. It's not that the $ystem hates them, it's that, to the people who run the show, they truly, truly do not matter.<br>
<br>
So the moral of the story is: if you accidentally download CP, pull the plug on the computer, rip out the hard drive, and destroy it immediately.  (Okay, maybe you can leave it powered up for the time it takes to back up your documents, &amp;c., but no longer.  It's hammer time.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I posted something similar to this in the comments to the article , but I thought I would start the discussion here too .
For those of you who are inclined to rip on the public defender for letting this guy take the plea , bear in mind that the PD is probably handling about a thousand other cases ( no exaggeration ) , not to mention that he barely makes a living wage .
Public Defenders ' offices are criminally underfunded compared to the DAs , who have the full backing of the State .
Matt White 's attorney probably had no choice but to take the plea and dispose of the case quickly .
The system is designed so that the PDs ca n't take anything to trial on account of the sheer volume of cases they have to manage ; they 're forced to plead everything out and pray they get a good deal .
( If they took even a small fraction of their cases to trial , their other clients would be waiting for years to have their cases heard , and there 's this pesky little piece of paper that guarantees people the right to a speedy trial .
( Of course , it also guarantees the right to effective counsel , but the bar for what constitutes " effective " is ridiculously low .
) It 's a win-win for the people who matter : the DA gets to scratch another kill mark into his desk , the prison system gets another warm body it can use to justify its budget , the politicians who depend on prisons to keep the headcounts in their districts high get another " constituent " who ca n't vote , plus they get to claim they 're " tough on crime " and are " protecting the children " .
The fact that an ( arguably ) innocent man has his life ruined as a result does n't even factor into the equation .
He and the public defender are pawns .
It 's not that the $ ystem hates them , it 's that , to the people who run the show , they truly , truly do not matter .
So the moral of the story is : if you accidentally download CP , pull the plug on the computer , rip out the hard drive , and destroy it immediately .
( Okay , maybe you can leave it powered up for the time it takes to back up your documents , &amp;c. , but no longer .
It 's hammer time .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I posted something similar to this in the comments to the article, but I thought I would start the discussion here too.
For those of you who are inclined to rip on the public defender for letting this guy take the plea, bear in mind that the PD is probably handling about a thousand other cases (no exaggeration), not to mention that he barely makes a living wage.
Public Defenders' offices are criminally underfunded compared to the DAs, who have the full backing of the State.
Matt White's attorney probably had no choice but to take the plea and dispose of the case quickly.
The system is designed so that the PDs can't take anything to trial on account of the sheer volume of cases they have to manage; they're forced to plead everything out and pray they get a good deal.
(If they took even a small fraction of their cases to trial, their other clients would be waiting for years to have their cases heard, and there's this pesky little piece of paper that guarantees people the right to a speedy trial.
(Of course, it also guarantees the right to effective counsel, but the bar for what constitutes "effective" is ridiculously low.
)

It's a win-win for the people who matter: the DA gets to scratch another kill mark into his desk, the prison system gets another warm body it can use to justify its budget, the politicians who depend on prisons to keep the headcounts in their districts high get another "constituent" who can't vote, plus they get to claim they're "tough on crime" and are "protecting the children".
The fact that an (arguably) innocent man has his life ruined as a result doesn't even factor into the equation.
He and the public defender are pawns.
It's not that the $ystem hates them, it's that, to the people who run the show, they truly, truly do not matter.
So the moral of the story is: if you accidentally download CP, pull the plug on the computer, rip out the hard drive, and destroy it immediately.
(Okay, maybe you can leave it powered up for the time it takes to back up your documents, &amp;c., but no longer.
It's hammer time.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338978</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260013500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not really.</p><p>In the UK possession of a firearm is a crime.  He found a shotgun, held on to it for 24 hours, called the police but didn't tell them what he was bringing in, took public transportation with a loaded shotgun, showed up at the station, and plonked an illegal weapon on the front desk.  He was an idiot and he will probably face some jail time for his ineptitude.  He should have left the crime scene undisturbed and called the police.  The UK police have dealt with other situations and even had citizens take possession of firearms when they were in dangerous locations ( playground ) and there were no charges in those cases.</p></div><p>The guy who was arrested lives within my local area. I didn't see the details of the gun in question, but technically, in the UK a shotgun which carries no more than two shells is not classed as a firearm.</p><p>Info <a href="http://www.gunrunner.cc/firearms\_laws.htm" title="gunrunner.cc" rel="nofollow">here</a> [gunrunner.cc] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The Firearm Certificate - this is issued to U.K. residents, covering rifles, shotguns with a magazine capacity greater than two, and airguns with a muzzle energy greater than 12 ft-lbs. This certificate will list the firearm(s) possessed, and those allowed to be purchased or acquired, together with the quantity of ammunition that may be held, purchased or acquired. There may also be strict limitations on exactly where the firearm(s) may be used. This certificate will not entitle the holder to purchase automatic, semi-automatic (other than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.22 rimfire), or pump-action (other than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.22 rimfire) rifles. Any air rifle with a muzzle energy greater than 12 ft/lbs, or air pistol greater than 6 ft/lbs, may not be purchased unless you possess a Firearms Certificate authorising you to do so. Handguns are now effectively banned.</p><p>the Shotgun Certificate - will show the names and serial numbers of any shotguns possessed. There are currently no restrictions on the acquisition of shotguns, providing the details of any transaction are noted on the certificate, and the issuing police authority informed. It is necessary to produce your certificate when purchasing cartridges. For the purposes of the certificate, a shotgun is defined as a smoothbore gun, with barrel(s) at least 24" (610mm) long. Semi-automatics and pump-actions must have a magazine capacity of no more than two shots: this has be a permanent restriction, verified by either the London or Birmingham Proof Houses.</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really.In the UK possession of a firearm is a crime .
He found a shotgun , held on to it for 24 hours , called the police but did n't tell them what he was bringing in , took public transportation with a loaded shotgun , showed up at the station , and plonked an illegal weapon on the front desk .
He was an idiot and he will probably face some jail time for his ineptitude .
He should have left the crime scene undisturbed and called the police .
The UK police have dealt with other situations and even had citizens take possession of firearms when they were in dangerous locations ( playground ) and there were no charges in those cases.The guy who was arrested lives within my local area .
I did n't see the details of the gun in question , but technically , in the UK a shotgun which carries no more than two shells is not classed as a firearm.Info here [ gunrunner.cc ] The Firearm Certificate - this is issued to U.K. residents , covering rifles , shotguns with a magazine capacity greater than two , and airguns with a muzzle energy greater than 12 ft-lbs .
This certificate will list the firearm ( s ) possessed , and those allowed to be purchased or acquired , together with the quantity of ammunition that may be held , purchased or acquired .
There may also be strict limitations on exactly where the firearm ( s ) may be used .
This certificate will not entitle the holder to purchase automatic , semi-automatic ( other than .22 rimfire ) , or pump-action ( other than .22 rimfire ) rifles .
Any air rifle with a muzzle energy greater than 12 ft/lbs , or air pistol greater than 6 ft/lbs , may not be purchased unless you possess a Firearms Certificate authorising you to do so .
Handguns are now effectively banned.the Shotgun Certificate - will show the names and serial numbers of any shotguns possessed .
There are currently no restrictions on the acquisition of shotguns , providing the details of any transaction are noted on the certificate , and the issuing police authority informed .
It is necessary to produce your certificate when purchasing cartridges .
For the purposes of the certificate , a shotgun is defined as a smoothbore gun , with barrel ( s ) at least 24 " ( 610mm ) long .
Semi-automatics and pump-actions must have a magazine capacity of no more than two shots : this has be a permanent restriction , verified by either the London or Birmingham Proof Houses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.In the UK possession of a firearm is a crime.
He found a shotgun, held on to it for 24 hours, called the police but didn't tell them what he was bringing in, took public transportation with a loaded shotgun, showed up at the station, and plonked an illegal weapon on the front desk.
He was an idiot and he will probably face some jail time for his ineptitude.
He should have left the crime scene undisturbed and called the police.
The UK police have dealt with other situations and even had citizens take possession of firearms when they were in dangerous locations ( playground ) and there were no charges in those cases.The guy who was arrested lives within my local area.
I didn't see the details of the gun in question, but technically, in the UK a shotgun which carries no more than two shells is not classed as a firearm.Info here [gunrunner.cc] The Firearm Certificate - this is issued to U.K. residents, covering rifles, shotguns with a magazine capacity greater than two, and airguns with a muzzle energy greater than 12 ft-lbs.
This certificate will list the firearm(s) possessed, and those allowed to be purchased or acquired, together with the quantity of ammunition that may be held, purchased or acquired.
There may also be strict limitations on exactly where the firearm(s) may be used.
This certificate will not entitle the holder to purchase automatic, semi-automatic (other than .22 rimfire), or pump-action (other than .22 rimfire) rifles.
Any air rifle with a muzzle energy greater than 12 ft/lbs, or air pistol greater than 6 ft/lbs, may not be purchased unless you possess a Firearms Certificate authorising you to do so.
Handguns are now effectively banned.the Shotgun Certificate - will show the names and serial numbers of any shotguns possessed.
There are currently no restrictions on the acquisition of shotguns, providing the details of any transaction are noted on the certificate, and the issuing police authority informed.
It is necessary to produce your certificate when purchasing cartridges.
For the purposes of the certificate, a shotgun is defined as a smoothbore gun, with barrel(s) at least 24" (610mm) long.
Semi-automatics and pump-actions must have a magazine capacity of no more than two shots: this has be a permanent restriction, verified by either the London or Birmingham Proof Houses. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336182</id>
	<title>The Atomic Bomb and the Spear</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1260037380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The feds often have super-powers when it comes to plea bargaining.</p><p>They can make the threat:  Plead to three years or face twenty.</p><p>When that power is in the wrong hands it can force innocent or very mitigated people to plead guilty.</p><p>More importantly--much more importantly--they can use this leverage to FORCE a person to agree to their sentence recommendation.  This means that they don't get to plead for mercy from the judge.</p><p>This power when used in the right hands, is excellent for hammering bad guys.  When used in the wrong hands (for ambition or to avoid embarrassment), it can be downright evil.</p><p>We place a lot of trust in our federal prosecutors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The feds often have super-powers when it comes to plea bargaining.They can make the threat : Plead to three years or face twenty.When that power is in the wrong hands it can force innocent or very mitigated people to plead guilty.More importantly--much more importantly--they can use this leverage to FORCE a person to agree to their sentence recommendation .
This means that they do n't get to plead for mercy from the judge.This power when used in the right hands , is excellent for hammering bad guys .
When used in the wrong hands ( for ambition or to avoid embarrassment ) , it can be downright evil.We place a lot of trust in our federal prosecutors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The feds often have super-powers when it comes to plea bargaining.They can make the threat:  Plead to three years or face twenty.When that power is in the wrong hands it can force innocent or very mitigated people to plead guilty.More importantly--much more importantly--they can use this leverage to FORCE a person to agree to their sentence recommendation.
This means that they don't get to plead for mercy from the judge.This power when used in the right hands, is excellent for hammering bad guys.
When used in the wrong hands (for ambition or to avoid embarrassment), it can be downright evil.We place a lot of trust in our federal prosecutors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341428</id>
	<title>Re:Government.</title>
	<author>eherot</author>
	<datestamp>1260039480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Leaving "the government" out of the discussion completely, I think we can safely say that if this were up to a popular vote, "the people" (or at least those with the guns, and lets face it, religiously conservative people tend to have guns) would probably lynch this guy without even hearing the evidence.  Given that, between MY government and anarchy, I'll gladly take government, thank you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Leaving " the government " out of the discussion completely , I think we can safely say that if this were up to a popular vote , " the people " ( or at least those with the guns , and lets face it , religiously conservative people tend to have guns ) would probably lynch this guy without even hearing the evidence .
Given that , between MY government and anarchy , I 'll gladly take government , thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leaving "the government" out of the discussion completely, I think we can safely say that if this were up to a popular vote, "the people" (or at least those with the guns, and lets face it, religiously conservative people tend to have guns) would probably lynch this guy without even hearing the evidence.
Given that, between MY government and anarchy, I'll gladly take government, thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340912</id>
	<title>Re:Public Defender</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1260031500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many public defenders make minimum wage, in most parts of the country the constitutional guarantee of representation isn't interpreted to mean that the counsel is competent or even conscious, just that they be present. It depends upon where you are, but in parts of the country that are big on law and order, people do get put to death that are known to be innocent. Because the SCOTUS has been known to rule that being innocent does not grant one a right to not be executed anyway if the appeals have been exhausted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many public defenders make minimum wage , in most parts of the country the constitutional guarantee of representation is n't interpreted to mean that the counsel is competent or even conscious , just that they be present .
It depends upon where you are , but in parts of the country that are big on law and order , people do get put to death that are known to be innocent .
Because the SCOTUS has been known to rule that being innocent does not grant one a right to not be executed anyway if the appeals have been exhausted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many public defenders make minimum wage, in most parts of the country the constitutional guarantee of representation isn't interpreted to mean that the counsel is competent or even conscious, just that they be present.
It depends upon where you are, but in parts of the country that are big on law and order, people do get put to death that are known to be innocent.
Because the SCOTUS has been known to rule that being innocent does not grant one a right to not be executed anyway if the appeals have been exhausted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337140</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260043080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your position is insanity. I've been around abused children as adults and they are all ruined for life. I've never met anyone that got over it. What's the harm? By even downloading you are creating demand which is what the abusers feed on. Take away demand and a lot of this would go away. There's always going to be pedophiles but looking the other way creates situations like the Catholic priests routinely abusing children. You say that it's like GTA and violence, you're dead wrong. If you like having kiddie porn on your computer or consider it harmless then you have an issue because most people don't feel the need and consider it wrong. In the 60s it was free love and if it feels good do it. Now we have free downloads and if it's digitized it isn't hurting anyone and it can and should be freely traded no matter the content. Guns are not inherently evil because if you leave a gun in a drawer it in of itself harms no one. Digital images of torture, suffering, forced sex acts and rape are recorded crimes and are inherently evil. If you enjoy seeing them then you have serious problems. It's shocking to me to see a post modded "5 Insightful" that says "POSSESSION of child pornography shouldn't even be illegal." Arguing about downloading digital movie and music is one thing but defending downloading and possession of child porn is sickening to me. To get a 5 mod means a lot of people on this forum need to do some serious soul searching. Saying this "He didn't ruin some girls life by looking at pictures that already exist." Is pure ignorance and rationalization. If you download child porn your causing it to happen, period! Most of them don't do it for the money they do it to share with others like them so they ARE taking the pictures for your benefit. Taking the position, hey he was gonna rape her anyway, is beyond reprehensible and is completely morally bankrupt. Mod this troll if you want but the more it's modded down the more frightening I find the attitudes. You can debate artist rights all you want but this is about basic human decency not digital freedom!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your position is insanity .
I 've been around abused children as adults and they are all ruined for life .
I 've never met anyone that got over it .
What 's the harm ?
By even downloading you are creating demand which is what the abusers feed on .
Take away demand and a lot of this would go away .
There 's always going to be pedophiles but looking the other way creates situations like the Catholic priests routinely abusing children .
You say that it 's like GTA and violence , you 're dead wrong .
If you like having kiddie porn on your computer or consider it harmless then you have an issue because most people do n't feel the need and consider it wrong .
In the 60s it was free love and if it feels good do it .
Now we have free downloads and if it 's digitized it is n't hurting anyone and it can and should be freely traded no matter the content .
Guns are not inherently evil because if you leave a gun in a drawer it in of itself harms no one .
Digital images of torture , suffering , forced sex acts and rape are recorded crimes and are inherently evil .
If you enjoy seeing them then you have serious problems .
It 's shocking to me to see a post modded " 5 Insightful " that says " POSSESSION of child pornography should n't even be illegal .
" Arguing about downloading digital movie and music is one thing but defending downloading and possession of child porn is sickening to me .
To get a 5 mod means a lot of people on this forum need to do some serious soul searching .
Saying this " He did n't ruin some girls life by looking at pictures that already exist .
" Is pure ignorance and rationalization .
If you download child porn your causing it to happen , period !
Most of them do n't do it for the money they do it to share with others like them so they ARE taking the pictures for your benefit .
Taking the position , hey he was gon na rape her anyway , is beyond reprehensible and is completely morally bankrupt .
Mod this troll if you want but the more it 's modded down the more frightening I find the attitudes .
You can debate artist rights all you want but this is about basic human decency not digital freedom !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your position is insanity.
I've been around abused children as adults and they are all ruined for life.
I've never met anyone that got over it.
What's the harm?
By even downloading you are creating demand which is what the abusers feed on.
Take away demand and a lot of this would go away.
There's always going to be pedophiles but looking the other way creates situations like the Catholic priests routinely abusing children.
You say that it's like GTA and violence, you're dead wrong.
If you like having kiddie porn on your computer or consider it harmless then you have an issue because most people don't feel the need and consider it wrong.
In the 60s it was free love and if it feels good do it.
Now we have free downloads and if it's digitized it isn't hurting anyone and it can and should be freely traded no matter the content.
Guns are not inherently evil because if you leave a gun in a drawer it in of itself harms no one.
Digital images of torture, suffering, forced sex acts and rape are recorded crimes and are inherently evil.
If you enjoy seeing them then you have serious problems.
It's shocking to me to see a post modded "5 Insightful" that says "POSSESSION of child pornography shouldn't even be illegal.
" Arguing about downloading digital movie and music is one thing but defending downloading and possession of child porn is sickening to me.
To get a 5 mod means a lot of people on this forum need to do some serious soul searching.
Saying this "He didn't ruin some girls life by looking at pictures that already exist.
" Is pure ignorance and rationalization.
If you download child porn your causing it to happen, period!
Most of them don't do it for the money they do it to share with others like them so they ARE taking the pictures for your benefit.
Taking the position, hey he was gonna rape her anyway, is beyond reprehensible and is completely morally bankrupt.
Mod this troll if you want but the more it's modded down the more frightening I find the attitudes.
