<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_08_0127219</id>
	<title>Google CEO Says Privacy Worries Are For Wrongdoers</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260278220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bonch writes <i>"In a surprising statement to CNBC, Google CEO Eric Schmidt told reporter Maria Bartiromo, 'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt\_on\_privacy/">maybe you shouldn't be doing it</a> in the first place.' This will only fuel <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/07/MNMF1AUFBM.DTL#ixzz0Z0vGXnTG">concerns about Google's behavior</a> as it becomes an ever more powerful gatekeeper of information; though Google says it is aware of these concerns and has taken steps to be transparent to users about the information that is stored."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bonch writes " In a surprising statement to CNBC , Google CEO Eric Schmidt told reporter Maria Bartiromo , 'If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place .
' This will only fuel concerns about Google 's behavior as it becomes an ever more powerful gatekeeper of information ; though Google says it is aware of these concerns and has taken steps to be transparent to users about the information that is stored .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bonch writes "In a surprising statement to CNBC, Google CEO Eric Schmidt told reporter Maria Bartiromo, 'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
' This will only fuel concerns about Google's behavior as it becomes an ever more powerful gatekeeper of information; though Google says it is aware of these concerns and has taken steps to be transparent to users about the information that is stored.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368412</id>
	<title>I Thought He Was Taking A Potshot At Yahoo</title>
	<author>JLucien</author>
	<datestamp>1260301320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having read Yahoo's correspondence with US Marshall's Service <a href="http://cryptome.org/yahoo-price-list-letter.pdf" title="cryptome.org" rel="nofollow"> regarding price of information and the need to keep it secret</a> [cryptome.org], and subsequent correspondence between Yahoo's lawyers and Cryptome, I thought Schmidt was taking a potshot at Yahoo.  <br> <br>

The Yahoo lawyer clearly states that the public release of their sale of information to law enforcement would undermine their user's trust regarding privacy.  This can only be taken as we don't want them to know that they in fact have none.  <br> <br>

When I read that snippet from Schmidt, I immediately thought he was talking about Yahoo.  I don't see him as the "if you have nothing to hide" kind of guy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having read Yahoo 's correspondence with US Marshall 's Service regarding price of information and the need to keep it secret [ cryptome.org ] , and subsequent correspondence between Yahoo 's lawyers and Cryptome , I thought Schmidt was taking a potshot at Yahoo .
The Yahoo lawyer clearly states that the public release of their sale of information to law enforcement would undermine their user 's trust regarding privacy .
This can only be taken as we do n't want them to know that they in fact have none .
When I read that snippet from Schmidt , I immediately thought he was talking about Yahoo .
I do n't see him as the " if you have nothing to hide " kind of guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having read Yahoo's correspondence with US Marshall's Service  regarding price of information and the need to keep it secret [cryptome.org], and subsequent correspondence between Yahoo's lawyers and Cryptome, I thought Schmidt was taking a potshot at Yahoo.
The Yahoo lawyer clearly states that the public release of their sale of information to law enforcement would undermine their user's trust regarding privacy.
This can only be taken as we don't want them to know that they in fact have none.
When I read that snippet from Schmidt, I immediately thought he was talking about Yahoo.
I don't see him as the "if you have nothing to hide" kind of guy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364862</id>
	<title>It was a nasty statement, but</title>
	<author>assertation</author>
	<datestamp>1260286260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it had truth in it.  Privacy in America is mostly an illusion.</p><p>Orgs and people only pretend not to know everything about you / not have access to everything about you.</p><p>The best you can do is accept yourself as you are and avoid being a dick to people so that will not use your information against you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it had truth in it .
Privacy in America is mostly an illusion.Orgs and people only pretend not to know everything about you / not have access to everything about you.The best you can do is accept yourself as you are and avoid being a dick to people so that will not use your information against you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it had truth in it.
Privacy in America is mostly an illusion.Orgs and people only pretend not to know everything about you / not have access to everything about you.The best you can do is accept yourself as you are and avoid being a dick to people so that will not use your information against you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364450</id>
	<title>Yes and...</title>
	<author>Efialtis</author>
	<datestamp>1260284040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, wrongdooers have privacy issues, and so do the rest of us.
Google isn't winning any friends over this statement...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , wrongdooers have privacy issues , and so do the rest of us .
Google is n't winning any friends over this statement.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, wrongdooers have privacy issues, and so do the rest of us.
Google isn't winning any friends over this statement...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365330</id>
	<title>A poor comment by a CEO.</title>
	<author>TheHawke</author>
	<datestamp>1260288180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A couple of things wrong with this picture:</p><p>First, this undermines the motto of Google: Do No Evil. It shows that they are starting to get the Swelled Head Syndrome, thinking that they have the most power by the massive databases they have compiled. Wrong way of thinking!</p><p>Second,  CEO's do NOT make such comments unless they are permitted to do so by their assistants. Same goes for any leader of any company or country. He overshot this mandate badly by making this comment.</p><p>Officially, he just walked into a minefield almost completely filled with pratfalls and booby traps concerning personal privacy.</p><p>I think Google should issue a retraction and make a personal apology, SOONEST!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of things wrong with this picture : First , this undermines the motto of Google : Do No Evil .
It shows that they are starting to get the Swelled Head Syndrome , thinking that they have the most power by the massive databases they have compiled .
Wrong way of thinking ! Second , CEO 's do NOT make such comments unless they are permitted to do so by their assistants .
Same goes for any leader of any company or country .
He overshot this mandate badly by making this comment.Officially , he just walked into a minefield almost completely filled with pratfalls and booby traps concerning personal privacy.I think Google should issue a retraction and make a personal apology , SOONEST !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of things wrong with this picture:First, this undermines the motto of Google: Do No Evil.
It shows that they are starting to get the Swelled Head Syndrome, thinking that they have the most power by the massive databases they have compiled.
Wrong way of thinking!Second,  CEO's do NOT make such comments unless they are permitted to do so by their assistants.
Same goes for any leader of any company or country.
He overshot this mandate badly by making this comment.Officially, he just walked into a minefield almost completely filled with pratfalls and booby traps concerning personal privacy.I think Google should issue a retraction and make a personal apology, SOONEST!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30379634</id>
	<title>Google owns us HALF now its trying to own totally</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google can access all the emails, if it wants to. When Eric Schmidt is making such a comment he has to follow it by keeping his EMAIL INBOX, his SENT MAIL, his bank transactions and everything he owns open to public on the internet. can he do that?? because he can access your email, so you should have the access to his email too. "before making a comment, think if you are following it !!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google can access all the emails , if it wants to .
When Eric Schmidt is making such a comment he has to follow it by keeping his EMAIL INBOX , his SENT MAIL , his bank transactions and everything he owns open to public on the internet .
can he do that ? ?
because he can access your email , so you should have the access to his email too .
" before making a comment , think if you are following it ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google can access all the emails, if it wants to.