You can debate artist rights all you want but this is about basic human decency not digital freedom!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339016</id>
	<title>Re:Government.</title>
	<author>domatic</author>
	<datestamp>1260013800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except for this argument:  Anarchy naturally devolves to government.  Go to one a meeting where anarchist wannabees hang out.  Sure enough there will be someone there who is taken the most seriously and is looked to for leadership.  There are other problems. In a true anarchy, some people are going to be naturally good either gaining followers due to personal charisma or good at getting money* or both.  Money becomes power and blammo you've got a defacto government on your hands.  Something like that happens or gangs and warlords just terrorize everybody.</p><p>Incidentally, places like Somalia pretty much are anarchies.  Garden spots they are not.  Of course it will be argued that isn't "true anarchy" but "true anarchy" has a little something in common with "true communism":  what happens in real application WON'T be a utopia.</p><p>This all happens because most humans one way or another will live in hierarchies and pecking orders of some sort. It is an innate part of our psychology so anarchy is hopelessly naive on the face of it.  This cannot be gotten rid of any more than say greed.  So the question is how best to <i>manage</i> these aspects of ourselves.  Since we ARE going to be stuck with government of some kind the question is how best can we keep it from turning into a monster?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for this argument : Anarchy naturally devolves to government .
Go to one a meeting where anarchist wannabees hang out .
Sure enough there will be someone there who is taken the most seriously and is looked to for leadership .
There are other problems .
In a true anarchy , some people are going to be naturally good either gaining followers due to personal charisma or good at getting money * or both .
Money becomes power and blammo you 've got a defacto government on your hands .
Something like that happens or gangs and warlords just terrorize everybody.Incidentally , places like Somalia pretty much are anarchies .
Garden spots they are not .
Of course it will be argued that is n't " true anarchy " but " true anarchy " has a little something in common with " true communism " : what happens in real application WO N'T be a utopia.This all happens because most humans one way or another will live in hierarchies and pecking orders of some sort .
It is an innate part of our psychology so anarchy is hopelessly naive on the face of it .
This can not be gotten rid of any more than say greed .
So the question is how best to manage these aspects of ourselves .
Since we ARE going to be stuck with government of some kind the question is how best can we keep it from turning into a monster ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for this argument:  Anarchy naturally devolves to government.
Go to one a meeting where anarchist wannabees hang out.
Sure enough there will be someone there who is taken the most seriously and is looked to for leadership.
There are other problems.
In a true anarchy, some people are going to be naturally good either gaining followers due to personal charisma or good at getting money* or both.
Money becomes power and blammo you've got a defacto government on your hands.
Something like that happens or gangs and warlords just terrorize everybody.Incidentally, places like Somalia pretty much are anarchies.
Garden spots they are not.
Of course it will be argued that isn't "true anarchy" but "true anarchy" has a little something in common with "true communism":  what happens in real application WON'T be a utopia.This all happens because most humans one way or another will live in hierarchies and pecking orders of some sort.
It is an innate part of our psychology so anarchy is hopelessly naive on the face of it.
This cannot be gotten rid of any more than say greed.
So the question is how best to manage these aspects of ourselves.
Since we ARE going to be stuck with government of some kind the question is how best can we keep it from turning into a monster?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335948</id>
	<title>He Should Argue</title>
	<author>Derosian</author>
	<datestamp>1260035940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hasn't the music industry spent billions of dollars in advertisement and legal fees trying to convince us illegal downloading of music harms the music industry?  <br> <br>  If so we should be thanking this man for harming the supporters of child pornography.  Even if it was unintentional and immediately deleted.  <br> <br>  Now I am going to destroy any credibility I had by quoting Captain Jean-Luc Picard.   "I don't know how to communicate this, or even if it is possible. But the question of justice has concerned me greatly of late. And I say to any creature who may be listening, there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions. "</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has n't the music industry spent billions of dollars in advertisement and legal fees trying to convince us illegal downloading of music harms the music industry ?
If so we should be thanking this man for harming the supporters of child pornography .
Even if it was unintentional and immediately deleted .
Now I am going to destroy any credibility I had by quoting Captain Jean-Luc Picard .
" I do n't know how to communicate this , or even if it is possible .
But the question of justice has concerned me greatly of late .
And I say to any creature who may be listening , there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute .
Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hasn't the music industry spent billions of dollars in advertisement and legal fees trying to convince us illegal downloading of music harms the music industry?
If so we should be thanking this man for harming the supporters of child pornography.
Even if it was unintentional and immediately deleted.
Now I am going to destroy any credibility I had by quoting Captain Jean-Luc Picard.
"I don't know how to communicate this, or even if it is possible.
But the question of justice has concerned me greatly of late.
And I say to any creature who may be listening, there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute.
Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336336</id>
	<title>I would plead not guilty.</title>
	<author>orsty3001</author>
	<datestamp>1260038340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then I would say that my hard drive way *pick any size and model that is different than they one they confiscated* and tell they I tossed that drive when it died. I was in the process of saving my money to get a new hard drive.

I'm not lawyer but I'm sure this would cause enough confusion that we could work with.

Well ok I know this doesn't have much of a chance of working so why not have a little fun in the court room if you're going to jail anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then I would say that my hard drive way * pick any size and model that is different than they one they confiscated * and tell they I tossed that drive when it died .
I was in the process of saving my money to get a new hard drive .
I 'm not lawyer but I 'm sure this would cause enough confusion that we could work with .
Well ok I know this does n't have much of a chance of working so why not have a little fun in the court room if you 're going to jail anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then I would say that my hard drive way *pick any size and model that is different than they one they confiscated* and tell they I tossed that drive when it died.
I was in the process of saving my money to get a new hard drive.
I'm not lawyer but I'm sure this would cause enough confusion that we could work with.
Well ok I know this doesn't have much of a chance of working so why not have a little fun in the court room if you're going to jail anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335582</id>
	<title>Used drives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just wonder if i should ever buy/use a used HD again ?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just wonder if i should ever buy/use a used HD again ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just wonder if i should ever buy/use a used HD again ?!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338772</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>wolffenrir</author>
	<datestamp>1260011820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You did a good thing. I would have attempted essentially the same tact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You did a good thing .
I would have attempted essentially the same tact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You did a good thing.
I would have attempted essentially the same tact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337896</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260004920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The man hasn't been sentenced yet.</p><p>http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The man has n't been sentenced yet.http : //www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The man hasn't been sentenced yet.http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337526</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260045900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting tale of jury nullification.</p><p>I think the fact that the average jury is generally considered to consists of 12 people who were not smart enough to get out of jury duty to be the real problem. Then combined with the fact that the jury selection process is generally designed to weed out anybody with any level of technical expertise that might be able to contradict an expert witness, and the system is clearly broken.</p><p>I know for a fact that if I am every on a jury, the other jurors will hate me. I will insist on being the foreman, and work from there. Except in the case of jury nullification, the process will then proceed by looking at the jury instructions to determine the facts in dispute.</p><p>Choosing the order carefully such that the minimum number of facts need to be considered, and for each fact we will determine the truth and the level of uncertainty. A guilt verdict will be rendered if and only if there is a sequence of facts found true beyond reasonable doubt such that these facts indicate that the person is indeed guilty.</p><p>If necessary combined facts will be considered. For example there might be a reasonable level of doubt about facts A and B, but it might be clear beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of the two is true. If it is the case that either being true may allow for a guilt verdict then such a combined fact may be considered. The final result will be a list of all facts that we have found to be true or false beyond a reasonable doubt in the course of attempting to find a path a facts that lead to guilt, or show that no such path exists.</p><p>Very organized, very methodical, would drive the average apathetic jury nuts if there are a significant number of possible facts to consider.</p><p>Of course, determining if the rest of the jury is at all sympathetic to jury nullification should probably come before of all that, as in that case, a less rigidly logical, and more emotional approach to determine if there is a good reason to ignore the law may be needed or desirable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting tale of jury nullification.I think the fact that the average jury is generally considered to consists of 12 people who were not smart enough to get out of jury duty to be the real problem .
Then combined with the fact that the jury selection process is generally designed to weed out anybody with any level of technical expertise that might be able to contradict an expert witness , and the system is clearly broken.I know for a fact that if I am every on a jury , the other jurors will hate me .
I will insist on being the foreman , and work from there .
Except in the case of jury nullification , the process will then proceed by looking at the jury instructions to determine the facts in dispute.Choosing the order carefully such that the minimum number of facts need to be considered , and for each fact we will determine the truth and the level of uncertainty .
A guilt verdict will be rendered if and only if there is a sequence of facts found true beyond reasonable doubt such that these facts indicate that the person is indeed guilty.If necessary combined facts will be considered .
For example there might be a reasonable level of doubt about facts A and B , but it might be clear beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of the two is true .
If it is the case that either being true may allow for a guilt verdict then such a combined fact may be considered .
The final result will be a list of all facts that we have found to be true or false beyond a reasonable doubt in the course of attempting to find a path a facts that lead to guilt , or show that no such path exists.Very organized , very methodical , would drive the average apathetic jury nuts if there are a significant number of possible facts to consider.Of course , determining if the rest of the jury is at all sympathetic to jury nullification should probably come before of all that , as in that case , a less rigidly logical , and more emotional approach to determine if there is a good reason to ignore the law may be needed or desirable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting tale of jury nullification.I think the fact that the average jury is generally considered to consists of 12 people who were not smart enough to get out of jury duty to be the real problem.
Then combined with the fact that the jury selection process is generally designed to weed out anybody with any level of technical expertise that might be able to contradict an expert witness, and the system is clearly broken.I know for a fact that if I am every on a jury, the other jurors will hate me.
I will insist on being the foreman, and work from there.
Except in the case of jury nullification, the process will then proceed by looking at the jury instructions to determine the facts in dispute.Choosing the order carefully such that the minimum number of facts need to be considered, and for each fact we will determine the truth and the level of uncertainty.
A guilt verdict will be rendered if and only if there is a sequence of facts found true beyond reasonable doubt such that these facts indicate that the person is indeed guilty.If necessary combined facts will be considered.
For example there might be a reasonable level of doubt about facts A and B, but it might be clear beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of the two is true.
If it is the case that either being true may allow for a guilt verdict then such a combined fact may be considered.
The final result will be a list of all facts that we have found to be true or false beyond a reasonable doubt in the course of attempting to find a path a facts that lead to guilt, or show that no such path exists.Very organized, very methodical, would drive the average apathetic jury nuts if there are a significant number of possible facts to consider.Of course, determining if the rest of the jury is at all sympathetic to jury nullification should probably come before of all that, as in that case, a less rigidly logical, and more emotional approach to determine if there is a good reason to ignore the law may be needed or desirable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336394</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260038700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Listen to a recent American Life episode. Some guy gets a decoy car (for punks to steal and get busted) parked in front of his house with the keys in the ignition and doors unlocked etc.</p><p>Calls the cops, but they don't really do anything. After a few days the car is still there, having contacted the police several times. He decides to open the car and look in the glove box for some papers or anything to find a phone number.</p><p>Within a minute he and his gf standing next to the car are in cuffs.</p><p>It took them years to get rid of the accusations and trials and criminal records. And only because they were lucky some journalist started reporting about it.</p><p>I would love to go to the US some time for a holiday, but sometimes I think it's more dangerous than Somalia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Listen to a recent American Life episode .
Some guy gets a decoy car ( for punks to steal and get busted ) parked in front of his house with the keys in the ignition and doors unlocked etc.Calls the cops , but they do n't really do anything .
After a few days the car is still there , having contacted the police several times .
He decides to open the car and look in the glove box for some papers or anything to find a phone number.Within a minute he and his gf standing next to the car are in cuffs.It took them years to get rid of the accusations and trials and criminal records .
And only because they were lucky some journalist started reporting about it.I would love to go to the US some time for a holiday , but sometimes I think it 's more dangerous than Somalia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Listen to a recent American Life episode.
Some guy gets a decoy car (for punks to steal and get busted) parked in front of his house with the keys in the ignition and doors unlocked etc.Calls the cops, but they don't really do anything.
After a few days the car is still there, having contacted the police several times.
He decides to open the car and look in the glove box for some papers or anything to find a phone number.Within a minute he and his gf standing next to the car are in cuffs.It took them years to get rid of the accusations and trials and criminal records.
And only because they were lucky some journalist started reporting about it.I would love to go to the US some time for a holiday, but sometimes I think it's more dangerous than Somalia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335684</id>
	<title>FBI bait?</title>
	<author>joetheappleguy</author>
	<datestamp>1260034620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I bet that's what the guy downloaded, given the description of how the FBI just shows up and knows exactly what to look for.
<br> <br>
If so, the good luck explaining your way out of that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet that 's what the guy downloaded , given the description of how the FBI just shows up and knows exactly what to look for .
If so , the good luck explaining your way out of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet that's what the guy downloaded, given the description of how the FBI just shows up and knows exactly what to look for.
If so, the good luck explaining your way out of that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335636</id>
	<title>Don't Talk to Police</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Never talk to the police (even if you're perfectly innocent)</a> [youtube.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never talk to the police ( even if you 're perfectly innocent ) [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never talk to the police (even if you're perfectly innocent) [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336118</id>
	<title>More to it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260036900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, the CBS13 article is utterly fact free. The only CP "boogeyman" is the one the news manufactures.</p><p>Limewire? A year ago? As a fake "College Girls Gone Wild"? Anyone who downloaded that would be getting it from many sources and would have no idea what it was. The FBI simply wouldn't be able to track the download, and over that kind of time, NTFS (I assume) would have completely destroyed any evidence. I've done data recovery, it takes a lot less than a year for deleted files to degrade.</p><p>If something could be recovered in an intact enough state to satisfy forensics, I'm convinced this guy intentionally downloaded CP, got caught, and deleted it not too long before the FBI showed up. He's making excuses.</p><p>The FBI without a doubt does set up sting sites and baits CP downloaders, but why would they disguise it as fake adult porn? They want to catch people who are actually trying to download CP.</p><p>As others have pointed out, this shit shows up on 4chan and the like all the time. Lots of us have probably seen it be accident, has the FBI knocked on your door yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , the CBS13 article is utterly fact free .
The only CP " boogeyman " is the one the news manufactures.Limewire ?
A year ago ?
As a fake " College Girls Gone Wild " ?
Anyone who downloaded that would be getting it from many sources and would have no idea what it was .
The FBI simply would n't be able to track the download , and over that kind of time , NTFS ( I assume ) would have completely destroyed any evidence .
I 've done data recovery , it takes a lot less than a year for deleted files to degrade.If something could be recovered in an intact enough state to satisfy forensics , I 'm convinced this guy intentionally downloaded CP , got caught , and deleted it not too long before the FBI showed up .
He 's making excuses.The FBI without a doubt does set up sting sites and baits CP downloaders , but why would they disguise it as fake adult porn ?
They want to catch people who are actually trying to download CP.As others have pointed out , this shit shows up on 4chan and the like all the time .
Lots of us have probably seen it be accident , has the FBI knocked on your door yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, the CBS13 article is utterly fact free.
The only CP "boogeyman" is the one the news manufactures.Limewire?
A year ago?
As a fake "College Girls Gone Wild"?
Anyone who downloaded that would be getting it from many sources and would have no idea what it was.
The FBI simply wouldn't be able to track the download, and over that kind of time, NTFS (I assume) would have completely destroyed any evidence.
I've done data recovery, it takes a lot less than a year for deleted files to degrade.If something could be recovered in an intact enough state to satisfy forensics, I'm convinced this guy intentionally downloaded CP, got caught, and deleted it not too long before the FBI showed up.
He's making excuses.The FBI without a doubt does set up sting sites and baits CP downloaders, but why would they disguise it as fake adult porn?
They want to catch people who are actually trying to download CP.As others have pointed out, this shit shows up on 4chan and the like all the time.
Lots of us have probably seen it be accident, has the FBI knocked on your door yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568</id>
	<title>What's a district attorney to do...</title>
	<author>bobdotorg</author>
	<datestamp>1260033900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's a district attorney to do when someone anonymously sends the D.A. an email with kiddie porn attached?  Technically, the D.A. downloaded it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's a district attorney to do when someone anonymously sends the D.A .
an email with kiddie porn attached ?
Technically , the D.A .
downloaded it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's a district attorney to do when someone anonymously sends the D.A.
an email with kiddie porn attached?
Technically, the D.A.
downloaded it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337788</id>
	<title>Re:Never volunteer anything to the cops</title>
	<author>BronsCon</author>
	<datestamp>1260004200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And a good prosecutor will point out that orange juice concentrate is a stronger form or orange juice.</p><p>What will a dumb jury get from that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And a good prosecutor will point out that orange juice concentrate is a stronger form or orange juice.What will a dumb jury get from that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And a good prosecutor will point out that orange juice concentrate is a stronger form or orange juice.What will a dumb jury get from that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337208</id>
	<title>Framing business</title>
	<author>beej</author>
	<datestamp>1260043560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone care to comment on the possibility of this:</p><p>1. BadPerson puts up a web page, and put an iframe on there.  A very tiny invisible one.  That iframe links to some random 3rd-party childpornsite.com.<br>2. GoodPerson goes to BadPerson's web page, and unknowingly downloads stuff from childpornsite.com in the invisible iframe, which is dutifully cached.</p><p>As a variant, BadPerson could only include the iframe when requests are from the guy he is trying to frame. To everyone else, the web page would appear normal.</p><p>I'm not sure if BadPerson's URL will show up as a referring URL to the childpornsite.com, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone care to comment on the possibility of this : 1 .
BadPerson puts up a web page , and put an iframe on there .
A very tiny invisible one .
That iframe links to some random 3rd-party childpornsite.com.2 .
GoodPerson goes to BadPerson 's web page , and unknowingly downloads stuff from childpornsite.com in the invisible iframe , which is dutifully cached.As a variant , BadPerson could only include the iframe when requests are from the guy he is trying to frame .
To everyone else , the web page would appear normal.I 'm not sure if BadPerson 's URL will show up as a referring URL to the childpornsite.com , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone care to comment on the possibility of this:1.
BadPerson puts up a web page, and put an iframe on there.
A very tiny invisible one.
That iframe links to some random 3rd-party childpornsite.com.2.