When Eric Schmidt is making such a comment he has to follow it by keeping his EMAIL INBOX, his SENT MAIL, his bank transactions and everything he owns open to public on the internet.
can he do that??
because he can access your email, so you should have the access to his email too.
"before making a comment, think if you are following it !!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30369518</id>
	<title>Re:This is a flawed argument</title>
	<author>Sprouticus</author>
	<datestamp>1260262800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>obviously you have never seen voting in chicago...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>obviously you have never seen voting in chicago.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>obviously you have never seen voting in chicago...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365636</id>
	<title>What about the employees?</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1260289500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've all heard the stories of people walking out of Federal Research Laboratories with paperwork and thumb drives full of information such as <a href="http://lanl-the-rest-of-the-story.blogspot.com/2007/04/breach-in-nuclear-security-by-adam.html" title="blogspot.com">Jessican Quintana</a> [blogspot.com].  While stealing nuclear secrets might be a bit harder to use/sell than say 10million email addresses plus associated personal information.  I'd be a bit more concerned about some angry employee grabbing a tape (which I doubt they back much up to tape) or just copying off some data onto a thumb drive and walking out the door.</p><p>This might not be so hard under their "20\% personal projects plan"... </p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Hey boss, I've got an idea for a personal project.. I'd like to create a google map that maps someone and all of their friend's email addresses on it! Kind of like overlaying their email address next to their home address and phone number.  I just need access to that personal data."</p> </div><p>While the CEO can say all sorts of stuff about privacy, there's nothing stopping some kid who makes 1000x less than the CEO and will never become a millionaire from walking out the door with this information and becoming a millionaire that way.  If you don't want people to know a secret, don't tell them.  Google shouldn't be allowed to collect this stuff anyhow, that way it can't leak out to begin with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've all heard the stories of people walking out of Federal Research Laboratories with paperwork and thumb drives full of information such as Jessican Quintana [ blogspot.com ] .
While stealing nuclear secrets might be a bit harder to use/sell than say 10million email addresses plus associated personal information .
I 'd be a bit more concerned about some angry employee grabbing a tape ( which I doubt they back much up to tape ) or just copying off some data onto a thumb drive and walking out the door.This might not be so hard under their " 20 \ % personal projects plan " ... " Hey boss , I 've got an idea for a personal project.. I 'd like to create a google map that maps someone and all of their friend 's email addresses on it !
Kind of like overlaying their email address next to their home address and phone number .
I just need access to that personal data .
" While the CEO can say all sorts of stuff about privacy , there 's nothing stopping some kid who makes 1000x less than the CEO and will never become a millionaire from walking out the door with this information and becoming a millionaire that way .
If you do n't want people to know a secret , do n't tell them .
Google should n't be allowed to collect this stuff anyhow , that way it ca n't leak out to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've all heard the stories of people walking out of Federal Research Laboratories with paperwork and thumb drives full of information such as Jessican Quintana [blogspot.com].
While stealing nuclear secrets might be a bit harder to use/sell than say 10million email addresses plus associated personal information.
I'd be a bit more concerned about some angry employee grabbing a tape (which I doubt they back much up to tape) or just copying off some data onto a thumb drive and walking out the door.This might not be so hard under their "20\% personal projects plan"... "Hey boss, I've got an idea for a personal project.. I'd like to create a google map that maps someone and all of their friend's email addresses on it!
Kind of like overlaying their email address next to their home address and phone number.
I just need access to that personal data.
" While the CEO can say all sorts of stuff about privacy, there's nothing stopping some kid who makes 1000x less than the CEO and will never become a millionaire from walking out the door with this information and becoming a millionaire that way.
If you don't want people to know a secret, don't tell them.
Google shouldn't be allowed to collect this stuff anyhow, that way it can't leak out to begin with.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30376988</id>
	<title>Re:Mr. Schmidt's financial details are online wher</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1259596740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Has a Webcam in his bedroom, does he? I can find his medical records with a Google search? Everything he says at board meetings is published?</p></div></blockquote><p>No need to go this far.  Let him just publish publish the browsing history of himself, his spouse, his children and his grandchildren.</p><p>Surely he can find no fault in such a request.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has a Webcam in his bedroom , does he ?
I can find his medical records with a Google search ?
Everything he says at board meetings is published ? No need to go this far .
Let him just publish publish the browsing history of himself , his spouse , his children and his grandchildren.Surely he can find no fault in such a request .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has a Webcam in his bedroom, does he?
I can find his medical records with a Google search?
Everything he says at board meetings is published?No need to go this far.
Let him just publish publish the browsing history of himself, his spouse, his children and his grandchildren.Surely he can find no fault in such a request.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364648</id>
	<title>follow him around and post everything he does</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260285180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone should follow him around and post everything he does.  After all if he doesn't want everyone to know then he shouldn't be doing it.  Get pictures of his children going to and from school.  After all if he didn't want that information public he shouldn't send his kids to school.  Go through his garbage and post everything he eats and every magazine he reads and every piece of junk mail he receives (including any interesting adult video catalogs he gets).</p><p>I guarantee you that anyone who got to be at that level in a corp has several skeletons in his closet just waiting to be shown the light of day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone should follow him around and post everything he does .
After all if he does n't want everyone to know then he should n't be doing it .
Get pictures of his children going to and from school .
After all if he did n't want that information public he should n't send his kids to school .
Go through his garbage and post everything he eats and every magazine he reads and every piece of junk mail he receives ( including any interesting adult video catalogs he gets ) .I guarantee you that anyone who got to be at that level in a corp has several skeletons in his closet just waiting to be shown the light of day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone should follow him around and post everything he does.
After all if he doesn't want everyone to know then he shouldn't be doing it.
Get pictures of his children going to and from school.
After all if he didn't want that information public he shouldn't send his kids to school.
Go through his garbage and post everything he eats and every magazine he reads and every piece of junk mail he receives (including any interesting adult video catalogs he gets).I guarantee you that anyone who got to be at that level in a corp has several skeletons in his closet just waiting to be shown the light of day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366834</id>
	<title>Civil Disobedience is a crime.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260294480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>all i can really contribute is... fuck that guy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>all i can really contribute is... fuck that guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all i can really contribute is... fuck that guy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365692</id>
	<title>1984</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1260289740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets suspend all privacy already! If your not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide right?</p><p>Big Brother is watching!</p><p>doubleplusgoodspeak/</p><p>LOL for someone suspected of being so smart, what a stupid thing to say. Bad CEO, Bad!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets suspend all privacy already !
If your not doing anything wrong , you have nothing to hide right ? Big Brother is watching ! doubleplusgoodspeak/LOL for someone suspected of being so smart , what a stupid thing to say .
Bad CEO , Bad !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets suspend all privacy already!
If your not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide right?Big Brother is watching!doubleplusgoodspeak/LOL for someone suspected of being so smart, what a stupid thing to say.