GoodPerson goes to BadPerson's web page, and unknowingly downloads stuff from childpornsite.com in the invisible iframe, which is dutifully cached.As a variant, BadPerson could only include the iframe when requests are from the guy he is trying to frame.
To everyone else, the web page would appear normal.I'm not sure if BadPerson's URL will show up as a referring URL to the childpornsite.com, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337258</id>
	<title>Time to Wake up America!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260043860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I too was convicted with child porn because of a accidental download via eMule. I'm now a lovely sex offender with 10yrs probation, the part that is killing me is the fucking fees and the 'status'! I'm not into that type of thing, I have a lovely godmother and her family who knows I'm not a predator or into children and even their grandkids (ages 6months to 23) could tell you that. I too had a lame public defender who told me to take the plea, in feeling that I'd get hung on the stand. I really  should of went to trial, I rather be in prison then be outcasted in society. Hopefully the American sheep will wake up and fight against some of this law. Yes production and selling/buying needs to be illegal (30+ to life), but mere possession means shit. That's like trying to outlaw thinking, what they going to do, implant mind readers in our skulls next?</p><p>Wake up Americans! YOU ARE BEING RAPED BY THE GOVERNMENT YOU LOVE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I too was convicted with child porn because of a accidental download via eMule .
I 'm now a lovely sex offender with 10yrs probation , the part that is killing me is the fucking fees and the 'status ' !
I 'm not into that type of thing , I have a lovely godmother and her family who knows I 'm not a predator or into children and even their grandkids ( ages 6months to 23 ) could tell you that .
I too had a lame public defender who told me to take the plea , in feeling that I 'd get hung on the stand .
I really should of went to trial , I rather be in prison then be outcasted in society .
Hopefully the American sheep will wake up and fight against some of this law .
Yes production and selling/buying needs to be illegal ( 30 + to life ) , but mere possession means shit .
That 's like trying to outlaw thinking , what they going to do , implant mind readers in our skulls next ? Wake up Americans !
YOU ARE BEING RAPED BY THE GOVERNMENT YOU LOVE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too was convicted with child porn because of a accidental download via eMule.
I'm now a lovely sex offender with 10yrs probation, the part that is killing me is the fucking fees and the 'status'!
I'm not into that type of thing, I have a lovely godmother and her family who knows I'm not a predator or into children and even their grandkids (ages 6months to 23) could tell you that.
I too had a lame public defender who told me to take the plea, in feeling that I'd get hung on the stand.
I really  should of went to trial, I rather be in prison then be outcasted in society.
Hopefully the American sheep will wake up and fight against some of this law.
Yes production and selling/buying needs to be illegal (30+ to life), but mere possession means shit.
That's like trying to outlaw thinking, what they going to do, implant mind readers in our skulls next?Wake up Americans!
YOU ARE BEING RAPED BY THE GOVERNMENT YOU LOVE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338304</id>
	<title>Re:You can KILL someone with this...</title>
	<author>KneelBeforeZod</author>
	<datestamp>1260007980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Send some kiddie porn images</p></div><p>So then, YOU'D be possessing kiddie porn too.  And then the Feds could be knocking down/at YOU'RE door.<br>Since this is all hypothetical.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Send some kiddie porn imagesSo then , YOU 'D be possessing kiddie porn too .
And then the Feds could be knocking down/at YOU 'RE door.Since this is all hypothetical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Send some kiddie porn imagesSo then, YOU'D be possessing kiddie porn too.
And then the Feds could be knocking down/at YOU'RE door.Since this is all hypothetical.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30343532</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260118800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sir are a true american hero. I doubt the state hates anything more then jury nullification. In your case they did not want a jury trial at all, they had determined the fellow guilty before giving it over to you.</p><p>This is how democracy is supposed to work, if a law is just plain wrong, then a jury of peers should set it aside. This is also why courts do not even inform juries of their right to simply ignore the judge and vote innocent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sir are a true american hero .
I doubt the state hates anything more then jury nullification .
In your case they did not want a jury trial at all , they had determined the fellow guilty before giving it over to you.This is how democracy is supposed to work , if a law is just plain wrong , then a jury of peers should set it aside .
This is also why courts do not even inform juries of their right to simply ignore the judge and vote innocent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sir are a true american hero.
I doubt the state hates anything more then jury nullification.
In your case they did not want a jury trial at all, they had determined the fellow guilty before giving it over to you.This is how democracy is supposed to work, if a law is just plain wrong, then a jury of peers should set it aside.
This is also why courts do not even inform juries of their right to simply ignore the judge and vote innocent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337944</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1260005220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good for you.</p><p>The only real purpose of a jury, any jury, is to make it impossible for the State to prosecute with laws, means or punishments that are too unpopular. It is a sign of the deep corruption of the legal system that this cannot be mentioned in any open court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good for you.The only real purpose of a jury , any jury , is to make it impossible for the State to prosecute with laws , means or punishments that are too unpopular .
It is a sign of the deep corruption of the legal system that this can not be mentioned in any open court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good for you.The only real purpose of a jury, any jury, is to make it impossible for the State to prosecute with laws, means or punishments that are too unpopular.
It is a sign of the deep corruption of the legal system that this cannot be mentioned in any open court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337592</id>
	<title>He isn't innocent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260046320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The laws against child porn are strict liability: You're guilty even if its an accident, you're even guilty if someone actually planted it on you (and you can prove it).  This is what strict liability means.</p><p>He is guilty. He admitted his guilt to the police. There is nothing reasonable to do except plead guilty at this point. Oh, and learn your fking lesson and DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The laws against child porn are strict liability : You 're guilty even if its an accident , you 're even guilty if someone actually planted it on you ( and you can prove it ) .
This is what strict liability means.He is guilty .
He admitted his guilt to the police .
There is nothing reasonable to do except plead guilty at this point .
Oh , and learn your fking lesson and DO N'T TALK TO THE POLICE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The laws against child porn are strict liability: You're guilty even if its an accident, you're even guilty if someone actually planted it on you (and you can prove it).
This is what strict liability means.He is guilty.
He admitted his guilt to the police.
There is nothing reasonable to do except plead guilty at this point.
Oh, and learn your fking lesson and DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337888</id>
	<title>Re:Destroy the hard drive</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1260004920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Physically and thoroughly, say with a sledge hammer.</p></div><p>Actually, according to Western Digital documentation the only way "to be sure" requires, and I quote: "the use of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_weapon" title="wikipedia.org">a specialized device</a> [wikipedia.org], while remaining at a distance no less than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low\_Earth\_Orbit" title="wikipedia.org">160 km</a> [wikipedia.org] from the target hard disk drive". <br> <br>
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090605/quotes" title="imdb.com">Source</a> [imdb.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Physically and thoroughly , say with a sledge hammer.Actually , according to Western Digital documentation the only way " to be sure " requires , and I quote : " the use of a specialized device [ wikipedia.org ] , while remaining at a distance no less than 160 km [ wikipedia.org ] from the target hard disk drive " .
Source [ imdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Physically and thoroughly, say with a sledge hammer.Actually, according to Western Digital documentation the only way "to be sure" requires, and I quote: "the use of a specialized device [wikipedia.org], while remaining at a distance no less than 160 km [wikipedia.org] from the target hard disk drive".
Source [imdb.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336444</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was thinking the same thing.</p><p>I remember that story a few weeks ago... Someone found a shotgun in their back garden (this is the UK) and called the local police station to tell them he is bringing it in. Well anyway long story short because it was loaded and the box also had ammo he ended up getting a minimum of I believe three years.</p><p>Yet another story, this time from the US.... Someone finds Meth, attempts to turn it into the police... Gets hit with possession of drugs. This anecdote was on a cops-like show no less.</p><p>So too bad for us that common sense fails so often even in a legal system that is designed to have "common sense" designed into it at at least three levels (Police, Prosecutors Office, and Judge). They love to use the excuse that they enforce the laws as written (when in reality laws are meant to be interpreted so exactly this kind of thing doesn't happen!).</p></div><p>In all situations the person attempting to "do the right thing" failed to use common sense. Don't touch the meth, shotgun, etc., call the police and let them handle it. You get pulled over and have meth in your car, you seriously think the police are going to believe you where "bringing it to the station so I could turn it in".</p><p>Same thing with the shotgun, who knows what it was used for. I don't want my prints on it, the police can come deal with it. That is using common sense!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking the same thing.I remember that story a few weeks ago... Someone found a shotgun in their back garden ( this is the UK ) and called the local police station to tell them he is bringing it in .
Well anyway long story short because it was loaded and the box also had ammo he ended up getting a minimum of I believe three years.Yet another story , this time from the US.... Someone finds Meth , attempts to turn it into the police... Gets hit with possession of drugs .
This anecdote was on a cops-like show no less.So too bad for us that common sense fails so often even in a legal system that is designed to have " common sense " designed into it at at least three levels ( Police , Prosecutors Office , and Judge ) .
They love to use the excuse that they enforce the laws as written ( when in reality laws are meant to be interpreted so exactly this kind of thing does n't happen !
) .In all situations the person attempting to " do the right thing " failed to use common sense .
Do n't touch the meth , shotgun , etc. , call the police and let them handle it .
You get pulled over and have meth in your car , you seriously think the police are going to believe you where " bringing it to the station so I could turn it in " .Same thing with the shotgun , who knows what it was used for .
I do n't want my prints on it , the police can come deal with it .
That is using common sense !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking the same thing.I remember that story a few weeks ago... Someone found a shotgun in their back garden (this is the UK) and called the local police station to tell them he is bringing it in.
Well anyway long story short because it was loaded and the box also had ammo he ended up getting a minimum of I believe three years.Yet another story, this time from the US.... Someone finds Meth, attempts to turn it into the police... Gets hit with possession of drugs.
This anecdote was on a cops-like show no less.So too bad for us that common sense fails so often even in a legal system that is designed to have "common sense" designed into it at at least three levels (Police, Prosecutors Office, and Judge).
They love to use the excuse that they enforce the laws as written (when in reality laws are meant to be interpreted so exactly this kind of thing doesn't happen!
).In all situations the person attempting to "do the right thing" failed to use common sense.
Don't touch the meth, shotgun, etc., call the police and let them handle it.
You get pulled over and have meth in your car, you seriously think the police are going to believe you where "bringing it to the station so I could turn it in".Same thing with the shotgun, who knows what it was used for.
I don't want my prints on it, the police can come deal with it.
That is using common sense!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341398</id>
	<title>Re:Tell that to the child!</title>
	<author>eherot</author>
	<datestamp>1260039180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with QCompson.  Prosecuting someone for downloading an image of something illegal is essentially a thoughtcrime.  Since the downloader didn't even pay for the image (much less request it specifically), it's all but impossible to make the case that he somehow contributed to the creation of this child pornography which, I think we'd all agree, is where the actual harm to children is occuring.<br> <br>

What I think is really upsetting though is how we devote our resources to jailing people who look at pictures of children on the Internet (for free, and without playing any part in their acquisition), and yet actual sex trafficking of children (read: slavery) goes on all over the world (including in the United States) and somehow manages to command far less of the public's attention.
<br> <br>
Sometimes I think we're not really interested in protecting the children so much as looking for an excuse to put people in jail for prurient behavior.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with QCompson .
Prosecuting someone for downloading an image of something illegal is essentially a thoughtcrime .
Since the downloader did n't even pay for the image ( much less request it specifically ) , it 's all but impossible to make the case that he somehow contributed to the creation of this child pornography which , I think we 'd all agree , is where the actual harm to children is occuring .
What I think is really upsetting though is how we devote our resources to jailing people who look at pictures of children on the Internet ( for free , and without playing any part in their acquisition ) , and yet actual sex trafficking of children ( read : slavery ) goes on all over the world ( including in the United States ) and somehow manages to command far less of the public 's attention .
Sometimes I think we 're not really interested in protecting the children so much as looking for an excuse to put people in jail for prurient behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with QCompson.
Prosecuting someone for downloading an image of something illegal is essentially a thoughtcrime.
Since the downloader didn't even pay for the image (much less request it specifically), it's all but impossible to make the case that he somehow contributed to the creation of this child pornography which, I think we'd all agree, is where the actual harm to children is occuring.
What I think is really upsetting though is how we devote our resources to jailing people who look at pictures of children on the Internet (for free, and without playing any part in their acquisition), and yet actual sex trafficking of children (read: slavery) goes on all over the world (including in the United States) and somehow manages to command far less of the public's attention.
Sometimes I think we're not really interested in protecting the children so much as looking for an excuse to put people in jail for prurient behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335628</id>
	<title>Meanwhile....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Real child predators are out roaming the streets.</p><p>This is complete BULLSHIT! Apparently, this guy is not a danger but our tax dollars will be used to ruin his life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Real child predators are out roaming the streets.This is complete BULLSHIT !
Apparently , this guy is not a danger but our tax dollars will be used to ruin his life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real child predators are out roaming the streets.This is complete BULLSHIT!
Apparently, this guy is not a danger but our tax dollars will be used to ruin his life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341486</id>
	<title>Three Words:  Whole Disk Encryption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260040560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wiping files to delete is good, and so is defragging a lot, but really, everyone needs Whole Disk Encryption.  Your PC will be stolen some day, either by burglars or by cops, and you don't want them reading your Quicken Data, your Email, or your Porn.  Maybe not in that priority order...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>http://www.truecrypt.org</p><p>Or hell, even Microsoft BitLocker would be good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wiping files to delete is good , and so is defragging a lot , but really , everyone needs Whole Disk Encryption .
Your PC will be stolen some day , either by burglars or by cops , and you do n't want them reading your Quicken Data , your Email , or your Porn .
Maybe not in that priority order... ; - ) http : //www.truecrypt.orgOr hell , even Microsoft BitLocker would be good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wiping files to delete is good, and so is defragging a lot, but really, everyone needs Whole Disk Encryption.
Your PC will be stolen some day, either by burglars or by cops, and you don't want them reading your Quicken Data, your Email, or your Porn.
Maybe not in that priority order... ;-)http://www.truecrypt.orgOr hell, even Microsoft BitLocker would be good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337420</id>
	<title>Re:Call the cops</title>
	<author>jthill</author>
	<datestamp>1260045060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last jury I was on was a drug case. The state had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had it under his possession and control, he knew he had it under his possession and control, he knew what it was, and he intended to sell it. I could see why the case made it to trial, that wasn't easy. We voted to convict him and every time I revisit it the gut check comes back the same: we got it right.
</p><p>Trusting any one-sided description of events strikes me as risky, but going on what's in the article I'd think it'd be hard to prove any sane sense of the word "possession", let alone conscious possession.
</p><p>So there's at least one of three things going on here: the public defender's recommendation to plead guilty is incompetent, the public defender knows something about the case that we don't, or the law is insane.
</p><p>Kinda hard to tell what's going here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last jury I was on was a drug case .
The state had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had it under his possession and control , he knew he had it under his possession and control , he knew what it was , and he intended to sell it .
I could see why the case made it to trial , that was n't easy .
We voted to convict him and every time I revisit it the gut check comes back the same : we got it right .
Trusting any one-sided description of events strikes me as risky , but going on what 's in the article I 'd think it 'd be hard to prove any sane sense of the word " possession " , let alone conscious possession .
So there 's at least one of three things going on here : the public defender 's recommendation to plead guilty is incompetent , the public defender knows something about the case that we do n't , or the law is insane .
Kinda hard to tell what 's going here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last jury I was on was a drug case.
The state had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had it under his possession and control, he knew he had it under his possession and control, he knew what it was, and he intended to sell it.
I could see why the case made it to trial, that wasn't easy.
We voted to convict him and every time I revisit it the gut check comes back the same: we got it right.
Trusting any one-sided description of events strikes me as risky, but going on what's in the article I'd think it'd be hard to prove any sane sense of the word "possession", let alone conscious possession.
So there's at least one of three things going on here: the public defender's recommendation to plead guilty is incompetent, the public defender knows something about the case that we don't, or the law is insane.
Kinda hard to tell what's going here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336080</id>
	<title>Re:Never volunteer anything to the cops</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1260036780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's one thing people are really stupid about - if a cop (or FBI agent, same thing) comes knocking at your door wanting to "look around" and you know you didn't do anything wrong, don't let them in.</p><p>At the very least if they find anything remotely suspicious they can drag you into the investigation on the spot (you're already in it a little bit), and they may also find something that looks like evidence for their case tying you to whatever, in which case you get arrested.</p><p>The cops don't have a right to look at your stuff unless they have evidence that you've done something wrong.  Why would you let them try to find something you may not even think was wrong in the first place.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>No jury will convict. "Deep int he hard drive" - it is to laugh.</p></div><p>That's not true at all, while juries usually get it right I think, there are a number of cases where the prosecutor was good at portraying the defendant as the criminal - they "just knew" he was the one who did it.  In that case they will sometimes disregard the "reasonable doubt" metric (especially likely if it is for something like child port).  "I accidentally downloaded it" is a horrible defense, and will leave the jury thinking "yeah right" and convict the hell out of the guy.</p><p>I disagree with a poster above who said if you really did accidentally download child porn you wouldn't hide it, you'd report it - most people think "Oh shit, they are going to think I like kiddy porn!" and bury the hell out of stuff like that.  They are more afraid of someone pinning something on them unjustly.</p><p>However, I think it is great advice to call the FBI when you see something like that, get it on record that you accidentally downloaded kiddy porn and you want to know what the FBI is doing to catch the bastards who make and distribute it.</p><p>The other piece of this though, is that he was using Limewire and almost certainly sharing copyrighted material illegally.  Going to the FBI with evidence of kiddy porn (and a download from limewire would be an excellent place to start tracking that shit) could result in multiple copyright infringement violations - another reason to bury the download instead of reporting it.</p><p>The true moral of the story, is quit breaking the fucking law, and if you see someone else breaking the law (like distributing child porn) fucking tell someone.  Do those two things and you'll be fine unless someone decides to railroad you.  Then you could be screwed, but your record will be your best defense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's one thing people are really stupid about - if a cop ( or FBI agent , same thing ) comes knocking at your door wanting to " look around " and you know you did n't do anything wrong , do n't let them in.At the very least if they find anything remotely suspicious they can drag you into the investigation on the spot ( you 're already in it a little bit ) , and they may also find something that looks like evidence for their case tying you to whatever , in which case you get arrested.The cops do n't have a right to look at your stuff unless they have evidence that you 've done something wrong .