Bad CEO, Bad!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364498</id>
	<title>Do not be alarmed!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260284280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google will do no harm.<br>Google is the uber employer.<br>Google is not like old fashioned corporations.<br>Google, Google, Google; see, it's even fun to say.<br>Google uses the Linux.</p><p>You wankers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google will do no harm.Google is the uber employer.Google is not like old fashioned corporations.Google , Google , Google ; see , it 's even fun to say.Google uses the Linux.You wankers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google will do no harm.Google is the uber employer.Google is not like old fashioned corporations.Google, Google, Google; see, it's even fun to say.Google uses the Linux.You wankers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366436</id>
	<title>But what if you are?</title>
	<author>nightfire-unique</author>
	<datestamp>1260292740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well look at me!  I'm not a <i>wrongdoer!</i> </p><p>A little smug, are we?</p><p>All kidding aside, while this <i>may</i> be true, it leaves out an entire class of people!</p><p>What if you <b>are</b> a wrongdoer?</p><p>And don't roll your eyes.  You <b>are</b> a wrongdoer, for some percentage of your lives.</p><p>We've all looooooong past the point, in our respective countries, where governments and our fellow citizens recognize their role in society.  People are vindictive and jealous.  Governments are power-hungry.  Corporations are greedy.  Around the world, there are laws that specify how low you can wear your pants, what types of sex you can have, what you may say about the leader, where you can protest, what you can read, what you can write, how low your car can be, what software you're allowed to run, what foods you can make for others, what you're allowed to smoke and drink...</p><p>We're all wrongdoers.  That is why privacy is important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well look at me !
I 'm not a wrongdoer !
A little smug , are we ? All kidding aside , while this may be true , it leaves out an entire class of people ! What if you are a wrongdoer ? And do n't roll your eyes .
You are a wrongdoer , for some percentage of your lives.We 've all looooooong past the point , in our respective countries , where governments and our fellow citizens recognize their role in society .
People are vindictive and jealous .
Governments are power-hungry .
Corporations are greedy .
Around the world , there are laws that specify how low you can wear your pants , what types of sex you can have , what you may say about the leader , where you can protest , what you can read , what you can write , how low your car can be , what software you 're allowed to run , what foods you can make for others , what you 're allowed to smoke and drink...We 're all wrongdoers .
That is why privacy is important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well look at me!
I'm not a wrongdoer!
A little smug, are we?All kidding aside, while this may be true, it leaves out an entire class of people!What if you are a wrongdoer?And don't roll your eyes.
You are a wrongdoer, for some percentage of your lives.We've all looooooong past the point, in our respective countries, where governments and our fellow citizens recognize their role in society.
People are vindictive and jealous.
Governments are power-hungry.
Corporations are greedy.
Around the world, there are laws that specify how low you can wear your pants, what types of sex you can have, what you may say about the leader, where you can protest, what you can read, what you can write, how low your car can be, what software you're allowed to run, what foods you can make for others, what you're allowed to smoke and drink...We're all wrongdoers.
That is why privacy is important.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364644</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260285120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whose law?</p><p>The United States of America? China? Something in between?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whose law ? The United States of America ?
China ? Something in between ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whose law?The United States of America?
China? Something in between?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368434</id>
	<title>Painfully obvious, but....</title>
	<author>Serpent77</author>
	<datestamp>1260301380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Google has nothing to hide then why not publish the details to their DC's, their search algorithms, payroll, etc, etc, etc?  Everyone has something to hide, and it's usually not for nefarious reasons.

--Serp</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google has nothing to hide then why not publish the details to their DC 's , their search algorithms , payroll , etc , etc , etc ?
Everyone has something to hide , and it 's usually not for nefarious reasons .
--Serp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google has nothing to hide then why not publish the details to their DC's, their search algorithms, payroll, etc, etc, etc?
Everyone has something to hide, and it's usually not for nefarious reasons.
--Serp</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365182</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>SwashbucklingCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1260287520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will Google be doing all negotiations in public from now on?</p><p>What a moronic thing to say Mr. Schmidt...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will Google be doing all negotiations in public from now on ? What a moronic thing to say Mr. Schmidt.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will Google be doing all negotiations in public from now on?What a moronic thing to say Mr. Schmidt...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365578</id>
	<title>Google is in kdawson's sights?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260289200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Google the new Microsoft?  kdawson always has the juiciest (made up) gossip about the heavy hitters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Google the new Microsoft ?
kdawson always has the juiciest ( made up ) gossip about the heavy hitters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Google the new Microsoft?
kdawson always has the juiciest (made up) gossip about the heavy hitters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364230</id>
	<title>Not this again</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1260282660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If you've got nothing to hide" is a tool of tyranny. I thought it was well and truly debunked, and yet it seems it just won't flush away.</p><p>Individual privacy doesn't need a reason. The goal of privacy is privacy.</p><p>If you're going to search for something that you don't want google spunking up 5 years later, to your post democratic, tyrant overlords, you better start taking precautions.<br>This is a start. <a href="https://ssl.scroogle.org/" title="scroogle.org">https://ssl.scroogle.org/</a> [scroogle.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you 've got nothing to hide " is a tool of tyranny .
I thought it was well and truly debunked , and yet it seems it just wo n't flush away.Individual privacy does n't need a reason .
The goal of privacy is privacy.If you 're going to search for something that you do n't want google spunking up 5 years later , to your post democratic , tyrant overlords , you better start taking precautions.This is a start .
https : //ssl.scroogle.org/ [ scroogle.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you've got nothing to hide" is a tool of tyranny.
I thought it was well and truly debunked, and yet it seems it just won't flush away.Individual privacy doesn't need a reason.
The goal of privacy is privacy.If you're going to search for something that you don't want google spunking up 5 years later, to your post democratic, tyrant overlords, you better start taking precautions.This is a start.
https://ssl.scroogle.org/ [scroogle.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30370980</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260269880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is only one definition of a wrongdoer that matters here, and it's defined by the law.</p></div> </blockquote><p>How about Google's definition:</p><blockquote><div><p> <a href="http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&amp;langpair=en\%7Cen&amp;hl=en&amp;q=wrongdoer" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">A wrongdoer is a person who does things that are immoral or illegal.</a> [google.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>Notice the immoral part???  There are many definitions of immoral.</p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is only one definition of a wrongdoer that matters here , and it 's defined by the law .
How about Google 's definition : A wrongdoer is a person who does things that are immoral or illegal .
[ google.com ] Notice the immoral part ? ? ?
There are many definitions of immoral .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is only one definition of a wrongdoer that matters here, and it's defined by the law.
How about Google's definition: A wrongdoer is a person who does things that are immoral or illegal.
[google.com] Notice the immoral part???
There are many definitions of immoral.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364744</id>
	<title>Anything on Eric Schmidt?</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1260285660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this is the way Eric feels, then maybe he wouldn't mind people trolling for private information on him and publishing it on the web? His remarks are just asking for people to make a counter point with him being the focus of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is the way Eric feels , then maybe he would n't mind people trolling for private information on him and publishing it on the web ?
His remarks are just asking for people to make a counter point with him being the focus of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is the way Eric feels, then maybe he wouldn't mind people trolling for private information on him and publishing it on the web?
His remarks are just asking for people to make a counter point with him being the focus of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30382566</id>
	<title>Re:This is a flawed argument</title>
	<author>Keybounce</author>
	<datestamp>1259583300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What about the nudes by the old masters?</p></div><p>Apparently, you can't put a red hat and white beard on them, as then children (think of the children!) get confused about Santa.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the nudes by the old masters ? Apparently , you ca n't put a red hat and white beard on them , as then children ( think of the children !
) get confused about Santa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the nudes by the old masters?Apparently, you can't put a red hat and white beard on them, as then children (think of the children!
) get confused about Santa.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367316</id>
	<title>By Neruos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260296880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That goes against all privacy, security and ideas. People should have a right to "Communication, Converse, Interact and Socialize in a false that excludes or eliminates those not valid to the method."</p><p>If you want take my privacy, then every capitalist business must remove their corporate privacy, as well as the government at a federal and state level. Privacy is a catch 22, you can not take and not expect to give.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That goes against all privacy , security and ideas .
People should have a right to " Communication , Converse , Interact and Socialize in a false that excludes or eliminates those not valid to the method .
" If you want take my privacy , then every capitalist business must remove their corporate privacy , as well as the government at a federal and state level .
Privacy is a catch 22 , you can not take and not expect to give .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That goes against all privacy, security and ideas.
People should have a right to "Communication, Converse, Interact and Socialize in a false that excludes or eliminates those not valid to the method.
"If you want take my privacy, then every capitalist business must remove their corporate privacy, as well as the government at a federal and state level.
Privacy is a catch 22, you can not take and not expect to give.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366618</id>
	<title>Re:This is a flawed argument</title>
	<author>j00r0m4nc3r</author>
	<datestamp>1260293400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My favorite example is a primary school teacher who happens to like BDSM sex.</p></div><p>
The fact that you, and several other commenters, use this specific example of something which is considered "bad" only proves Schmidt's point. Out of all possible bad things, you choose this specifically. This says a lot about you and society -- the stigma is very high for this behavior. This is exactly why the whole "If you don't want people to know about it" thing applies. It's obvious that society views this behavior as "bad", thus if you engage in it you probably don't want people to know about it. And if you feel like you are in a position where if people found out about it, it would ruin your life, <strong>you might consider not doing it</strong>. I'm not saying society is right -- consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want as long as they know and accept all the risks, but <strong>one of those risks is that people will find out and your life will be ruined</strong>. Right or wrong it's just a fact of life. Schmidt is not saying "only do the things we tell you to", he's saying "Anything you do on the internet is not private, so either keep it to yourself or stop doing it if you don't want people to know about it"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite example is a primary school teacher who happens to like BDSM sex .
The fact that you , and several other commenters , use this specific example of something which is considered " bad " only proves Schmidt 's point .
Out of all possible bad things , you choose this specifically .
This says a lot about you and society -- the stigma is very high for this behavior .
This is exactly why the whole " If you do n't want people to know about it " thing applies .
It 's obvious that society views this behavior as " bad " , thus if you engage in it you probably do n't want people to know about it .
And if you feel like you are in a position where if people found out about it , it would ruin your life , you might consider not doing it .
I 'm not saying society is right -- consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want as long as they know and accept all the risks , but one of those risks is that people will find out and your life will be ruined .
Right or wrong it 's just a fact of life .
Schmidt is not saying " only do the things we tell you to " , he 's saying " Anything you do on the internet is not private , so either keep it to yourself or stop doing it if you do n't want people to know about it "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite example is a primary school teacher who happens to like BDSM sex.
The fact that you, and several other commenters, use this specific example of something which is considered "bad" only proves Schmidt's point.
Out of all possible bad things, you choose this specifically.
This says a lot about you and society -- the stigma is very high for this behavior.
This is exactly why the whole "If you don't want people to know about it" thing applies.
It's obvious that society views this behavior as "bad", thus if you engage in it you probably don't want people to know about it.
And if you feel like you are in a position where if people found out about it, it would ruin your life, you might consider not doing it.
I'm not saying society is right -- consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want as long as they know and accept all the risks, but one of those risks is that people will find out and your life will be ruined.
Right or wrong it's just a fact of life.
Schmidt is not saying "only do the things we tell you to", he's saying "Anything you do on the internet is not private, so either keep it to yourself or stop doing it if you don't want people to know about it"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367398</id>
	<title>Re:Same old fallacy</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1260297300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok.  But I don't really see people being arrested left and right for doing Google searches.  So all this freaking out seems bizarre.  Your web searches are not private.  Any computer connected to the Internet is vulnerable.  We all know this.  Yet somehow we expect privacy?<br> <br>After being on Slashdot a number of years...the typical Slashdot posts that get modded up just strike me as more and more insane.  I seriously imagine you all sitting in your basement with guns waiting for the government to attack you for watching Fox News.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok. But I do n't really see people being arrested left and right for doing Google searches .
So all this freaking out seems bizarre .
Your web searches are not private .
Any computer connected to the Internet is vulnerable .
We all know this .
Yet somehow we expect privacy ?
After being on Slashdot a number of years...the typical Slashdot posts that get modded up just strike me as more and more insane .
I seriously imagine you all sitting in your basement with guns waiting for the government to attack you for watching Fox News .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok.  But I don't really see people being arrested left and right for doing Google searches.
So all this freaking out seems bizarre.
Your web searches are not private.
Any computer connected to the Internet is vulnerable.
We all know this.
Yet somehow we expect privacy?
After being on Slashdot a number of years...the typical Slashdot posts that get modded up just strike me as more and more insane.
I seriously imagine you all sitting in your basement with guns waiting for the government to attack you for watching Fox News.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367478</id>
	<title>Re:Thank Your, Mr. Schmidt.</title>
	<author>agentultra</author>
	<datestamp>1260297600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It might be worthwhile blogging your process and seeing just how pervasive google products are in your life. For some reason I have an eerie feeling that it's not as easy as just "quitting google."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It might be worthwhile blogging your process and seeing just how pervasive google products are in your life .
For some reason I have an eerie feeling that it 's not as easy as just " quitting google .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might be worthwhile blogging your process and seeing just how pervasive google products are in your life.