Why would you let them try to find something you may not even think was wrong in the first place.No jury will convict .
" Deep int he hard drive " - it is to laugh.That 's not true at all , while juries usually get it right I think , there are a number of cases where the prosecutor was good at portraying the defendant as the criminal - they " just knew " he was the one who did it .
In that case they will sometimes disregard the " reasonable doubt " metric ( especially likely if it is for something like child port ) .
" I accidentally downloaded it " is a horrible defense , and will leave the jury thinking " yeah right " and convict the hell out of the guy.I disagree with a poster above who said if you really did accidentally download child porn you would n't hide it , you 'd report it - most people think " Oh shit , they are going to think I like kiddy porn !
" and bury the hell out of stuff like that .
They are more afraid of someone pinning something on them unjustly.However , I think it is great advice to call the FBI when you see something like that , get it on record that you accidentally downloaded kiddy porn and you want to know what the FBI is doing to catch the bastards who make and distribute it.The other piece of this though , is that he was using Limewire and almost certainly sharing copyrighted material illegally .
Going to the FBI with evidence of kiddy porn ( and a download from limewire would be an excellent place to start tracking that shit ) could result in multiple copyright infringement violations - another reason to bury the download instead of reporting it.The true moral of the story , is quit breaking the fucking law , and if you see someone else breaking the law ( like distributing child porn ) fucking tell someone .
Do those two things and you 'll be fine unless someone decides to railroad you .
Then you could be screwed , but your record will be your best defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's one thing people are really stupid about - if a cop (or FBI agent, same thing) comes knocking at your door wanting to "look around" and you know you didn't do anything wrong, don't let them in.At the very least if they find anything remotely suspicious they can drag you into the investigation on the spot (you're already in it a little bit), and they may also find something that looks like evidence for their case tying you to whatever, in which case you get arrested.The cops don't have a right to look at your stuff unless they have evidence that you've done something wrong.
Why would you let them try to find something you may not even think was wrong in the first place.No jury will convict.
"Deep int he hard drive" - it is to laugh.That's not true at all, while juries usually get it right I think, there are a number of cases where the prosecutor was good at portraying the defendant as the criminal - they "just knew" he was the one who did it.
In that case they will sometimes disregard the "reasonable doubt" metric (especially likely if it is for something like child port).
"I accidentally downloaded it" is a horrible defense, and will leave the jury thinking "yeah right" and convict the hell out of the guy.I disagree with a poster above who said if you really did accidentally download child porn you wouldn't hide it, you'd report it - most people think "Oh shit, they are going to think I like kiddy porn!
" and bury the hell out of stuff like that.
They are more afraid of someone pinning something on them unjustly.However, I think it is great advice to call the FBI when you see something like that, get it on record that you accidentally downloaded kiddy porn and you want to know what the FBI is doing to catch the bastards who make and distribute it.The other piece of this though, is that he was using Limewire and almost certainly sharing copyrighted material illegally.
Going to the FBI with evidence of kiddy porn (and a download from limewire would be an excellent place to start tracking that shit) could result in multiple copyright infringement violations - another reason to bury the download instead of reporting it.The true moral of the story, is quit breaking the fucking law, and if you see someone else breaking the law (like distributing child porn) fucking tell someone.
Do those two things and you'll be fine unless someone decides to railroad you.
Then you could be screwed, but your record will be your best defense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339524</id>
	<title>THINK of the CHILDREN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260017340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of feeling sorry for this 22 year old, why can't you nerds THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of feeling sorry for this 22 year old , why ca n't you nerds THINK OF THE CHILDREN ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of feeling sorry for this 22 year old, why can't you nerds THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335956</id>
	<title>Re:Public Defender</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260035940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Matt is pleading guilty on the advice of his public defender in hopes of getting a three and a half year sentence.</i> </p><p>In other words, he doesn't have the money to actually fight this.</p></div><p>Many public defenders are lawyers called upon by the courts and they're not making the billable hours they need by doing it. So, the quicker they get rid of the case the more apt they are to get back to business.</p><p>Regardless of what happens now. The kid's life is over. His name is all over the place and employers who do any sort of background check will find this. </p><p>He will have to spend the rest of his life on some sort of public aid. He may become a bitter angry person that cannot contribute to society even if he wants to contribute. What a goddamn waste.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Matt is pleading guilty on the advice of his public defender in hopes of getting a three and a half year sentence .
In other words , he does n't have the money to actually fight this.Many public defenders are lawyers called upon by the courts and they 're not making the billable hours they need by doing it .
So , the quicker they get rid of the case the more apt they are to get back to business.Regardless of what happens now .
The kid 's life is over .
His name is all over the place and employers who do any sort of background check will find this .
He will have to spend the rest of his life on some sort of public aid .
He may become a bitter angry person that can not contribute to society even if he wants to contribute .
What a goddamn waste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Matt is pleading guilty on the advice of his public defender in hopes of getting a three and a half year sentence.
In other words, he doesn't have the money to actually fight this.Many public defenders are lawyers called upon by the courts and they're not making the billable hours they need by doing it.
So, the quicker they get rid of the case the more apt they are to get back to business.Regardless of what happens now.
The kid's life is over.
His name is all over the place and employers who do any sort of background check will find this.
He will have to spend the rest of his life on some sort of public aid.
He may become a bitter angry person that cannot contribute to society even if he wants to contribute.
What a goddamn waste.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337936</id>
	<title>Softraid Encryption</title>
	<author>ipv6boy</author>
	<datestamp>1260005220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>God damn. Why has no one mentioned encryption? It's a matter of privacy. I use OpenBSD softraid encryption on all my boxes. Fuck the police or anyone else who wants to see my hard drives. I have a right to fucking remain silent. I have no child porn. Only college girls mud wrestling naked while they grab each others boobs. They are over 18... the way I like 'em.</htmltext>
<tokenext>God damn .
Why has no one mentioned encryption ?
It 's a matter of privacy .
I use OpenBSD softraid encryption on all my boxes .
Fuck the police or anyone else who wants to see my hard drives .
I have a right to fucking remain silent .
I have no child porn .
Only college girls mud wrestling naked while they grab each others boobs .
They are over 18... the way I like 'em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God damn.
Why has no one mentioned encryption?
It's a matter of privacy.
I use OpenBSD softraid encryption on all my boxes.
Fuck the police or anyone else who wants to see my hard drives.
I have a right to fucking remain silent.
I have no child porn.
Only college girls mud wrestling naked while they grab each others boobs.
They are over 18... the way I like 'em.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335882</id>
	<title>Re:It happens</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1260035640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Could I be potentially liable if the previous owner had been a kiddie-porn freako? The images might still be buried deep in the disk after all.</p></div></blockquote><p> The previous owner doesn't need to be a "kiddie porn freako" for that to happen; just someone that downloaded a bad p2p file like this guy apparently did.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could I be potentially liable if the previous owner had been a kiddie-porn freako ?
The images might still be buried deep in the disk after all .
The previous owner does n't need to be a " kiddie porn freako " for that to happen ; just someone that downloaded a bad p2p file like this guy apparently did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could I be potentially liable if the previous owner had been a kiddie-porn freako?
The images might still be buried deep in the disk after all.
The previous owner doesn't need to be a "kiddie porn freako" for that to happen; just someone that downloaded a bad p2p file like this guy apparently did.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335610</id>
	<title>the real lesson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the FBI shows up at your door and asks to search your computer, the correct answer is 'No.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the FBI shows up at your door and asks to search your computer , the correct answer is 'No .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the FBI shows up at your door and asks to search your computer, the correct answer is 'No.
'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335826</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260035340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you really forget accidental child porn on your hdd for a year ? If you do "forget it there", you belong where law says you should be at. Every normal person would delete the file after opening it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really forget accidental child porn on your hdd for a year ?
If you do " forget it there " , you belong where law says you should be at .
Every normal person would delete the file after opening it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really forget accidental child porn on your hdd for a year ?
If you do "forget it there", you belong where law says you should be at.
Every normal person would delete the file after opening it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336566</id>
	<title>Re:Honest question: watching pictures is wrong?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Please someone answer me as honestly as they can: even if that guy happened to willingly watch child porn images, what damage does that do to society? Obviously exploiting children to take those pictures is a bad thing. Yet, we are talking about a random person who never harmed or abused a child. He even downloaded them from a P2P network, which means that he didn't indirectly supported harming children by financing it. How will society improve itself if the justice system throws that man in jail for yeas to come? What is there to be gained?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// Posted anonymously to avoid all that social stigma that is promptly associated with those that question society's knee jerk reaction regarding child pornography.</p></div><p>The damage done to society is people that participate in this crap (even if just to look) create demand.</p><p>In reference to the article and removing my foil hat, there has to be more to the story than this.  Seriously.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please someone answer me as honestly as they can : even if that guy happened to willingly watch child porn images , what damage does that do to society ?
Obviously exploiting children to take those pictures is a bad thing .
Yet , we are talking about a random person who never harmed or abused a child .
He even downloaded them from a P2P network , which means that he did n't indirectly supported harming children by financing it .
How will society improve itself if the justice system throws that man in jail for yeas to come ?
What is there to be gained ?
// Posted anonymously to avoid all that social stigma that is promptly associated with those that question society 's knee jerk reaction regarding child pornography.The damage done to society is people that participate in this crap ( even if just to look ) create demand.In reference to the article and removing my foil hat , there has to be more to the story than this .
Seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please someone answer me as honestly as they can: even if that guy happened to willingly watch child porn images, what damage does that do to society?
Obviously exploiting children to take those pictures is a bad thing.
Yet, we are talking about a random person who never harmed or abused a child.
He even downloaded them from a P2P network, which means that he didn't indirectly supported harming children by financing it.
How will society improve itself if the justice system throws that man in jail for yeas to come?
What is there to be gained?
// Posted anonymously to avoid all that social stigma that is promptly associated with those that question society's knee jerk reaction regarding child pornography.The damage done to society is people that participate in this crap (even if just to look) create demand.In reference to the article and removing my foil hat, there has to be more to the story than this.
Seriously.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590</id>
	<title>Bad Ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DO NOT CALL THE AUTHORITIES</p><p>Worst idea ever. If you actually have undeleted CP on your computer you will get 20 years.<br>The only safe thing to do is destroy the hard drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DO NOT CALL THE AUTHORITIESWorst idea ever .
If you actually have undeleted CP on your computer you will get 20 years.The only safe thing to do is destroy the hard drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DO NOT CALL THE AUTHORITIESWorst idea ever.
If you actually have undeleted CP on your computer you will get 20 years.The only safe thing to do is destroy the hard drive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336088</id>
	<title>Re:why we know not to call the cops</title>
	<author>jbeach</author>
	<datestamp>1260036780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly right. The Justice system isn't really about justice - it's a giant machine that pursues law enforcement and is fed with convictions.

It's a good thing we have it, and we need it, but we need to be aware of it's limitations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly right .
The Justice system is n't really about justice - it 's a giant machine that pursues law enforcement and is fed with convictions .
It 's a good thing we have it , and we need it , but we need to be aware of it 's limitations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly right.
The Justice system isn't really about justice - it's a giant machine that pursues law enforcement and is fed with convictions.
It's a good thing we have it, and we need it, but we need to be aware of it's limitations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</id>
	<title>Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260038040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to assume this guy is not guilty, not because of the presumption of innocence, but rather by the lack of accessible cp on his computer. Pedophiles don't just quit cold turkey, and even if he is a pedophile, quit cold turkey (doesn't happen), hey great, he's fixed his problem on his own.  Going with that:</p><p>Where does the government keep finding 12 morons to vote guilty in the jury box?  I know this particular guy's case isn't going to a jury, but his lawyer seems to think he's screwed if he does. With easy to explain facts like this, both the DA (who wouldn't bring charges that would hurt his win \%) and defense thinks there is a high likely hood of conviction? Are you kidding me?</p><p>And how many CRAZY guilty verdicts have we read about? Why are juries stacked with idiots too stupid to see that they could just as likely be in the defendant's seat for a multitude of offenses?</p><p>Quick side story: *all numbers, except age are fudged to prevent recrimination* I'm 32 (so far so good on my plan to outlive Jesus) and have been on a Jury 1 time. It was a drug charge, which I kinda figured out during jury selection based on the questions I was asked, so I shaped my answers accordingly.  It ended up being a trial of a 19 year old kid found with 5 marijuana plants in a "grow box" (nice setup, bought online for like 2k, could of built his own for 800).  The prosecution presented their case, the defense only called the defendant, who swore up and down that they were only for personal use (we're not in a medical marijuana state), and the defendant pretty much begged for mercy. I swear at this point one of my co-juror's started to tear up.  Final arguments came and went, and then the Judge, the last arbiter of law said (paraphrasing here) that we were only to determine if he possessed the plants, and if so, to find him guilty.</p><p>We got back to the jury room and as I'm told we're not supposed to do, but always gets done regardless, we took a vote. 11-1. IANAL but I believed without knowing that if I gave my real reason for not wanting to convict that I'd be replaced (we had 2 alternates).  I've never had to choose my wording so carefully, meanwhile the rest of the Jury kept saying things like : "the judge said we had to vote guilty" and "It doesn't matter if I think he did anything wrong, the judge said he did wrong" (that last one, I SWEAR TO GOD, was uttered word for word, i will never forget a syllable).  It took 2 hours of carefully worded analogies to sway 1 other to my side, from there we got to 3 in 10 minutes, at 4, the whole room switched. Let me say that again, at 4 ppl, the remaining 8 switched over, not out of a sense of civic duty, but because they were tired and wanted to go home. WITH A MAN'S LIFE IN THE BALANCE.</p><p>When we returned our verdict, the judge didn't look at what the foreman wrote (he opened it, looked at its general direction and refolded it), when the foreman not guilty, the Judge damn near fell out of his chair, the DA did a real life triple take, and the defense attorney looked like a deer in headlights.  The point is that all 3 professionals INCLUDING the defense attorney, were shocked that the jury failed to rubber stamp guilty on this guy.</p><p>After we were relieved 4 of the other jurors came to me and admitted thru conversation that they smoked pot and didn't want to vote guilty at all, but thought they had to because the judge had told them to.  As they were talking, all I could think was, "So this is how democracy ends, with sheep"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to assume this guy is not guilty , not because of the presumption of innocence , but rather by the lack of accessible cp on his computer .
Pedophiles do n't just quit cold turkey , and even if he is a pedophile , quit cold turkey ( does n't happen ) , hey great , he 's fixed his problem on his own .
Going with that : Where does the government keep finding 12 morons to vote guilty in the jury box ?
I know this particular guy 's case is n't going to a jury , but his lawyer seems to think he 's screwed if he does .
With easy to explain facts like this , both the DA ( who would n't bring charges that would hurt his win \ % ) and defense thinks there is a high likely hood of conviction ?
Are you kidding me ? And how many CRAZY guilty verdicts have we read about ?
Why are juries stacked with idiots too stupid to see that they could just as likely be in the defendant 's seat for a multitude of offenses ? Quick side story : * all numbers , except age are fudged to prevent recrimination * I 'm 32 ( so far so good on my plan to outlive Jesus ) and have been on a Jury 1 time .
It was a drug charge , which I kinda figured out during jury selection based on the questions I was asked , so I shaped my answers accordingly .
It ended up being a trial of a 19 year old kid found with 5 marijuana plants in a " grow box " ( nice setup , bought online for like 2k , could of built his own for 800 ) .
The prosecution presented their case , the defense only called the defendant , who swore up and down that they were only for personal use ( we 're not in a medical marijuana state ) , and the defendant pretty much begged for mercy .
I swear at this point one of my co-juror 's started to tear up .
Final arguments came and went , and then the Judge , the last arbiter of law said ( paraphrasing here ) that we were only to determine if he possessed the plants , and if so , to find him guilty.We got back to the jury room and as I 'm told we 're not supposed to do , but always gets done regardless , we took a vote .
11-1. IANAL but I believed without knowing that if I gave my real reason for not wanting to convict that I 'd be replaced ( we had 2 alternates ) .
I 've never had to choose my wording so carefully , meanwhile the rest of the Jury kept saying things like : " the judge said we had to vote guilty " and " It does n't matter if I think he did anything wrong , the judge said he did wrong " ( that last one , I SWEAR TO GOD , was uttered word for word , i will never forget a syllable ) .
It took 2 hours of carefully worded analogies to sway 1 other to my side , from there we got to 3 in 10 minutes , at 4 , the whole room switched .
Let me say that again , at 4 ppl , the remaining 8 switched over , not out of a sense of civic duty , but because they were tired and wanted to go home .
WITH A MAN 'S LIFE IN THE BALANCE.When we returned our verdict , the judge did n't look at what the foreman wrote ( he opened it , looked at its general direction and refolded it ) , when the foreman not guilty , the Judge damn near fell out of his chair , the DA did a real life triple take , and the defense attorney looked like a deer in headlights .
The point is that all 3 professionals INCLUDING the defense attorney , were shocked that the jury failed to rubber stamp guilty on this guy.After we were relieved 4 of the other jurors came to me and admitted thru conversation that they smoked pot and did n't want to vote guilty at all , but thought they had to because the judge had told them to .
As they were talking , all I could think was , " So this is how democracy ends , with sheep "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to assume this guy is not guilty, not because of the presumption of innocence, but rather by the lack of accessible cp on his computer.
Pedophiles don't just quit cold turkey, and even if he is a pedophile, quit cold turkey (doesn't happen), hey great, he's fixed his problem on his own.
Going with that:Where does the government keep finding 12 morons to vote guilty in the jury box?
I know this particular guy's case isn't going to a jury, but his lawyer seems to think he's screwed if he does.
With easy to explain facts like this, both the DA (who wouldn't bring charges that would hurt his win \%) and defense thinks there is a high likely hood of conviction?
Are you kidding me?And how many CRAZY guilty verdicts have we read about?