For some reason I have an eerie feeling that it's not as easy as just "quitting google.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365838</id>
	<title>Next job interview...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260290340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None of my illegal activities are trackable online, but, one could probably determine that I'm atheist, vasectomized, childfree, mocking of most naivety (ie, religion and various other cultural norms), vegan, polyamourous, and have a porn addiction.</p><p>None of those things are illegal, but I sure as hell don't want this to be accessible information.  My Facebook page reveals nothing but the veganism, and I fear that day when my browsing habits are enough to make more information publicly known.  (maybe I shouldn't be posting it here).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None of my illegal activities are trackable online , but , one could probably determine that I 'm atheist , vasectomized , childfree , mocking of most naivety ( ie , religion and various other cultural norms ) , vegan , polyamourous , and have a porn addiction.None of those things are illegal , but I sure as hell do n't want this to be accessible information .
My Facebook page reveals nothing but the veganism , and I fear that day when my browsing habits are enough to make more information publicly known .
( maybe I should n't be posting it here ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of my illegal activities are trackable online, but, one could probably determine that I'm atheist, vasectomized, childfree, mocking of most naivety (ie, religion and various other cultural norms), vegan, polyamourous, and have a porn addiction.None of those things are illegal, but I sure as hell don't want this to be accessible information.
My Facebook page reveals nothing but the veganism, and I fear that day when my browsing habits are enough to make more information publicly known.
(maybe I shouldn't be posting it here).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366180</id>
	<title>Maybe you shouldn't be critical of authorities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260291780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2007/nov/28/googletohandoverbloggersi" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Google handing over IP address of anonymous blogger critical of Israel municipal council member.</a> [guardian.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like Google handing over IP address of anonymous blogger critical of Israel municipal council member .
[ guardian.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like Google handing over IP address of anonymous blogger critical of Israel municipal council member.
[guardian.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365824</id>
	<title>So many different ways wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260290280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So many different ways wrong.</p><p>I don't want people knowing how many times I wanked. Or when the last one was. Or who I was wanking over a picture of.</p><p>This doesn't mean I don't care if people have that information.</p><p>Eric, how about if people know the state of your kecks? When you have a turtle-head and a shitstreak? Would it bother you people are ASKING about it? Would it bother you that that information is made available (all they need to do is check your laundry basket!)?</p><p>But if someone DID find out, would you be embarrased?</p><p>Oh yeah.</p><p>If someone was looking, would you be worried?</p><p>Oh yeah.</p><p>Would you not shit any more?</p><p>Eeew. No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So many different ways wrong.I do n't want people knowing how many times I wanked .
Or when the last one was .
Or who I was wanking over a picture of.This does n't mean I do n't care if people have that information.Eric , how about if people know the state of your kecks ?
When you have a turtle-head and a shitstreak ?
Would it bother you people are ASKING about it ?
Would it bother you that that information is made available ( all they need to do is check your laundry basket !
) ? But if someone DID find out , would you be embarrased ? Oh yeah.If someone was looking , would you be worried ? Oh yeah.Would you not shit any more ? Eeew .
No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So many different ways wrong.I don't want people knowing how many times I wanked.
Or when the last one was.
Or who I was wanking over a picture of.This doesn't mean I don't care if people have that information.Eric, how about if people know the state of your kecks?
When you have a turtle-head and a shitstreak?
Would it bother you people are ASKING about it?
Would it bother you that that information is made available (all they need to do is check your laundry basket!
)?But if someone DID find out, would you be embarrased?Oh yeah.If someone was looking, would you be worried?Oh yeah.Would you not shit any more?Eeew.
No.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366786</id>
	<title>Patriot act is invalid in 90\% of the planet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260294240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The damm yanks need to remember that other countries (yes there are other countries in the world) are not bound to the Patriot Act (or the DMCA for that matter) or any other American laws of any kind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The damm yanks need to remember that other countries ( yes there are other countries in the world ) are not bound to the Patriot Act ( or the DMCA for that matter ) or any other American laws of any kind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The damm yanks need to remember that other countries (yes there are other countries in the world) are not bound to the Patriot Act (or the DMCA for that matter) or any other American laws of any kind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30374822</id>
	<title>Re:Add This to the List of Infamous Quotations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is the full quote:<br><i>If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, <b>but if you really need that kind of privacy</b>, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.</i>.</p><p>The "but" is a pretty important word that Gawker and The Register left out with well placed editing filled in with editorial.  Now you are others are turning it into a period, taking something that was not a complete statement and quoting it as one.  Also, the context was left out as well; it is clear that from the latter part of the sentence that this is talking only about internet searches (the "this" in "do retain this information").  The Register and Gawker are gossip rags, so I wouldn't expect anything less than how they spun it.</p><p>Schmidt was dumb for saying what he did, because public figures have to guarantee and any subset of any sentence cannot be sliced up to become a misquote.  However what he was saying was pretty true: If you need to guarantee that nobody finds out about something, you are a fool to search for it, since law enforcement has laws that allow them to get this information.  Thus it isn't so much "nothing to hide" as it is "don't put anything on the internet if you want to keep it private."</p><p>Oh, and McNealy was 100\% right.  People hated him at the time for saying it, but it was pure truth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the full quote : If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place , but if you really need that kind of privacy , the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it 's important , for example , that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities..The " but " is a pretty important word that Gawker and The Register left out with well placed editing filled in with editorial .
Now you are others are turning it into a period , taking something that was not a complete statement and quoting it as one .
Also , the context was left out as well ; it is clear that from the latter part of the sentence that this is talking only about internet searches ( the " this " in " do retain this information " ) .
The Register and Gawker are gossip rags , so I would n't expect anything less than how they spun it.Schmidt was dumb for saying what he did , because public figures have to guarantee and any subset of any sentence can not be sliced up to become a misquote .
However what he was saying was pretty true : If you need to guarantee that nobody finds out about something , you are a fool to search for it , since law enforcement has laws that allow them to get this information .
Thus it is n't so much " nothing to hide " as it is " do n't put anything on the internet if you want to keep it private .
" Oh , and McNealy was 100 \ % right .
People hated him at the time for saying it , but it was pure truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the full quote:If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities..The "but" is a pretty important word that Gawker and The Register left out with well placed editing filled in with editorial.
Now you are others are turning it into a period, taking something that was not a complete statement and quoting it as one.
Also, the context was left out as well; it is clear that from the latter part of the sentence that this is talking only about internet searches (the "this" in "do retain this information").
The Register and Gawker are gossip rags, so I wouldn't expect anything less than how they spun it.Schmidt was dumb for saying what he did, because public figures have to guarantee and any subset of any sentence cannot be sliced up to become a misquote.
However what he was saying was pretty true: If you need to guarantee that nobody finds out about something, you are a fool to search for it, since law enforcement has laws that allow them to get this information.
Thus it isn't so much "nothing to hide" as it is "don't put anything on the internet if you want to keep it private.
"Oh, and McNealy was 100\% right.