Why are juries stacked with idiots too stupid to see that they could just as likely be in the defendant's seat for a multitude of offenses?Quick side story: *all numbers, except age are fudged to prevent recrimination* I'm 32 (so far so good on my plan to outlive Jesus) and have been on a Jury 1 time.
It was a drug charge, which I kinda figured out during jury selection based on the questions I was asked, so I shaped my answers accordingly.
It ended up being a trial of a 19 year old kid found with 5 marijuana plants in a "grow box" (nice setup, bought online for like 2k, could of built his own for 800).
The prosecution presented their case, the defense only called the defendant, who swore up and down that they were only for personal use (we're not in a medical marijuana state), and the defendant pretty much begged for mercy.
I swear at this point one of my co-juror's started to tear up.
Final arguments came and went, and then the Judge, the last arbiter of law said (paraphrasing here) that we were only to determine if he possessed the plants, and if so, to find him guilty.We got back to the jury room and as I'm told we're not supposed to do, but always gets done regardless, we took a vote.
11-1. IANAL but I believed without knowing that if I gave my real reason for not wanting to convict that I'd be replaced (we had 2 alternates).
I've never had to choose my wording so carefully, meanwhile the rest of the Jury kept saying things like : "the judge said we had to vote guilty" and "It doesn't matter if I think he did anything wrong, the judge said he did wrong" (that last one, I SWEAR TO GOD, was uttered word for word, i will never forget a syllable).
It took 2 hours of carefully worded analogies to sway 1 other to my side, from there we got to 3 in 10 minutes, at 4, the whole room switched.
Let me say that again, at 4 ppl, the remaining 8 switched over, not out of a sense of civic duty, but because they were tired and wanted to go home.
WITH A MAN'S LIFE IN THE BALANCE.When we returned our verdict, the judge didn't look at what the foreman wrote (he opened it, looked at its general direction and refolded it), when the foreman not guilty, the Judge damn near fell out of his chair, the DA did a real life triple take, and the defense attorney looked like a deer in headlights.
The point is that all 3 professionals INCLUDING the defense attorney, were shocked that the jury failed to rubber stamp guilty on this guy.After we were relieved 4 of the other jurors came to me and admitted thru conversation that they smoked pot and didn't want to vote guilty at all, but thought they had to because the judge had told them to.
As they were talking, all I could think was, "So this is how democracy ends, with sheep"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339484</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1260017100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... I'd say that simple POSSESSION of...</p><p>almost anything made artificially illegal can be used to frame somebody that is considered undesirable by the powers that be or even a nasty neighbor, relative or competitor for the affections of some man or woman. How easy is it for somebody to put something declared to be illegal, such as dope, into somebody's car or even into the pocket of an article of clothing hung on the coat rack in a restaurant? After that, simply "anonymously" call the cops and the victim is salted away in prison for many years.</p><p>I think an ACTION or failure to take an action ought to be the only reasons for which a person could become a felon. Our prisons would be about half empty, if only those people who actually did something wrong or failed to do something right, (such as pay taxes rightfully due) were put into prison.</p><p>It is interesting that the 10 Commandments, which long have been the basis of Western civilization's laws, contain no prohibition against the possession of something. You actually have to DO something bad to break God's law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I 'd say that simple POSSESSION of...almost anything made artificially illegal can be used to frame somebody that is considered undesirable by the powers that be or even a nasty neighbor , relative or competitor for the affections of some man or woman .
How easy is it for somebody to put something declared to be illegal , such as dope , into somebody 's car or even into the pocket of an article of clothing hung on the coat rack in a restaurant ?
After that , simply " anonymously " call the cops and the victim is salted away in prison for many years.I think an ACTION or failure to take an action ought to be the only reasons for which a person could become a felon .
Our prisons would be about half empty , if only those people who actually did something wrong or failed to do something right , ( such as pay taxes rightfully due ) were put into prison.It is interesting that the 10 Commandments , which long have been the basis of Western civilization 's laws , contain no prohibition against the possession of something .
You actually have to DO something bad to break God 's law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I'd say that simple POSSESSION of...almost anything made artificially illegal can be used to frame somebody that is considered undesirable by the powers that be or even a nasty neighbor, relative or competitor for the affections of some man or woman.
How easy is it for somebody to put something declared to be illegal, such as dope, into somebody's car or even into the pocket of an article of clothing hung on the coat rack in a restaurant?
After that, simply "anonymously" call the cops and the victim is salted away in prison for many years.I think an ACTION or failure to take an action ought to be the only reasons for which a person could become a felon.
Our prisons would be about half empty, if only those people who actually did something wrong or failed to do something right, (such as pay taxes rightfully due) were put into prison.It is interesting that the 10 Commandments, which long have been the basis of Western civilization's laws, contain no prohibition against the possession of something.
You actually have to DO something bad to break God's law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335644</id>
	<title>self-incrimination</title>
	<author>TheSHAD0W</author>
	<datestamp>1260034380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'The FBI could not comment on this specific case, but said if child pornography is ever downloaded accidentally, the user needs to call authorities immediately.'</p><p>At which point you've just confessed to trafficking in child porn.  No, the proper thing to do is have a secure file deletion utility to nuke all evidence on your system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'The FBI could not comment on this specific case , but said if child pornography is ever downloaded accidentally , the user needs to call authorities immediately .
'At which point you 've just confessed to trafficking in child porn .
No , the proper thing to do is have a secure file deletion utility to nuke all evidence on your system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'The FBI could not comment on this specific case, but said if child pornography is ever downloaded accidentally, the user needs to call authorities immediately.
'At which point you've just confessed to trafficking in child porn.
No, the proper thing to do is have a secure file deletion utility to nuke all evidence on your system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338716</id>
	<title>Re:it's like illegal immigration...</title>
	<author>masterzora</author>
	<datestamp>1260011220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>*while I personally cringe any time someone "plays the race card", I do think it's weird that Congress (or some State legislature) hasn't applied the same technique to squash the "meth epidemic" and wonder if that is because there seem to be meth heads in all skin tones.</p></div><p>If the amount of meth production in my ~95\% white hometown is any indication, either there are meth heads in a number of skin tones, or people are afraid of applying such profiling to white people.  Honestly, neither would surprise me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* while I personally cringe any time someone " plays the race card " , I do think it 's weird that Congress ( or some State legislature ) has n't applied the same technique to squash the " meth epidemic " and wonder if that is because there seem to be meth heads in all skin tones.If the amount of meth production in my ~ 95 \ % white hometown is any indication , either there are meth heads in a number of skin tones , or people are afraid of applying such profiling to white people .
Honestly , neither would surprise me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*while I personally cringe any time someone "plays the race card", I do think it's weird that Congress (or some State legislature) hasn't applied the same technique to squash the "meth epidemic" and wonder if that is because there seem to be meth heads in all skin tones.If the amount of meth production in my ~95\% white hometown is any indication, either there are meth heads in a number of skin tones, or people are afraid of applying such profiling to white people.
Honestly, neither would surprise me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337618</id>
	<title>Just get out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260046380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many people that posted in this thread seem to miss a simple thing. Which proves one more time that when the whole world is considering the Americans being stupid, then the whole world has a point. Look what people in other countries do. Hint: look at the poor countries. People in poor countries consider the poverty a bad thing, a thing that makes their life worse than they think they deserve. So they just GTFO from those countries. Patriotism is a great thing, but the respect between a country and its citizens must be mutual. If a country has such dumb laws that screw you so badly, screw that country. Find another one. You will be happier, you will be free, and you won't be hated because some rich greedy morons that happen to share the same citizenship with you provoked yet another war and are killing innocent people on the other side of the Earth, in the name of *cough* Democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many people that posted in this thread seem to miss a simple thing .
Which proves one more time that when the whole world is considering the Americans being stupid , then the whole world has a point .
Look what people in other countries do .
Hint : look at the poor countries .
People in poor countries consider the poverty a bad thing , a thing that makes their life worse than they think they deserve .
So they just GTFO from those countries .
Patriotism is a great thing , but the respect between a country and its citizens must be mutual .
If a country has such dumb laws that screw you so badly , screw that country .
Find another one .
You will be happier , you will be free , and you wo n't be hated because some rich greedy morons that happen to share the same citizenship with you provoked yet another war and are killing innocent people on the other side of the Earth , in the name of * cough * Democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many people that posted in this thread seem to miss a simple thing.
Which proves one more time that when the whole world is considering the Americans being stupid, then the whole world has a point.
Look what people in other countries do.
Hint: look at the poor countries.
People in poor countries consider the poverty a bad thing, a thing that makes their life worse than they think they deserve.
So they just GTFO from those countries.
Patriotism is a great thing, but the respect between a country and its citizens must be mutual.
If a country has such dumb laws that screw you so badly, screw that country.
Find another one.
You will be happier, you will be free, and you won't be hated because some rich greedy morons that happen to share the same citizenship with you provoked yet another war and are killing innocent people on the other side of the Earth, in the name of *cough* Democracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337862</id>
	<title>Re:Never volunteer anything to the cops</title>
	<author>WCguru42</author>
	<datestamp>1260004620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No jury will convict.<br>
&nbsp; "Deep int he hard drive" - it is to laugh.  Must have been a really old hard drive - most of them are pretty shallow nowadays.</p></div><p>You have a lot of faith in the amount of technical knowledge that the general public has.  In regards to this, I wonder if there would be a case that a jury that doesn't understand technology is not a jury of your peers (this assumes that you are yourself knowledgeable about technology)?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No jury will convict .
  " Deep int he hard drive " - it is to laugh .
Must have been a really old hard drive - most of them are pretty shallow nowadays.You have a lot of faith in the amount of technical knowledge that the general public has .
In regards to this , I wonder if there would be a case that a jury that does n't understand technology is not a jury of your peers ( this assumes that you are yourself knowledgeable about technology ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No jury will convict.
  "Deep int he hard drive" - it is to laugh.
Must have been a really old hard drive - most of them are pretty shallow nowadays.You have a lot of faith in the amount of technical knowledge that the general public has.
In regards to this, I wonder if there would be a case that a jury that doesn't understand technology is not a jury of your peers (this assumes that you are yourself knowledgeable about technology)?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336046</id>
	<title>Re:Never volunteer anything to the cops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260036600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Depends where and the jury. If the guy was married and dling regular old porn and lived in a bible belt. There is a high chance the jury will ping the guy with guilty because of moral outrage alone. Juries are there to decide how guilty someone is, often that extends beyond what they happen to be guilty of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends where and the jury .
If the guy was married and dling regular old porn and lived in a bible belt .
There is a high chance the jury will ping the guy with guilty because of moral outrage alone .
Juries are there to decide how guilty someone is , often that extends beyond what they happen to be guilty of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends where and the jury.
If the guy was married and dling regular old porn and lived in a bible belt.
There is a high chance the jury will ping the guy with guilty because of moral outrage alone.
Juries are there to decide how guilty someone is, often that extends beyond what they happen to be guilty of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340442</id>
	<title>Borderline troll?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260025920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Way to exaggerate. The real problem is that people are too afraid to defend themselves. You can counter sue in cases like this, you know? You can also show that the prosecution is using an unconstitutional interpretation of the law, and even appeal on human rights grounds.</p><p>The problem is that people are too prepared to settle for plea bargains handed out by a legal system that functions almost entirely on charge/conviction statistics, by prosecutors who hope to make a name for themselves by having "won" so many cases. It's NOT that people (with the exception of those prosecuting) don't want to prevent injustice - I'm sure if you asked a sampled of 100 random people on the street what they thought of these cases, &gt;95\% would agree it was completely absurd - it's that it's simply impossible to help someone who won't help themselves and insists on taking the first possible way out because they're too frightened to stand their ground.</p><p>It's like the RIAA cases all over again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Way to exaggerate .
The real problem is that people are too afraid to defend themselves .
You can counter sue in cases like this , you know ?
You can also show that the prosecution is using an unconstitutional interpretation of the law , and even appeal on human rights grounds.The problem is that people are too prepared to settle for plea bargains handed out by a legal system that functions almost entirely on charge/conviction statistics , by prosecutors who hope to make a name for themselves by having " won " so many cases .
It 's NOT that people ( with the exception of those prosecuting ) do n't want to prevent injustice - I 'm sure if you asked a sampled of 100 random people on the street what they thought of these cases , &gt; 95 \ % would agree it was completely absurd - it 's that it 's simply impossible to help someone who wo n't help themselves and insists on taking the first possible way out because they 're too frightened to stand their ground.It 's like the RIAA cases all over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way to exaggerate.
The real problem is that people are too afraid to defend themselves.
You can counter sue in cases like this, you know?
You can also show that the prosecution is using an unconstitutional interpretation of the law, and even appeal on human rights grounds.The problem is that people are too prepared to settle for plea bargains handed out by a legal system that functions almost entirely on charge/conviction statistics, by prosecutors who hope to make a name for themselves by having "won" so many cases.
It's NOT that people (with the exception of those prosecuting) don't want to prevent injustice - I'm sure if you asked a sampled of 100 random people on the street what they thought of these cases, &gt;95\% would agree it was completely absurd - it's that it's simply impossible to help someone who won't help themselves and insists on taking the first possible way out because they're too frightened to stand their ground.It's like the RIAA cases all over again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338578</id>
	<title>Re:Call the cops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260010140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the guy is 22. He's getting 20 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the guy is 22 .
He 's getting 20 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the guy is 22.
He's getting 20 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337848</id>
	<title>Re:Public Defender</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260004560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>After doing his jail time he should just move away from that crazy country that's done it to him. Fortunately there are still some relatively sane places left in this world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After doing his jail time he should just move away from that crazy country that 's done it to him .
Fortunately there are still some relatively sane places left in this world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After doing his jail time he should just move away from that crazy country that's done it to him.
Fortunately there are still some relatively sane places left in this world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336864</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Ideas</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1260041400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Software nuke the drive several times then physically destroy it and toss it in someone else's garbage can.</p><p>This is just nuts and the ACLU. EFF.... someone needs to get involved ( assuming f course, the guy is telling the truth.. but i can see how it happened, its not that hard to get to the wrong place and get something you don't want..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Software nuke the drive several times then physically destroy it and toss it in someone else 's garbage can.This is just nuts and the ACLU .
EFF.... someone needs to get involved ( assuming f course , the guy is telling the truth.. but i can see how it happened , its not that hard to get to the wrong place and get something you do n't want. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software nuke the drive several times then physically destroy it and toss it in someone else's garbage can.This is just nuts and the ACLU.
EFF.... someone needs to get involved ( assuming f course, the guy is telling the truth.. but i can see how it happened, its not that hard to get to the wrong place and get something you don't want..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337910</id>
	<title>Full Disk Encryption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260005040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While ripping out the HDD and destroying it in the event of something like this, a better solution would be to not let yourself get into these types of situations in the first place. I'm not saying its impossible to accidentally download child pornography or anything else that may get you into some kind of trouble. However, at the same time if you had full disk encryption and the FBI showed up to your house asking to search your machine, well, good luck to them is all I have to say. The chances of them finding anything on a fully encrypted hard drive are zero. Combine that with a multipass delete over the potentially incriminating file and you should be safe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While ripping out the HDD and destroying it in the event of something like this , a better solution would be to not let yourself get into these types of situations in the first place .
I 'm not saying its impossible to accidentally download child pornography or anything else that may get you into some kind of trouble .
However , at the same time if you had full disk encryption and the FBI showed up to your house asking to search your machine , well , good luck to them is all I have to say .
The chances of them finding anything on a fully encrypted hard drive are zero .
Combine that with a multipass delete over the potentially incriminating file and you should be safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While ripping out the HDD and destroying it in the event of something like this, a better solution would be to not let yourself get into these types of situations in the first place.
I'm not saying its impossible to accidentally download child pornography or anything else that may get you into some kind of trouble.
However, at the same time if you had full disk encryption and the FBI showed up to your house asking to search your machine, well, good luck to them is all I have to say.
The chances of them finding anything on a fully encrypted hard drive are zero.
Combine that with a multipass delete over the potentially incriminating file and you should be safe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30353322</id>
	<title>Judged by robot/computer?</title>
	<author>KiwiCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1260202980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, isn't the point of having a judicial system to separate the criminals from the public (ie determining innocence or guilt), as well as sentencing? Isn't the purpose of a Judge to judge? If not, then write a program (Sentencer 2k10), it would save a lot money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , is n't the point of having a judicial system to separate the criminals from the public ( ie determining innocence or guilt ) , as well as sentencing ?
Is n't the purpose of a Judge to judge ?
If not , then write a program ( Sentencer 2k10 ) , it would save a lot money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, isn't the point of having a judicial system to separate the criminals from the public (ie determining innocence or guilt), as well as sentencing?
Isn't the purpose of a Judge to judge?
If not, then write a program (Sentencer 2k10), it would save a lot money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337830</id>
	<title>A canary in the coal-mine...</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1260004500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mindless "kiddy porn" hysteria is out of control, and it's a canary in the coal-mine for further suppression of free speech, because all tyrannies wean themselves on suppressing the most unpopular freedoms first.  Any dissident can now have doubleplusungood.png or crimethink.avi uploaded to his computer and deprived of his liberty for the rest of his life!  (Being released from prison under the current "former sex offender" programs isn't much better than still being in prison!)</p><p>In most cases "kiddy porn" doesn't even depict an actual crime (the "market" is over-saturated with millions, someday an accumulation of billions of high school idiots posting pictures of themselves, as I once did), but even if it does - viewing an image of a crime is not same as committing it!  In a rational world, the alleged victim and/or her parents / guardians should decide whether rape has taken place, with "bad parents" being subject to social ostracism and the child's Natural Right to sue for emancipation (jury-granted full sovereignty or transfer of custody).  When government force is put in charge of regulating family life, the former grows beyond all bounds and the latter collapses!  All those victimless restrictions on human sexuality only encourage violent rape, or the psychological projection of violence into other aspects of one's life!</p><p>No possible combination of 1's and 0's should EVER be illegal!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mindless " kiddy porn " hysteria is out of control , and it 's a canary in the coal-mine for further suppression of free speech , because all tyrannies wean themselves on suppressing the most unpopular freedoms first .