People hated him at the time for saying it, but it was pure truth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364340</id>
	<title>Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260283320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as I am aware privacy is a *fundemantal* right of any citizen.</p><p>My house is in a "public" place with everyone else but within the confines of my home is totally my business no one elses.</p><p>Same thing with the internet - you can use "public" services or an alternative that would respect your privacy - there is always encryption too.</p><p>Schmidt's comments I imagine is in context of using Google services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I am aware privacy is a * fundemantal * right of any citizen.My house is in a " public " place with everyone else but within the confines of my home is totally my business no one elses.Same thing with the internet - you can use " public " services or an alternative that would respect your privacy - there is always encryption too.Schmidt 's comments I imagine is in context of using Google services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I am aware privacy is a *fundemantal* right of any citizen.My house is in a "public" place with everyone else but within the confines of my home is totally my business no one elses.Same thing with the internet - you can use "public" services or an alternative that would respect your privacy - there is always encryption too.Schmidt's comments I imagine is in context of using Google services.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365382</id>
	<title>Re:Or perhaps....</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1260288420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "doing it" in Schmidt's quote appears to be a reference to "doing an online search", and the point he makes is that the search data exists and is retained.  Whether you think it's fair or not, it's reality, so act accordingly.</p><p>For instance, let's say you have a small penis.  If you walk down the street naked, do you really expect your neighbors to either 1) not notice or 2) be restricted from revealing that piece of data?  You put it out there - deal with the consequences, regardless of how "fair" you think they are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " doing it " in Schmidt 's quote appears to be a reference to " doing an online search " , and the point he makes is that the search data exists and is retained .
Whether you think it 's fair or not , it 's reality , so act accordingly.For instance , let 's say you have a small penis .
If you walk down the street naked , do you really expect your neighbors to either 1 ) not notice or 2 ) be restricted from revealing that piece of data ?
You put it out there - deal with the consequences , regardless of how " fair " you think they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "doing it" in Schmidt's quote appears to be a reference to "doing an online search", and the point he makes is that the search data exists and is retained.
Whether you think it's fair or not, it's reality, so act accordingly.For instance, let's say you have a small penis.
If you walk down the street naked, do you really expect your neighbors to either 1) not notice or 2) be restricted from revealing that piece of data?
You put it out there - deal with the consequences, regardless of how "fair" you think they are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367130</id>
	<title>Alternatives?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260295980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, so Google is turning evil(maybe). What are the alternatives if it turns out to be so evil that we need to boycott it(god forbid)?

Bing sucks balls, it doesn't have anything like scholar or patent search, and its probably a lot more evil.

Any suggestions?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so Google is turning evil ( maybe ) .
What are the alternatives if it turns out to be so evil that we need to boycott it ( god forbid ) ?
Bing sucks balls , it does n't have anything like scholar or patent search , and its probably a lot more evil .
Any suggestions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so Google is turning evil(maybe).
What are the alternatives if it turns out to be so evil that we need to boycott it(god forbid)?
Bing sucks balls, it doesn't have anything like scholar or patent search, and its probably a lot more evil.
Any suggestions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364594</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy for Wrongdoers</title>
	<author>sukotto</author>
	<datestamp>1260284880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
-- Cardinal Richelieu</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men , I will find something in them which will hang him .
" -- Cardinal Richelieu</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
"
-- Cardinal Richelieu</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364934</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy for Wrongdoers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260286500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 30 US states, it's perfectly legal for an employer to fire you because you're gay.  This is a pretty clear example of something that's not illegal but that many people still believe is "wrong."  Privacy is not just about trying to hide illegal actions; people need it for a lot more important reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 30 US states , it 's perfectly legal for an employer to fire you because you 're gay .
This is a pretty clear example of something that 's not illegal but that many people still believe is " wrong .
" Privacy is not just about trying to hide illegal actions ; people need it for a lot more important reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 30 US states, it's perfectly legal for an employer to fire you because you're gay.
This is a pretty clear example of something that's not illegal but that many people still believe is "wrong.
"  Privacy is not just about trying to hide illegal actions; people need it for a lot more important reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365018</id>
	<title>In Russia...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260286800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The KGB used to say "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about." Then you knew you were in trouble. They would always find something to pin you down.</p><p>Oh, and by the way... In Russia, DNS searches you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The KGB used to say " If you 've done nothing wrong , you 've got nothing to worry about .
" Then you knew you were in trouble .
They would always find something to pin you down.Oh , and by the way... In Russia , DNS searches you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The KGB used to say "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about.
" Then you knew you were in trouble.
They would always find something to pin you down.Oh, and by the way... In Russia, DNS searches you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365650</id>
	<title>Thanks for helping me decide</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260289560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been meaning to look at if Google's DNS will make any difference for me, but now I know I don't need to bother. I also know I need to start taking my business elsewhere when there's a reasonable alternative. Congratulations Google, you've crossed the boycott line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been meaning to look at if Google 's DNS will make any difference for me , but now I know I do n't need to bother .
I also know I need to start taking my business elsewhere when there 's a reasonable alternative .
Congratulations Google , you 've crossed the boycott line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been meaning to look at if Google's DNS will make any difference for me, but now I know I don't need to bother.
I also know I need to start taking my business elsewhere when there's a reasonable alternative.
Congratulations Google, you've crossed the boycott line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366464</id>
	<title>Re:And upon hearing this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260292800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Presumably on the basis of some sort of evidence that MS is less likely to misuse your information?</p><p>Oh right, there is no such evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably on the basis of some sort of evidence that MS is less likely to misuse your information ? Oh right , there is no such evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably on the basis of some sort of evidence that MS is less likely to misuse your information?Oh right, there is no such evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364170</id>
	<title>Re:Context?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260282420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole concept smacks of intellectual tyranny.  The problem as I see it is one of oversight.  I don't see electronic paper as any more public than the contents of your briefcase.  For some reason government and just about everyone else seems to think that your electronic communications are free game. Why? They need a warrant to tap your phone and tampering with snail mail is a federal crime.</p><p>If a government agency wants to look at what you're doing, they should need a search warrant issued by a judge under clearly devised rules of evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole concept smacks of intellectual tyranny .
The problem as I see it is one of oversight .
I do n't see electronic paper as any more public than the contents of your briefcase .
For some reason government and just about everyone else seems to think that your electronic communications are free game .
Why ? They need a warrant to tap your phone and tampering with snail mail is a federal crime.If a government agency wants to look at what you 're doing , they should need a search warrant issued by a judge under clearly devised rules of evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole concept smacks of intellectual tyranny.
The problem as I see it is one of oversight.
I don't see electronic paper as any more public than the contents of your briefcase.
For some reason government and just about everyone else seems to think that your electronic communications are free game.
Why? They need a warrant to tap your phone and tampering with snail mail is a federal crime.If a government agency wants to look at what you're doing, they should need a search warrant issued by a judge under clearly devised rules of evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365166</id>
	<title>I expect Mr. Google CEO to say this soon:</title>
	<author>keneng</author>
	<datestamp>1260287460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Privacy worries are for those using disruptive technologies."</p><p>Oops, then it seems most users will then have become part of this witch-hunt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Privacy worries are for those using disruptive technologies .
" Oops , then it seems most users will then have become part of this witch-hunt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Privacy worries are for those using disruptive technologies.
"Oops, then it seems most users will then have become part of this witch-hunt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364298</id>
	<title>Partially true</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1260283080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect that for many of us, there are <i>two</i> kinds of Google searches we do that we don't want public:</p><p>(1) Things that we wouldn't want our mothers to know about.</p><p>(2) Things we wouldn't want our employers, potential insurance companies, or dictatorial governments to know about.</p><p>It sounds like the Google guy is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  He might have a point about (1), but his comment also seems to dismiss (2), and that's a real problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that for many of us , there are two kinds of Google searches we do that we do n't want public : ( 1 ) Things that we would n't want our mothers to know about .
( 2 ) Things we would n't want our employers , potential insurance companies , or dictatorial governments to know about.It sounds like the Google guy is throwing out the baby with the bathwater .
He might have a point about ( 1 ) , but his comment also seems to dismiss ( 2 ) , and that 's a real problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that for many of us, there are two kinds of Google searches we do that we don't want public:(1) Things that we wouldn't want our mothers to know about.
(2) Things we wouldn't want our employers, potential insurance companies, or dictatorial governments to know about.It sounds like the Google guy is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
He might have a point about (1), but his comment also seems to dismiss (2), and that's a real problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368060</id>
	<title>This has happened before... time to be worried...</title>
	<author>meerling</author>
	<datestamp>1260300060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>People have made these statements before.<br>The exact wording was different, because it's usually in a different language, but it's the same meaning.<br>Usually it's just before a totalitarian regime takes over.<br>That kind of thinking is always evil.<br>We've fought Wars of various kinds to block it.<br><br>Privacy isn't just a nicety, it's guaranteed in various forms by the Constitution of the United States of America.<br>Even that isn't it's origin as it's been accepted and expected by most of the worlds populace since time immemorial.<br><br>Don't let that evil blowhard get away with this, tell him your opinions.<br>Small bit of advice, be civil about it or they'll just round-file your messages.<br>(A thousand profanity filled attacks are worth less than one polite and reasoned statement.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>People have made these statements before.The exact wording was different , because it 's usually in a different language , but it 's the same meaning.Usually it 's just before a totalitarian regime takes over.That kind of thinking is always evil.We 've fought Wars of various kinds to block it.Privacy is n't just a nicety , it 's guaranteed in various forms by the Constitution of the United States of America.Even that is n't it 's origin as it 's been accepted and expected by most of the worlds populace since time immemorial.Do n't let that evil blowhard get away with this , tell him your opinions.Small bit of advice , be civil about it or they 'll just round-file your messages .
( A thousand profanity filled attacks are worth less than one polite and reasoned statement .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have made these statements before.The exact wording was different, because it's usually in a different language, but it's the same meaning.Usually it's just before a totalitarian regime takes over.That kind of thinking is always evil.We've fought Wars of various kinds to block it.Privacy isn't just a nicety, it's guaranteed in various forms by the Constitution of the United States of America.Even that isn't it's origin as it's been accepted and expected by most of the worlds populace since time immemorial.Don't let that evil blowhard get away with this, tell him your opinions.Small bit of advice, be civil about it or they'll just round-file your messages.
(A thousand profanity filled attacks are worth less than one polite and reasoned statement.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30369032</id>
	<title>Re:Right</title>
	<author>Twinbee</author>
	<datestamp>1260303840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Question the motive not the action. It's what they use the information for that determines whether it is evil or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Question the motive not the action .
It 's what they use the information for that determines whether it is evil or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question the motive not the action.
It's what they use the information for that determines whether it is evil or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365000</id>
	<title>So it begins...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260286740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it begins...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it begins.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it begins...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30374160</id>
	<title>Google and Privacy</title>
	<author>slider3618</author>
	<datestamp>1260294240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What bullshit. Privacy means the right (yes, the RIGHT) to disclose information only to those you wish to share it with. The idea that the only people wanting privacy are "wrongdoers" is idiotic.
My information, and what I choose to disclose to whom is totally my business, and no one else's business. I am doing nothing wrong by anyone's standards, but the idea that I should have to dislose my private information to prove it defeats the very idea of privacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What bullshit .
Privacy means the right ( yes , the RIGHT ) to disclose information only to those you wish to share it with .
The idea that the only people wanting privacy are " wrongdoers " is idiotic .
My information , and what I choose to disclose to whom is totally my business , and no one else 's business .
I am doing nothing wrong by anyone 's standards , but the idea that I should have to dislose my private information to prove it defeats the very idea of privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What bullshit.
Privacy means the right (yes, the RIGHT) to disclose information only to those you wish to share it with.
The idea that the only people wanting privacy are "wrongdoers" is idiotic.
My information, and what I choose to disclose to whom is totally my business, and no one else's business.
I am doing nothing wrong by anyone's standards, but the idea that I should have to dislose my private information to prove it defeats the very idea of privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30376526</id>
	<title>Re:This is a flawed argument</title>
	<author>sowth</author>
	<datestamp>1259593320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know having the "wrong faith" can bring unwanted attention to you by experience.

</p><p>When I was six, my parents moved to a place dominated (over 90\%) by a certain brand of christian fundamentalists.

</p><p>For example, once they find out you don't go to their church, "coincidently" they start "creatively" reinterpreting everything you say as some secret sexual code. They would also say I was a drug dealer / addict, prostitute, pimp, or whatever bad thing they could come up with. Any bad accusation against me must be true, because I was an "evil nonmember."

</p><p>Really, one has to keep the details of one's life private, or psychotic extremists will never leave you alone. There is always someone who is against any given thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know having the " wrong faith " can bring unwanted attention to you by experience .
When I was six , my parents moved to a place dominated ( over 90 \ % ) by a certain brand of christian fundamentalists .
For example , once they find out you do n't go to their church , " coincidently " they start " creatively " reinterpreting everything you say as some secret sexual code .
They would also say I was a drug dealer / addict , prostitute , pimp , or whatever bad thing they could come up with .
Any bad accusation against me must be true , because I was an " evil nonmember .
" Really , one has to keep the details of one 's life private , or psychotic extremists will never leave you alone .
There is always someone who is against any given thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know having the "wrong faith" can bring unwanted attention to you by experience.
When I was six, my parents moved to a place dominated (over 90\%) by a certain brand of christian fundamentalists.
For example, once they find out you don't go to their church, "coincidently" they start "creatively" reinterpreting everything you say as some secret sexual code.
They would also say I was a drug dealer / addict, prostitute, pimp, or whatever bad thing they could come up with.
Any bad accusation against me must be true, because I was an "evil nonmember.
"

Really, one has to keep the details of one's life private, or psychotic extremists will never leave you alone.