Any dissident can now have doubleplusungood.png or crimethink.avi uploaded to his computer and deprived of his liberty for the rest of his life !
( Being released from prison under the current " former sex offender " programs is n't much better than still being in prison !
) In most cases " kiddy porn " does n't even depict an actual crime ( the " market " is over-saturated with millions , someday an accumulation of billions of high school idiots posting pictures of themselves , as I once did ) , but even if it does - viewing an image of a crime is not same as committing it !
In a rational world , the alleged victim and/or her parents / guardians should decide whether rape has taken place , with " bad parents " being subject to social ostracism and the child 's Natural Right to sue for emancipation ( jury-granted full sovereignty or transfer of custody ) .
When government force is put in charge of regulating family life , the former grows beyond all bounds and the latter collapses !
All those victimless restrictions on human sexuality only encourage violent rape , or the psychological projection of violence into other aspects of one 's life ! No possible combination of 1 's and 0 's should EVER be illegal !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mindless "kiddy porn" hysteria is out of control, and it's a canary in the coal-mine for further suppression of free speech, because all tyrannies wean themselves on suppressing the most unpopular freedoms first.
Any dissident can now have doubleplusungood.png or crimethink.avi uploaded to his computer and deprived of his liberty for the rest of his life!
(Being released from prison under the current "former sex offender" programs isn't much better than still being in prison!
)In most cases "kiddy porn" doesn't even depict an actual crime (the "market" is over-saturated with millions, someday an accumulation of billions of high school idiots posting pictures of themselves, as I once did), but even if it does - viewing an image of a crime is not same as committing it!
In a rational world, the alleged victim and/or her parents / guardians should decide whether rape has taken place, with "bad parents" being subject to social ostracism and the child's Natural Right to sue for emancipation (jury-granted full sovereignty or transfer of custody).
When government force is put in charge of regulating family life, the former grows beyond all bounds and the latter collapses!
All those victimless restrictions on human sexuality only encourage violent rape, or the psychological projection of violence into other aspects of one's life!No possible combination of 1's and 0's should EVER be illegal!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338042</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260005880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You went against the pervasive human behaviour illustrated by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram\_experiment/" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Milgram experiment</a> [wikipedia.org] and won.</p><p>I'm not a dopehead (not that it should be relevant), but I respect you greatly for having the sense and morals to do what was right. And winning was surely a pleasant bonus!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You went against the pervasive human behaviour illustrated by the Milgram experiment [ wikipedia.org ] and won.I 'm not a dopehead ( not that it should be relevant ) , but I respect you greatly for having the sense and morals to do what was right .
And winning was surely a pleasant bonus !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You went against the pervasive human behaviour illustrated by the Milgram experiment [wikipedia.org] and won.I'm not a dopehead (not that it should be relevant), but I respect you greatly for having the sense and morals to do what was right.
And winning was surely a pleasant bonus!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340970</id>
	<title>Re:Devil's Advocate</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1260032520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if zero people were <i>actually</i> viewing the images, the victim would still suffer with the belief that people are.  Making child pornography illegal has no effect whatsoever on the victims of the crime, and jailing someone for 20 years for possession is no more productive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if zero people were actually viewing the images , the victim would still suffer with the belief that people are .
Making child pornography illegal has no effect whatsoever on the victims of the crime , and jailing someone for 20 years for possession is no more productive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if zero people were actually viewing the images, the victim would still suffer with the belief that people are.
Making child pornography illegal has no effect whatsoever on the victims of the crime, and jailing someone for 20 years for possession is no more productive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30352648</id>
	<title>How about we ban books too?</title>
	<author>elucido</author>
	<datestamp>1260199680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not? Banning decreases demand so lets just ban everything we dont want people thinking about until the only books left are made by Disney.<br>If you read any book that isn't government approved then life in prison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not ?
Banning decreases demand so lets just ban everything we dont want people thinking about until the only books left are made by Disney.If you read any book that is n't government approved then life in prison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not?
Banning decreases demand so lets just ban everything we dont want people thinking about until the only books left are made by Disney.If you read any book that isn't government approved then life in prison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336302</id>
	<title>Re:Never volunteer anything to the cops</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1260038160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Depends where and the jury. If the guy was married and dling regular old porn and lived in a bible belt. There is a high chance the jury will ping the guy with guilty because of moral outrage alone. Juries are there to decide how guilty someone is, often that extends beyond what they happen to be guilty of.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Sacramento, California is hardly "the bible belt".  The bible belt regards California as Sodom and Gomorrah ++.  If the guy's being represented by a PD, he's better off representing himself than pleading guilty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends where and the jury .
If the guy was married and dling regular old porn and lived in a bible belt .
There is a high chance the jury will ping the guy with guilty because of moral outrage alone .
Juries are there to decide how guilty someone is , often that extends beyond what they happen to be guilty of .
Sacramento , California is hardly " the bible belt " .
The bible belt regards California as Sodom and Gomorrah + + .
If the guy 's being represented by a PD , he 's better off representing himself than pleading guilty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends where and the jury.
If the guy was married and dling regular old porn and lived in a bible belt.
There is a high chance the jury will ping the guy with guilty because of moral outrage alone.
Juries are there to decide how guilty someone is, often that extends beyond what they happen to be guilty of.
Sacramento, California is hardly "the bible belt".
The bible belt regards California as Sodom and Gomorrah ++.
If the guy's being represented by a PD, he's better off representing himself than pleading guilty.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337640</id>
	<title>Twinks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260046500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I'm wondering what their policy is on twinks. Personally twinks do not float my boat but I have seen some images of young boys who look like they could be 10 years old but, according to the disclaimer on the site, are 18 years old at least.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/<br>And there's plenty of women in straight porn who look 12 but aren't, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'm wondering what their policy is on twinks .
Personally twinks do not float my boat but I have seen some images of young boys who look like they could be 10 years old but , according to the disclaimer on the site , are 18 years old at least .
: /And there 's plenty of women in straight porn who look 12 but are n't , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'm wondering what their policy is on twinks.
Personally twinks do not float my boat but I have seen some images of young boys who look like they could be 10 years old but, according to the disclaimer on the site, are 18 years old at least.
:/And there's plenty of women in straight porn who look 12 but aren't, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336096</id>
	<title>Re:Wow is this scary</title>
	<author>apcyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1260036840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>www.fileshredder.org</htmltext>
<tokenext>www.fileshredder.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>www.fileshredder.org</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335908</id>
	<title>Wow, not to be confused with WoW</title>
	<author>toggaM</author>
	<datestamp>1260035760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely there must be more to it than that? We had a guy busted for downloading Child Porn at work. He was monitored for months and charged. Seized his home and work computers.  After all said and done he only got 14 days (Military)!</p><p>I am not an officer only work for them so didn't any of the procedure/court hearings but when I found out I was shaking my head in disbelief.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely there must be more to it than that ?
We had a guy busted for downloading Child Porn at work .
He was monitored for months and charged .
Seized his home and work computers .
After all said and done he only got 14 days ( Military ) ! I am not an officer only work for them so did n't any of the procedure/court hearings but when I found out I was shaking my head in disbelief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely there must be more to it than that?
We had a guy busted for downloading Child Porn at work.
He was monitored for months and charged.
Seized his home and work computers.
After all said and done he only got 14 days (Military)!I am not an officer only work for them so didn't any of the procedure/court hearings but when I found out I was shaking my head in disbelief.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341126</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>rastoboy29</author>
	<datestamp>1260034800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Just a thought--if everyone was as sharp as you--can you imagine the competition?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a thought--if everyone was as sharp as you--can you imagine the competition ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a thought--if everyone was as sharp as you--can you imagine the competition?
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336714</id>
	<title>Advice for the next person...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260040500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, so your life has been ruined by "Think of the children" hysteria and a malicious and flawed justice system. That's no exaggeration, and if I found my life in that position I'd probably end it.</p><p>But for the next person, if they ask:</p><p>1. Do not talk to the cops<br>2. Do not talk to the cops<br>3. Do not use limewire for porn<br>4. TrueCrypt<br>5. If you're ever unsure, peform a full secure disk wipe of your hard drive<br>6. If you don't know how to do this, or are still unsure, open the hard drive up and physically destroy the platters<br>7. Do not talk to the cops</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so your life has been ruined by " Think of the children " hysteria and a malicious and flawed justice system .
That 's no exaggeration , and if I found my life in that position I 'd probably end it.But for the next person , if they ask : 1 .
Do not talk to the cops2 .
Do not talk to the cops3 .
Do not use limewire for porn4 .
TrueCrypt5. If you 're ever unsure , peform a full secure disk wipe of your hard drive6 .
If you do n't know how to do this , or are still unsure , open the hard drive up and physically destroy the platters7 .
Do not talk to the cops</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so your life has been ruined by "Think of the children" hysteria and a malicious and flawed justice system.
That's no exaggeration, and if I found my life in that position I'd probably end it.But for the next person, if they ask:1.
Do not talk to the cops2.
Do not talk to the cops3.
Do not use limewire for porn4.
TrueCrypt5. If you're ever unsure, peform a full secure disk wipe of your hard drive6.
If you don't know how to do this, or are still unsure, open the hard drive up and physically destroy the platters7.
Do not talk to the cops</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337586</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260046260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google "Jury Nullification" (sorry not to link, my html is weak and I still need my first cup of coffee)<br> <br>In a nut shell, the Jury has the responsibility and right to disregard the law, the judge, the evidence and vote their <b>conscious</b>.<br> <br>Time was when this was part of the instructions the Jury were given but the judges stopped talking about it during Prohibition because the Jury would acquit rum runners and bartenders who served alcohol.<br> <br>Of course the DA and Judges hate this and do everything they can to keep the jury from invoking this Constitutional Right.<br> <br>Kudos to you for standing your ground and not joining the sheeple because you wanted to go home.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google " Jury Nullification " ( sorry not to link , my html is weak and I still need my first cup of coffee ) In a nut shell , the Jury has the responsibility and right to disregard the law , the judge , the evidence and vote their conscious .
Time was when this was part of the instructions the Jury were given but the judges stopped talking about it during Prohibition because the Jury would acquit rum runners and bartenders who served alcohol .
Of course the DA and Judges hate this and do everything they can to keep the jury from invoking this Constitutional Right .
Kudos to you for standing your ground and not joining the sheeple because you wanted to go home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google "Jury Nullification" (sorry not to link, my html is weak and I still need my first cup of coffee) In a nut shell, the Jury has the responsibility and right to disregard the law, the judge, the evidence and vote their conscious.
Time was when this was part of the instructions the Jury were given but the judges stopped talking about it during Prohibition because the Jury would acquit rum runners and bartenders who served alcohol.
Of course the DA and Judges hate this and do everything they can to keep the jury from invoking this Constitutional Right.
Kudos to you for standing your ground and not joining the sheeple because you wanted to go home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337086</id>
	<title>Call the authorities?</title>
	<author>kwiqsilver</author>
	<datestamp>1260042780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if you accidentally get kiddie porn on your machine, you should call them and confess to downloading it? After they nailed this guy, stealing 20 years of his life (or only 3.5 if he pleads out), and destroying the remainder: "Hi, my name's Dave. I'm a registered sex offender, and I just moved in next door." "Hi, I'd like to apply for the job. I'm a registered sex offender." "Hello beautiful. Can I buy you a drink? I'm a registered sex offender." They proved that there effectively was no porn on his machine! What do you think they'd do to you when you called up and they had the computer with the porn on it? Your claim of "accident" is no better than his.<br>
<br>
The correct thing to do is run <a href="http://linux.die.net/man/1/shred" title="die.net">shred</a> [die.net] on the drive for a few days and then restore from back up (I love Time Machine). And if the feds show up, admit nothing and posit that it could easily have been a wardriver on your WiFi.<br>
<br>
As for the kid in the story about to get fucked by the system, he needs to get a better lawyer (as others have pointed out), and have his lawyer focus on the prosecution's complete lack of proof of criminal intent (<i>mens rea</i> as the lawyers call it). Although the concept has been ignored recently (especially in federal courts), it is still on the books as a requirement of the prosecution. He needs to show the jury (made up hopefully of mostly men, and nobody with small children), that he's just a regular horny college kid, just like they were. And then point out very clearly to the jury that, according to the law, if they do not feel he <i>intended</i> to download child pornography, beyond a reasonable doubt, then they must acquit him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if you accidentally get kiddie porn on your machine , you should call them and confess to downloading it ?
After they nailed this guy , stealing 20 years of his life ( or only 3.5 if he pleads out ) , and destroying the remainder : " Hi , my name 's Dave .
I 'm a registered sex offender , and I just moved in next door .
" " Hi , I 'd like to apply for the job .
I 'm a registered sex offender .
" " Hello beautiful .
Can I buy you a drink ?
I 'm a registered sex offender .
" They proved that there effectively was no porn on his machine !
What do you think they 'd do to you when you called up and they had the computer with the porn on it ?
Your claim of " accident " is no better than his .
The correct thing to do is run shred [ die.net ] on the drive for a few days and then restore from back up ( I love Time Machine ) .
And if the feds show up , admit nothing and posit that it could easily have been a wardriver on your WiFi .
As for the kid in the story about to get fucked by the system , he needs to get a better lawyer ( as others have pointed out ) , and have his lawyer focus on the prosecution 's complete lack of proof of criminal intent ( mens rea as the lawyers call it ) .
Although the concept has been ignored recently ( especially in federal courts ) , it is still on the books as a requirement of the prosecution .
He needs to show the jury ( made up hopefully of mostly men , and nobody with small children ) , that he 's just a regular horny college kid , just like they were .
And then point out very clearly to the jury that , according to the law , if they do not feel he intended to download child pornography , beyond a reasonable doubt , then they must acquit him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if you accidentally get kiddie porn on your machine, you should call them and confess to downloading it?
After they nailed this guy, stealing 20 years of his life (or only 3.5 if he pleads out), and destroying the remainder: "Hi, my name's Dave.
I'm a registered sex offender, and I just moved in next door.
" "Hi, I'd like to apply for the job.
I'm a registered sex offender.
" "Hello beautiful.
Can I buy you a drink?
I'm a registered sex offender.
" They proved that there effectively was no porn on his machine!
What do you think they'd do to you when you called up and they had the computer with the porn on it?
Your claim of "accident" is no better than his.
The correct thing to do is run shred [die.net] on the drive for a few days and then restore from back up (I love Time Machine).
And if the feds show up, admit nothing and posit that it could easily have been a wardriver on your WiFi.
As for the kid in the story about to get fucked by the system, he needs to get a better lawyer (as others have pointed out), and have his lawyer focus on the prosecution's complete lack of proof of criminal intent (mens rea as the lawyers call it).
Although the concept has been ignored recently (especially in federal courts), it is still on the books as a requirement of the prosecution.
He needs to show the jury (made up hopefully of mostly men, and nobody with small children), that he's just a regular horny college kid, just like they were.
And then point out very clearly to the jury that, according to the law, if they do not feel he intended to download child pornography, beyond a reasonable doubt, then they must acquit him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30344688</id>
	<title>Don't Listen to the FBI Guy</title>
	<author>Stormy Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1260128280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you reported it immediately to the authorities, you'll just end up like this man:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.infowars.com/man-arrested-faces-5-years-in-jail-for-reporting-firearm-to-police/" title="infowars.com">Man Arrested, Faces 5 Years In Jail For Reporting Firearm To Police</a> [infowars.com] <br>
<br>
Whatever the police may tell you, their only interest is getting as many people arrested as possible.  You shold never initiate a contact with law enforcement unless absolutely necessary, or you'll just make yourself the focus of their attention.<br>
<br>
For those interested, an excellent lecture by Regent Law School professor James Duane and former Virginia Beach police officer George Bruch on why even innocent people shouldn't talk to cops:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik" title="youtube.com">Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1</a> [youtube.com] <br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE" title="youtube.com">Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you reported it immediately to the authorities , you 'll just end up like this man : Man Arrested , Faces 5 Years In Jail For Reporting Firearm To Police [ infowars.com ] Whatever the police may tell you , their only interest is getting as many people arrested as possible .
You shold never initiate a contact with law enforcement unless absolutely necessary , or you 'll just make yourself the focus of their attention .
For those interested , an excellent lecture by Regent Law School professor James Duane and former Virginia Beach police officer George Bruch on why even innocent people should n't talk to cops : Do n't Talk to Cops , Part 1 [ youtube.com ] Do n't Talk to Cops , Part 2 [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you reported it immediately to the authorities, you'll just end up like this man:

Man Arrested, Faces 5 Years In Jail For Reporting Firearm To Police [infowars.com] 

Whatever the police may tell you, their only interest is getting as many people arrested as possible.
You shold never initiate a contact with law enforcement unless absolutely necessary, or you'll just make yourself the focus of their attention.
For those interested, an excellent lecture by Regent Law School professor James Duane and former Virginia Beach police officer George Bruch on why even innocent people shouldn't talk to cops:

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1 [youtube.com] 
Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2 [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30343902</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260122340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not really.</p><p>He found a shotgun, held on to it for 24 hours, called the police but didn't tell them what he was bringing in, took public transportation with a loaded shotgun, showed up at the station, and plonked an illegal weapon on the front desk.</p></div><p>Slightly more relevant in this particular case is that the man who found the shotgun has an extensive criminal record, including armed robbery.<br>In addition, the shotgun had its serial numbers ground off.<br>When forensics recovered the numbers, guess who they found the gun was last registered to?<br>Our good samaritan, of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really.He found a shotgun , held on to it for 24 hours , called the police but did n't tell them what he was bringing in , took public transportation with a loaded shotgun , showed up at the station , and plonked an illegal weapon on the front desk.Slightly more relevant in this particular case is that the man who found the shotgun has an extensive criminal record , including armed robbery.In addition , the shotgun had its serial numbers ground off.When forensics recovered the numbers , guess who they found the gun was last registered to ? Our good samaritan , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.He found a shotgun, held on to it for 24 hours, called the police but didn't tell them what he was bringing in, took public transportation with a loaded shotgun, showed up at the station, and plonked an illegal weapon on the front desk.Slightly more relevant in this particular case is that the man who found the shotgun has an extensive criminal record, including armed robbery.In addition, the shotgun had its serial numbers ground off.When forensics recovered the numbers, guess who they found the gun was last registered to?Our good samaritan, of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336748</id>
	<title>What about site/forum attacks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260040680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what happens when hundreds of people stumble across a CP attack on a forum or website before the admins have the chance to clean it up?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what happens when hundreds of people stumble across a CP attack on a forum or website before the admins have the chance to clean it up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what happens when hundreds of people stumble across a CP attack on a forum or website before the admins have the chance to clean it up?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336640</id>
	<title>Devil's Advocate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260040080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recently interviewed a Save the Children organization's representative over child pornography. She pointed out that the ample psychological harm caused by kid rape is compounded by the victim's awareness that depictions of the act are being spread and "enjoyed." What's your take on this?

She had previously mentioned a gateway theory, ie. that less access to child porn results in fewer child molesters, but I'd have to see the numbers before coming to conclusion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently interviewed a Save the Children organization 's representative over child pornography .
She pointed out that the ample psychological harm caused by kid rape is compounded by the victim 's awareness that depictions of the act are being spread and " enjoyed .
" What 's your take on this ?
She had previously mentioned a gateway theory , ie .
that less access to child porn results in fewer child molesters , but I 'd have to see the numbers before coming to conclusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently interviewed a Save the Children organization's representative over child pornography.
She pointed out that the ample psychological harm caused by kid rape is compounded by the victim's awareness that depictions of the act are being spread and "enjoyed.
" What's your take on this?
She had previously mentioned a gateway theory, ie.
that less access to child porn results in fewer child molesters, but I'd have to see the numbers before coming to conclusion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340740</id>
	<title>Re:Public Defender</title>
	<author>Blappo</author>
	<datestamp>1260029340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It probably sounds like some wacky conspiracy theory"</p><p>That's because it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It probably sounds like some wacky conspiracy theory " That 's because it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It probably sounds like some wacky conspiracy theory"That's because it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337012</id>
	<title>Great way to recycle old computers!</title>
	<author>kenh</author>
	<datestamp>1260042300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article "'The FBI could not comment on this specific case, but said if child pornography is ever downloaded accidentally, the user needs to call authorities immediately. They may confiscate your computer, but it's better than the alternative."</p><p>So, if I have an old computer I want to be rid of, I first make sure there is no child porn on it, then call the FBI and claim I downloaded child porn by mistake - FBI takes away the computer, and I regain some lost floor/shelf space! Unless, of course, they return the computer after finding nothing on it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article " 'The FBI could not comment on this specific case , but said if child pornography is ever downloaded accidentally , the user needs to call authorities immediately .
They may confiscate your computer , but it 's better than the alternative .
" So , if I have an old computer I want to be rid of , I first make sure there is no child porn on it , then call the FBI and claim I downloaded child porn by mistake - FBI takes away the computer , and I regain some lost floor/shelf space !
Unless , of course , they return the computer after finding nothing on it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article "'The FBI could not comment on this specific case, but said if child pornography is ever downloaded accidentally, the user needs to call authorities immediately.
They may confiscate your computer, but it's better than the alternative.
"So, if I have an old computer I want to be rid of, I first make sure there is no child porn on it, then call the FBI and claim I downloaded child porn by mistake - FBI takes away the computer, and I regain some lost floor/shelf space!
Unless, of course, they return the computer after finding nothing on it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30343344</id>
	<title>"Better than the alternative"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260117180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When did the FBI become the mafia?</p><p>(funny unrelated sidenote: the captcha for this post was "enforcer"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When did the FBI become the mafia ?
( funny unrelated sidenote : the captcha for this post was " enforcer "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When did the FBI become the mafia?
(funny unrelated sidenote: the captcha for this post was "enforcer"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336706</id>
	<title>Re:do the math</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1260040440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And trying to defend yourself by admitting that you are a pervert who watches lots of porn won't work too well with the jury.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And trying to defend yourself by admitting that you are a pervert who watches lots of porn wo n't work too well with the jury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And trying to defend yourself by admitting that you are a pervert who watches lots of porn won't work too well with the jury.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337306</id>
	<title>Re:the real lesson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260044160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely. If asked, say no. If they have a warrant, they won't ask.</p><p>In general, ALWAYS politely but firmly refuse to be searched. If they have a warrant, they won't ask.</p><p>NEVER talk to the police. It's just giving them evidence. Even if you are innocent, or believe you are innocent. They are, by definition, looking for a way to charge someone, including you.</p><p>If you are arrested, keep your mouth shut. Tell the police you are exercising your right to remain silent, and that you want a lawyer. NEVER resist. Follow instructions and go quietly and contact a lawyer ASAP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely .
If asked , say no .
If they have a warrant , they wo n't ask.In general , ALWAYS politely but firmly refuse to be searched .
If they have a warrant , they wo n't ask.NEVER talk to the police .
It 's just giving them evidence .
Even if you are innocent , or believe you are innocent .
They are , by definition , looking for a way to charge someone , including you.If you are arrested , keep your mouth shut .
Tell the police you are exercising your right to remain silent , and that you want a lawyer .
NEVER resist .
Follow instructions and go quietly and contact a lawyer ASAP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely.
If asked, say no.
If they have a warrant, they won't ask.In general, ALWAYS politely but firmly refuse to be searched.
If they have a warrant, they won't ask.NEVER talk to the police.
It's just giving them evidence.
Even if you are innocent, or believe you are innocent.
They are, by definition, looking for a way to charge someone, including you.If you are arrested, keep your mouth shut.
Tell the police you are exercising your right to remain silent, and that you want a lawyer.
NEVER resist.
Follow instructions and go quietly and contact a lawyer ASAP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336600</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Ideas</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1260039840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That may make him a moron but does it really justify locking him up for a couple of years and buggering up his life for far longer?  I can just imagine the job interviews when he gets out now...</p><p>Employer:  So, Mr. X, can you tell me what you've been doing for the last two years?<br>Mr. X:  I was in prison for illegal possession of a firearm.<br>Employer:  Cheerio.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That may make him a moron but does it really justify locking him up for a couple of years and buggering up his life for far longer ?
I can just imagine the job interviews when he gets out now...Employer : So , Mr. X , can you tell me what you 've been doing for the last two years ? Mr .
X : I was in prison for illegal possession of a firearm.Employer : Cheerio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That may make him a moron but does it really justify locking him up for a couple of years and buggering up his life for far longer?
I can just imagine the job interviews when he gets out now...Employer:  So, Mr. X, can you tell me what you've been doing for the last two years?Mr.
X:  I was in prison for illegal possession of a firearm.Employer:  Cheerio.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337472</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260045360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wow, strong words my friend</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wow , strong words my friend</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow, strong words my friend</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335638</id>
	<title>It happens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spammers on a worksafe imageboard I occasionally visit sometimes upload it to the place. I report it to the board's administrator via IRC....which is logged... and purge private history. It is such an easy thing to have happen. Hell, a google search with safesearch off can do it.</p><p>This is 'won't somebody please think of the children' gone way to far.</p><p>And the public defender encouraging him to plead guilty? That lawyer should be fired for incompetance. How can someone be guilty of a crime they never had any intention of committing, and took active steps to actually avoid committing it?</p><p>I mean... I've bought second-hand HDD's that have been zeroe'd and formatted. Could I be potentially liable if the previous owner had been a kiddie-porn freako? The images might still be buried deep in the disk after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spammers on a worksafe imageboard I occasionally visit sometimes upload it to the place .
I report it to the board 's administrator via IRC....which is logged... and purge private history .
It is such an easy thing to have happen .
Hell , a google search with safesearch off can do it.This is 'wo n't somebody please think of the children ' gone way to far.And the public defender encouraging him to plead guilty ?
That lawyer should be fired for incompetance .
How can someone be guilty of a crime they never had any intention of committing , and took active steps to actually avoid committing it ? I mean... I 've bought second-hand HDD 's that have been zeroe 'd and formatted .
Could I be potentially liable if the previous owner had been a kiddie-porn freako ?
The images might still be buried deep in the disk after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spammers on a worksafe imageboard I occasionally visit sometimes upload it to the place.
I report it to the board's administrator via IRC....which is logged... and purge private history.
It is such an easy thing to have happen.
Hell, a google search with safesearch off can do it.This is 'won't somebody please think of the children' gone way to far.And the public defender encouraging him to plead guilty?
That lawyer should be fired for incompetance.
How can someone be guilty of a crime they never had any intention of committing, and took active steps to actually avoid committing it?I mean... I've bought second-hand HDD's that have been zeroe'd and formatted.
Could I be potentially liable if the previous owner had been a kiddie-porn freako?
The images might still be buried deep in the disk after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337600</id>
	<title>Re:Public Defender</title>
	<author>jopsen</author>
	<datestamp>1260046380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Matt is pleading guilty on the advice of his public defender in hopes of getting a three and a half year sentence.</i> </p><p>In other words, he doesn't have the money to actually fight this.</p></div><p>or he is guilty of possession...<br> And his biggest offense being that he was too embarrassed to report the incident... And just deleted it instead...<br> <br>Nevertheless he's still guilty, but his offense is very small... I don't see why, any judge would give him 3,5 years for his offense... Unless of cause we don't see the entire picture here...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Matt is pleading guilty on the advice of his public defender in hopes of getting a three and a half year sentence .
In other words , he does n't have the money to actually fight this.or he is guilty of possession... And his biggest offense being that he was too embarrassed to report the incident... And just deleted it instead... Nevertheless he 's still guilty , but his offense is very small... I do n't see why , any judge would give him 3,5 years for his offense... Unless of cause we do n't see the entire picture here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Matt is pleading guilty on the advice of his public defender in hopes of getting a three and a half year sentence.
In other words, he doesn't have the money to actually fight this.or he is guilty of possession... And his biggest offense being that he was too embarrassed to report the incident... And just deleted it instead... Nevertheless he's still guilty, but his offense is very small... I don't see why, any judge would give him 3,5 years for his offense... Unless of cause we don't see the entire picture here...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30345386</id>
	<title>Re:You can KILL someone with this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260090060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And where did you get the original files? Because for sure you did something moronic like Google it and download it from a flytrap. So you'd be the one getting a visit from the feds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And where did you get the original files ?
Because for sure you did something moronic like Google it and download it from a flytrap .
So you 'd be the one getting a visit from the feds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And where did you get the original files?
Because for sure you did something moronic like Google it and download it from a flytrap.
So you'd be the one getting a visit from the feds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337798</id>
	<title>Re:I think the right move would be...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260004260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you're innocent and your lawyer says "cop a plea" your next words should always be "you're fired". Same with any plea bargain. Don't even consider it.</p></div><p>Congratulations.  You just got 99\% of those who follow this advice a longer, harsher sentence.</p><p>It's great to sit at your desk in some suburban room and say "fire your attorney.  Don't even look at plea bargains" when you've never been there and aren't aware of the circumstances.</p><p>Public defenders amass a huge amount of experience in a short time.  They are outgunned by the DA's office (often by 2:1 or more in attorneys, to say nothing of the fact that the DA's office essentially has an unlimited budget whereas the PD has to go to the court, hat in hand, any time it wants to spend money), and they are stretched far too thin.  But they know the courts, they know juries, and they know the prosecutors.</p><p>They can use those resources to get better deals and to make better predictions.  I'm not aware of any jurisdictions with a conviction rate below about 90\%.  So if you've been charged, the odds are already against you.  If your attorney comes to you with a deal, you <em>have</em> to consider it.  You must also consider whether they're advising you in your best interests or because they need to get rid of the case, but your advice is flat-out moronic.</p><p>You can pontificate all day long about refusing to admit to something you didn't do, but you're assuming there's a realistic chance at victory.  90\% conviction rate, even on circumstantial cases.  If an experienced attorney says you've only got a 5\% or less chance at victory, and that the cost of losing is expected to be 20 years, but a plea right now would get you two years, it's in your best interests to take the two years.  You can't fix the system by throwing yourself into it.</p><p>You can do your two years and then write about your innocence and the insanity of the criminal justice system.  Or you can spend several months or a year in jail waiting for your trial, and then spend twenty before you can tell your story.  Which is really better for you?  People aren't going to believe a conviction is false any less than a plea, especially when the sentence imposed is long.</p><p>Here, if there is no evidence of innocence and a sufficient amount of evidence of guilt, it would be idiotic from a self-interest perspective not to take the 3.5 years.  Jurors turn off their brains when they hear "child porn".  You're advising him to play Russian roulette with 99 chambers of a two decade plus sentence and one of no sentence (but the media has already damaged this guy's life almost as much as a three-year sentence would), when he could skip the loaded gun altogether and save himself more than 16 years.</p><p>The FBI makes mistakes, but they typically only turn these over to prosecutors when they're confident they can make the case.  He may not have done anything wrong.  You can stand on principle in a hurricane, but you really can't complain that it comes and destroys you anyway.</p><p>It's a decision you have to make.  Maybe it's important for him to take that 1\% chance because he won't sign his name to a crime he doesn't believe he committed.  But your advice is asinine to anyone who has ever been charged with a crime.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're innocent and your lawyer says " cop a plea " your next words should always be " you 're fired " .
Same with any plea bargain .
Do n't even consider it.Congratulations .
You just got 99 \ % of those who follow this advice a longer , harsher sentence.It 's great to sit at your desk in some suburban room and say " fire your attorney .
Do n't even look at plea bargains " when you 've never been there and are n't aware of the circumstances.Public defenders amass a huge amount of experience in a short time .
They are outgunned by the DA 's office ( often by 2 : 1 or more in attorneys , to say nothing of the fact that the DA 's office essentially has an unlimited budget whereas the PD has to go to the court , hat in hand , any time it wants to spend money ) , and they are stretched far too thin .
But they know the courts , they know juries , and they know the prosecutors.They can use those resources to get better deals and to make better predictions .
I 'm not aware of any jurisdictions with a conviction rate below about 90 \ % .
So if you 've been charged , the odds are already against you .
If your attorney comes to you with a deal , you have to consider it .
You must also consider whether they 're advising you in your best interests or because they need to get rid of the case , but your advice is flat-out moronic.You can pontificate all day long about refusing to admit to something you did n't do , but you 're assuming there 's a realistic chance at victory .
90 \ % conviction rate , even on circumstantial cases .
If an experienced attorney says you 've only got a 5 \ % or less chance at victory , and that the cost of losing is expected to be 20 years , but a plea right now would get you two years , it 's in your best interests to take the two years .
You ca n't fix the system by throwing yourself into it.You can do your two years and then write about your innocence and the insanity of the criminal justice system .
Or you can spend several months or a year in jail waiting for your trial , and then spend twenty before you can tell your story .
Which is really better for you ?
People are n't going to believe a conviction is false any less than a plea , especially when the sentence imposed is long.Here , if there is no evidence of innocence and a sufficient amount of evidence of guilt , it would be idiotic from a self-interest perspective not to take the 3.5 years .
Jurors turn off their brains when they hear " child porn " .
You 're advising him to play Russian roulette with 99 chambers of a two decade plus sentence and one of no sentence ( but the media has already damaged this guy 's life almost as much as a three-year sentence would ) , when he could skip the loaded gun altogether and save himself more than 16 years.The FBI makes mistakes , but they typically only turn these over to prosecutors when they 're confident they can make the case .
He may not have done anything wrong .
You can stand on principle in a hurricane , but you really ca n't complain that it comes and destroys you anyway.It 's a decision you have to make .
Maybe it 's important for him to take that 1 \ % chance because he wo n't sign his name to a crime he does n't believe he committed .
But your advice is asinine to anyone who has ever been charged with a crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're innocent and your lawyer says "cop a plea" your next words should always be "you're fired".
Same with any plea bargain.
Don't even consider it.Congratulations.
You just got 99\% of those who follow this advice a longer, harsher sentence.It's great to sit at your desk in some suburban room and say "fire your attorney.
Don't even look at plea bargains" when you've never been there and aren't aware of the circumstances.Public defenders amass a huge amount of experience in a short time.
They are outgunned by the DA's office (often by 2:1 or more in attorneys, to say nothing of the fact that the DA's office essentially has an unlimited budget whereas the PD has to go to the court, hat in hand, any time it wants to spend money), and they are stretched far too thin.
But they know the courts, they know juries, and they know the prosecutors.They can use those resources to get better deals and to make better predictions.
I'm not aware of any jurisdictions with a conviction rate below about 90\%.
So if you've been charged, the odds are already against you.
If your attorney comes to you with a deal, you have to consider it.
You must also consider whether they're advising you in your best interests or because they need to get rid of the case, but your advice is flat-out moronic.You can pontificate all day long about refusing to admit to something you didn't do, but you're assuming there's a realistic chance at victory.
90\% conviction rate, even on circumstantial cases.
If an experienced attorney says you've only got a 5\% or less chance at victory, and that the cost of losing is expected to be 20 years, but a plea right now would get you two years, it's in your best interests to take the two years.
You can't fix the system by throwing yourself into it.You can do your two years and then write about your innocence and the insanity of the criminal justice system.
Or you can spend several months or a year in jail waiting for your trial, and then spend twenty before you can tell your story.
Which is really better for you?
People aren't going to believe a conviction is false any less than a plea, especially when the sentence imposed is long.Here, if there is no evidence of innocence and a sufficient amount of evidence of guilt, it would be idiotic from a self-interest perspective not to take the 3.5 years.
Jurors turn off their brains when they hear "child porn".
You're advising him to play Russian roulette with 99 chambers of a two decade plus sentence and one of no sentence (but the media has already damaged this guy's life almost as much as a three-year sentence would), when he could skip the loaded gun altogether and save himself more than 16 years.The FBI makes mistakes, but they typically only turn these over to prosecutors when they're confident they can make the case.
He may not have done anything wrong.
You can stand on principle in a hurricane, but you really can't complain that it comes and destroys you anyway.It's a decision you have to make.
Maybe it's important for him to take that 1\% chance because he won't sign his name to a crime he doesn't believe he committed.
But your advice is asinine to anyone who has ever been charged with a crime.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337816</id>
	<title>Re:Another victim in the war on child porn</title>
	<author>BountyX</author>
	<datestamp>1260004380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe the age of consent in Japan is as low as 13 in some parts. Child porn is considered easily accessible nationwide yet sexually committed crimes with minors and rape is less per capita than the US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the age of consent in Japan is as low as 13 in some parts .
Child porn is considered easily accessible nationwide yet sexually committed crimes with minors and rape is less per capita than the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the age of consent in Japan is as low as 13 in some parts.
Child porn is considered easily accessible nationwide yet sexually committed crimes with minors and rape is less per capita than the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335836</id>
	<title>The FBI is lying.</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1260035460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The FBI could not comment on this specific case, but said if child pornography is ever downloaded accidentally, the user needs to call authorities immediately</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
There is NO requirement to "call the authorities". Delete it, preferably with a file shredder that opens up the file, overwrites each block with random bytes, closes the file, flushes the cache, THEN deletes the file. "Nothing to see here."  Their "l33t toolz" (which are really just some perl scripts) won't recover it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The FBI could not comment on this specific case , but said if child pornography is ever downloaded accidentally , the user needs to call authorities immediately There is NO requirement to " call the authorities " .
Delete it , preferably with a file shredder that opens up the file , overwrites each block with random bytes , closes the file , flushes the cache , THEN deletes the file .
" Nothing to see here .
" Their " l33t toolz " ( which are really just some perl scripts ) wo n't recover it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FBI could not comment on this specific case, but said if child pornography is ever downloaded accidentally, the user needs to call authorities immediately

There is NO requirement to "call the authorities".
Delete it, preferably with a file shredder that opens up the file, overwrites each block with random bytes, closes the file, flushes the cache, THEN deletes the file.
"Nothing to see here.
"  Their "l33t toolz" (which are really just some perl scripts) won't recover it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340546</id>
	<title>Death</title>
	<author>Dog-Cow</author>
	<datestamp>1260027060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best thing to do would be to have the FBI agents and Judge killed.  And their families and their friends.  In public.  By rabid, starving dogs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best thing to do would be to have the FBI agents and Judge killed .
And their families and their friends .
In public .
By rabid , starving dogs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best thing to do would be to have the FBI agents and Judge killed.
And their families and their friends.
In public.
By rabid, starving dogs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338124</id>
	<title>Win,Win,Win</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1260006480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>           What a victory for the tax payer. First we have the thrill of supporting some lard assed FBI personnel. Then we have the joy of paying for a trial as well as the prosecutor's time. And then for the next wonderful thrill we get to pay a huge sum to put this poor guy in prison! And then we get the absolute joy have having him on a sex offenders' list so that he will not be employable or able to get housing for the rest of his life which will trigger welfare and public support until the poor schmuck is dead.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; So the guy gets his entire life trashed and the public gets a whopping expense. With a logic stream such as this one the people behind this kind of law should have been in charge of the war in Vietnam. Entire new definitions of victory abound!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a victory for the tax payer .
First we have the thrill of supporting some lard assed FBI personnel .
Then we have the joy of paying for a trial as well as the prosecutor 's time .
And then for the next wonderful thrill we get to pay a huge sum to put this poor guy in prison !
And then we get the absolute joy have having him on a sex offenders ' list so that he will not be employable or able to get housing for the rest of his life which will trigger welfare and public support until the poor schmuck is dead .
                      So the guy gets his entire life trashed and the public gets a whopping expense .
With a logic stream such as this one the people behind this kind of law should have been in charge of the war in Vietnam .
Entire new definitions of victory abound !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>           What a victory for the tax payer.
First we have the thrill of supporting some lard assed FBI personnel.
Then we have the joy of paying for a trial as well as the prosecutor's time.
And then for the next wonderful thrill we get to pay a huge sum to put this poor guy in prison!
And then we get the absolute joy have having him on a sex offenders' list so that he will not be employable or able to get housing for the rest of his life which will trigger welfare and public support until the poor schmuck is dead.
                      So the guy gets his entire life trashed and the public gets a whopping expense.
With a logic stream such as this one the people behind this kind of law should have been in charge of the war in Vietnam.
Entire new definitions of victory abound!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336690</id>
	<title>Re:I think the right move would be...</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1260040380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely.
</p><p>
If you're innocent and your lawyer says "cop a plea" your next words should always be "you're fired".  Same with any plea bargain.  Don't even consider it.  You don't know what society is going to be like in 20 years - maybe that innocent plea bargain will make you eligible for compulsory military service or organ donation.  Stranger things have happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely .
If you 're innocent and your lawyer says " cop a plea " your next words should always be " you 're fired " .
Same with any plea bargain .
Do n't even consider it .
You do n't know what society is going to be like in 20 years - maybe that innocent plea bargain will make you eligible for compulsory military service or organ donation .
Stranger things have happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely.
If you're innocent and your lawyer says "cop a plea" your next words should always be "you're fired".
Same with any plea bargain.
Don't even consider it.
You don't know what society is going to be like in 20 years - maybe that innocent plea bargain will make you eligible for compulsory military service or organ donation.
Stranger things have happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30345620</id>
	<title>Livewire shanagans perhaps?</title>
	<author>jwkckid1</author>
	<datestamp>1260092100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>agreed that this is absolutely ridiciolous.  What this article/story doesn't tell you is that often times via certain sorts of malicious cookies and javascripts malicious "Uploads" to your computer/PC as hidden graphic files can and are often sent to you.  Livewire is famous for this sort of activity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>agreed that this is absolutely ridiciolous .
What this article/story does n't tell you is that often times via certain sorts of malicious cookies and javascripts malicious " Uploads " to your computer/PC as hidden graphic files can and are often sent to you .
Livewire is famous for this sort of activity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>agreed that this is absolutely ridiciolous.
What this article/story doesn't tell you is that often times via certain sorts of malicious cookies and javascripts malicious "Uploads" to your computer/PC as hidden graphic files can and are often sent to you.
Livewire is famous for this sort of activity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336534</id>
	<title>Re:Appalling</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1260039480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should only use the web to look at proper websites owned by proper big media companies, preferably ones you pay a subscription for. There is no porn on the WSJ web site, is there?</p><p>This guy was not only looking at hippy commie child porn websites, he was looking at P2P which is evil and only used to steal music and films to fund terrorism.</p><p>This is is why the owners of the internet tubes are trying to make sure that people can only see content that they know is safe. The "net neutrality" lobby want some idiotic system called "free markets" or "competition" - it is far better to trust The Great Leader and The Dear Leader to tell us what is good for us.</p><p>God also commands you to read what your leader tell you. This is why the great Christian writer CS Lewis, in his book The Last Battle, has the heroic ape Shift say "True freedom is doing what I tell you". Some people will tell you that lion us the real hero, but why does the lion see his country destroyed, while Shift is last seen leaving with the god Tash?</p><p>The FBI should have had the power to hang him on the spot without wasting time arresting him. Anyone who might have had child porn, or might have thought about child porn, smiles at a child, or takes a photograph of child (even their own) is clearly an evil child pornographer and should be immediately dealt with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should only use the web to look at proper websites owned by proper big media companies , preferably ones you pay a subscription for .
There is no porn on the WSJ web site , is there ? This guy was not only looking at hippy commie child porn websites , he was looking at P2P which is evil and only used to steal music and films to fund terrorism.This is is why the owners of the internet tubes are trying to make sure that people can only see content that they know is safe .
The " net neutrality " lobby want some idiotic system called " free markets " or " competition " - it is far better to trust The Great Leader and The Dear Leader to tell us what is good for us.God also commands you to read what your leader tell you .
This is why the great Christian writer CS Lewis , in his book The Last Battle , has the heroic ape Shift say " True freedom is doing what I tell you " .
Some people will tell you that lion us the real hero , but why does the lion see his country destroyed , while Shift is last seen leaving with the god Tash ? The FBI should have had the power to hang him on the spot without wasting time arresting him .
Anyone who might have had child porn , or might have thought about child porn , smiles at a child , or takes a photograph of child ( even their own ) is clearly an evil child pornographer and should be immediately dealt with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should only use the web to look at proper websites owned by proper big media companies, preferably ones you pay a subscription for.
There is no porn on the WSJ web site, is there?This guy was not only looking at hippy commie child porn websites, he was looking at P2P which is evil and only used to steal music and films to fund terrorism.This is is why the owners of the internet tubes are trying to make sure that people can only see content that they know is safe.
The "net neutrality" lobby want some idiotic system called "free markets" or "competition" - it is far better to trust The Great Leader and The Dear Leader to tell us what is good for us.God also commands you to read what your leader tell you.
This is why the great Christian writer CS Lewis, in his book The Last Battle, has the heroic ape Shift say "True freedom is doing what I tell you".
Some people will tell you that lion us the real hero, but why does the lion see his country destroyed, while Shift is last seen leaving with the god Tash?The FBI should have had the power to hang him on the spot without wasting time arresting him.
Anyone who might have had child porn, or might have thought about child porn, smiles at a child, or takes a photograph of child (even their own) is clearly an evil child pornographer and should be immediately dealt with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336920</id>
	<title>Re:More to it...</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1260041700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The FBI without a doubt does set up sting sites and baits CP downloaders, but why would they disguise it as fake adult porn?</p></div><p>I suspect that the way most P2P file sharing works is that the filename is not part of the hash, so many files with different filenames but the same content can appear as the same file, and the filename displayed is what came first, or maybe last, in the search. Think about how 'find more of..' must work. It does a direct hash search, not a filename string matching search.<br>
<br>
So kiddie porn searcher finds and downloads FBI kiddie porn, and then RENAMES IT, then innocent guy searching innocently and gets hits with that name.. but there is only one source of the file.. so then he hits "Find more.." and all the FBI sources get added as peers with the same file as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The FBI without a doubt does set up sting sites and baits CP downloaders , but why would they disguise it as fake adult porn ? I suspect that the way most P2P file sharing works is that the filename is not part of the hash , so many files with different filenames but the same content can appear as the same file , and the filename displayed is what came first , or maybe last , in the search .
Think about how 'find more of.. ' must work .
It does a direct hash search , not a filename string matching search .
So kiddie porn searcher finds and downloads FBI kiddie porn , and then RENAMES IT , then innocent guy searching innocently and gets hits with that name.. but there is only one source of the file.. so then he hits " Find more.. " and all the FBI sources get added as peers with the same file as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FBI without a doubt does set up sting sites and baits CP downloaders, but why would they disguise it as fake adult porn?I suspect that the way most P2P file sharing works is that the filename is not part of the hash, so many files with different filenames but the same content can appear as the same file, and the filename displayed is what came first, or maybe last, in the search.
Think about how 'find more of..' must work.
It does a direct hash search, not a filename string matching search.
So kiddie porn searcher finds and downloads FBI kiddie porn, and then RENAMES IT, then innocent guy searching innocently and gets hits with that name.. but there is only one source of the file.. so then he hits "Find more.." and all the FBI sources get added as peers with the same file as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338840</id>
	<title>It's the True Will of The People</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1260012300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Please someone answer me as honestly as they can: even if that guy happened to willingly watch child porn images, what damage does that do to society?</p></div></blockquote><p>It offends peoples morals. And as a democratic society, we reserve the right to legislate our own morality to as great an extent as we please. Thus, any transgression, no matter how minor can be made into a capital offence by the simple will of the people.</p><p>Child pornography laws and penalties are history's greatest example of the raw, uncensored will of the people acting in a democracy. More so than any other development, the current trends regarding child pornography have convinced me that unrestricted democracy is every bit as bad as unrestricted dictatorship.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please someone answer me as honestly as they can : even if that guy happened to willingly watch child porn images , what damage does that do to society ? It offends peoples morals .
And as a democratic society , we reserve the right to legislate our own morality to as great an extent as we please .
Thus , any transgression , no matter how minor can be made into a capital offence by the simple will of the people.Child pornography laws and penalties are history 's greatest example of the raw , uncensored will of the people acting in a democracy .
More so than any other development , the current trends regarding child pornography have convinced me that unrestricted democracy is every bit as bad as unrestricted dictatorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please someone answer me as honestly as they can: even if that guy happened to willingly watch child porn images, what damage does that do to society?It offends peoples morals.
And as a democratic society, we reserve the right to legislate our own morality to as great an extent as we please.
Thus, any transgression, no matter how minor can be made into a capital offence by the simple will of the people.Child pornography laws and penalties are history's greatest example of the raw, uncensored will of the people acting in a democracy.
More so than any other development, the current trends regarding child pornography have convinced me that unrestricted democracy is every bit as bad as unrestricted dictatorship.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339452</id>
	<title>Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons?</title>
	<author>cpux</author>
	<datestamp>1260016860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Milgram experiment in real life, countered with a domino-tumbling win over, in a fashion not unlike Asch's conformity experiment.<br>
&nbsp; <br>......to think I can remember psych 101 from way back but can't remember where I left my iPod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Milgram experiment in real life , countered with a domino-tumbling win over , in a fashion not unlike Asch 's conformity experiment .
  ......to think I can remember psych 101 from way back but ca n't remember where I left my iPod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Milgram experiment in real life, countered with a domino-tumbling win over, in a fashion not unlike Asch's conformity experiment.
  ......to think I can remember psych 101 from way back but can't remember where I left my iPod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337276</id>
	<title>Meantime in UK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260043980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meantime in UK: "A 66-year-old church elder convicted of indecently assaulting a child will not be sent to jail because his obesity means his health is "precarious".</p><p>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk\_news/northern\_ireland/8393463.stm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meantime in UK : " A 66-year-old church elder convicted of indecently assaulting a child will not be sent to jail because his obesity means his health is " precarious " .http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk \ _news/northern \ _ireland/8393463.stm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meantime in UK: "A 66-year-old church elder convicted of indecently assaulting a child will not be sent to jail because his obesity means his health is "precarious".http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk\_news/northern\_ireland/8393463.stm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337150</id>
	<title>Re:More to it...</title>
	<author>sela</author>
	<datestamp>1260043140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of details do not add up in this story.</p><p>First, how did they get to 20 years in prison? Possession of child porn is a misdemeanor in California, and he can get only 1 year for that (And AFAIK, the same is true for the federal law). He could get 20 years only if he distributed (or possess with an intent to distribute) child porn material.</p><p>Something tells me there are some missing facts in this story, and I guess the prosecution had a lot of other incriminating evidence in addition to those accidentally downloaded CP files.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of details do not add up in this story.First , how did they get to 20 years in prison ?
Possession of child porn is a misdemeanor in California , and he can get only 1 year for that ( And AFAIK , the same is true for the federal law ) .
He could get 20 years only if he distributed ( or possess with an intent to distribute ) child porn material.Something tells me there are some missing facts in this story , and I guess the prosecution had a lot of other incriminating evidence in addition to those accidentally downloaded CP files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of details do not add up in this story.First, how did they get to 20 years in prison?
Possession of child porn is a misdemeanor in California, and he can get only 1 year for that (And AFAIK, the same is true for the federal law).
He could get 20 years only if he distributed (or possess with an intent to distribute) child porn material.Something tells me there are some missing facts in this story, and I guess the prosecution had a lot of other incriminating evidence in addition to those accidentally downloaded CP files.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30345260</id>
	<title>Re:FBI bait?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260132480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The FBI bait sites are awesome, because they don't care how downloaded the image, just that you made the request."</p><p>Why isn't this considered entrapment?</p><p>This is like buying flour at a grocery store, getting pulled over, and the cop states it's cocaine, and it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The FBI bait sites are awesome , because they do n't care how downloaded the image , just that you made the request .
" Why is n't this considered entrapment ? This is like buying flour at a grocery store , getting pulled over , and the cop states it 's cocaine , and it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The FBI bait sites are awesome, because they don't care how downloaded the image, just that you made the request.
"Why isn't this considered entrapment?This is like buying flour at a grocery store, getting pulled over, and the cop states it's cocaine, and it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335742</id>
	<title>Oops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was on wikipedia and I accidentally went to the page about the German rock band "Scorpions" and looked at their album "Virgin Killer"<br>Then, I turned on the TV and what did I see? "Romeo &amp; Juliet" (with 15-yr old Olivia Hussey showing off her boobage)<br>do I turn myself in now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was on wikipedia and I accidentally went to the page about the German rock band " Scorpions " and looked at their album " Virgin Killer " Then , I turned on the TV and what did I see ?
" Romeo &amp; Juliet " ( with 15-yr old Olivia Hussey showing off her boobage ) do I turn myself in now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was on wikipedia and I accidentally went to the page about the German rock band "Scorpions" and looked at their album "Virgin Killer"Then, I turned on the TV and what did I see?
"Romeo &amp; Juliet" (with 15-yr old Olivia Hussey showing off her boobage)do I turn myself in now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_155</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_179</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_165</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30353340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_173</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30351612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_183</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30345750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30344126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_168</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_160</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30343174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_154</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30352648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30362834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_178</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_170</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_162</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_186</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_172</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30343902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30354756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30344314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_149</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_181</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30356666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30345260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30342692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_146</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30343462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_157</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_167</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_151</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30345386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_175</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_161</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_185</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30343970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_156</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30372420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_164</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30347302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_150</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_174</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_148</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_159</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_169</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_177</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30428638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_187</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_145</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30343532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_158</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_166</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_182</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_176</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_180</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_184</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_153</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30347376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_163</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30352810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_171</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30342480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_147</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_152</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_1511258_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30347376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30348678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336356
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335832
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30343970
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336544
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341596
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338244
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337652
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337324
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336406
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339924
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337684
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338870
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335792
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336542
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339688
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337162
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336270
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337862
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336046
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339176
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336302
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340266
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336174
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336080
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336440
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339644
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336768
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30362834
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341432
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30343462
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336358
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337788
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30342480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335798
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30345260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30353340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30428638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30354756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30372420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30342692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30344314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30351612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30344688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336178
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339610
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336600
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30343902
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30347302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30356666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337798
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30352648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30345750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30343174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30343532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30341428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30352810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30345386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30340612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30344126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30335906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30337260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30338994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_1511258.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30336018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_1511258.30339122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