There is always someone who is against any given thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364180</id>
	<title>No wonder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260282420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No wonder he says that, given that Google is very likely almost a branch of the NSA. (I say almost, because they were funded independently but seem to have very close ties to the NSA since the beginning.) Also, privacy prevents Google from selling all your personal information to advertisers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No wonder he says that , given that Google is very likely almost a branch of the NSA .
( I say almost , because they were funded independently but seem to have very close ties to the NSA since the beginning .
) Also , privacy prevents Google from selling all your personal information to advertisers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No wonder he says that, given that Google is very likely almost a branch of the NSA.
(I say almost, because they were funded independently but seem to have very close ties to the NSA since the beginning.
) Also, privacy prevents Google from selling all your personal information to advertisers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365176</id>
	<title>Re:Or perhaps....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260287520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fundamental of Left Wing Thinking:<br>People by nature are poor in judgement and inheritly evil and need a strong authority to keep their behavior in check, a.k.a "The Lord of the Flies" scenario.</p><p>Fundamental of Right Wing Thinking:<br>People by nature are governed by self interest and by nature they engage in a capitalistic exchange of goods and services with a tendency for specialization and self advancement. Due to the need of that exchange are usually good natured enough to get along to at least do business with one another.</p><p>With a left leaning society guilt should not be suprise and is not "all the rage these days." Historically that ideology was prevalent from about 1450 AD to about midway through the 1600's AD dying out about 1/2 through the Renessance.</p><p>Guilt is an excellent way to exert control. Sin, in it's various forms, has always been a method by which a higher power (be it a God, Philosophy, or government) has leveraged control over other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fundamental of Left Wing Thinking : People by nature are poor in judgement and inheritly evil and need a strong authority to keep their behavior in check , a.k.a " The Lord of the Flies " scenario.Fundamental of Right Wing Thinking : People by nature are governed by self interest and by nature they engage in a capitalistic exchange of goods and services with a tendency for specialization and self advancement .
Due to the need of that exchange are usually good natured enough to get along to at least do business with one another.With a left leaning society guilt should not be suprise and is not " all the rage these days .
" Historically that ideology was prevalent from about 1450 AD to about midway through the 1600 's AD dying out about 1/2 through the Renessance.Guilt is an excellent way to exert control .
Sin , in it 's various forms , has always been a method by which a higher power ( be it a God , Philosophy , or government ) has leveraged control over other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fundamental of Left Wing Thinking:People by nature are poor in judgement and inheritly evil and need a strong authority to keep their behavior in check, a.k.a "The Lord of the Flies" scenario.Fundamental of Right Wing Thinking:People by nature are governed by self interest and by nature they engage in a capitalistic exchange of goods and services with a tendency for specialization and self advancement.
Due to the need of that exchange are usually good natured enough to get along to at least do business with one another.With a left leaning society guilt should not be suprise and is not "all the rage these days.
" Historically that ideology was prevalent from about 1450 AD to about midway through the 1600's AD dying out about 1/2 through the Renessance.Guilt is an excellent way to exert control.
Sin, in it's various forms, has always been a method by which a higher power (be it a God, Philosophy, or government) has leveraged control over other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365600</id>
	<title>Way to go, Google</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1260289320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just alienated the largest pool of geeks on the Internet.</p><p>"You may think you're not doing anything wrong, but you may indeed be wronging someone you don't know."<br>"But who defines what's wrong?"<br>"Someone you don't know."</p><p>Excuse me while I iron my burka...I'll probably be needing it soon, just to be sure I'm not breaking any future laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just alienated the largest pool of geeks on the Internet .
" You may think you 're not doing anything wrong , but you may indeed be wronging someone you do n't know .
" " But who defines what 's wrong ?
" " Someone you do n't know .
" Excuse me while I iron my burka...I 'll probably be needing it soon , just to be sure I 'm not breaking any future laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just alienated the largest pool of geeks on the Internet.
"You may think you're not doing anything wrong, but you may indeed be wronging someone you don't know.
""But who defines what's wrong?
""Someone you don't know.
"Excuse me while I iron my burka...I'll probably be needing it soon, just to be sure I'm not breaking any future laws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364398</id>
	<title>Done nothing wrong; be afraid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260283620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1984 meets Neuromancer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1984 meets Neuromancer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1984 meets Neuromancer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364806</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy for Wrongdoers</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1260285960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is that everyone is a wrongdoer by someone's definition.</p></div><p>I see this sentiment a lot these days. It sounds good, but it doesn't actually mean anything. You could substitute "wrongdoer" with any other value judgment and it would still be both true -- and irrelevant. Everyone is a shitty programmer, a poor choice for professional hockey goalkeeping duties, and an excellent choice to dog-sit little MocMoc while we vacation in the Bahamas.</p><p>I suspect that the intended point is that all sorts of seemingly benign things might be used against one in a court of law, and that's true, but it's a different point altogether.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that everyone is a wrongdoer by someone 's definition.I see this sentiment a lot these days .
It sounds good , but it does n't actually mean anything .
You could substitute " wrongdoer " with any other value judgment and it would still be both true -- and irrelevant .
Everyone is a shitty programmer , a poor choice for professional hockey goalkeeping duties , and an excellent choice to dog-sit little MocMoc while we vacation in the Bahamas.I suspect that the intended point is that all sorts of seemingly benign things might be used against one in a court of law , and that 's true , but it 's a different point altogether .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that everyone is a wrongdoer by someone's definition.I see this sentiment a lot these days.
It sounds good, but it doesn't actually mean anything.
You could substitute "wrongdoer" with any other value judgment and it would still be both true -- and irrelevant.
Everyone is a shitty programmer, a poor choice for professional hockey goalkeeping duties, and an excellent choice to dog-sit little MocMoc while we vacation in the Bahamas.I suspect that the intended point is that all sorts of seemingly benign things might be used against one in a court of law, and that's true, but it's a different point altogether.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364714</id>
	<title>This is totatally unacceptable.</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1260285540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe Mr. Schmidt would do well to remember the time he complained in the media about the fact that a lot of his personal details, including his address, etc - were found in Google search. Apparently he was doing something wrong, and had devious plan - I mean, if we listen to Mr. Schmidt, his apparent concerns at the time were enough to justify many articles in the mainstream press....Hashe been investigated yet?</p><p>Maybe Mr. Schmidt shouldn't be the CEO of a company that deals with so much personal information if he doesn't understand the need for privacy and how important it is to most people.</p><p>The argument he makes is the weakest argument people who advocate destroying personal privacy can make - and one of the worst things about it, and something they never seem to consider is that it is a COMPLETELY UNAMERICAN argument, and the reason I say this is because it assumes that the authorities (government) are completely infalliable and should be trusted. One of the main premises of the way our system is supposed to work is checks and balances, they point of which is that we aren't supposed to trust authorities, this is WHY we have checks and balances....and corporations - please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Mr. Schmidt would do well to remember the time he complained in the media about the fact that a lot of his personal details , including his address , etc - were found in Google search .
Apparently he was doing something wrong , and had devious plan - I mean , if we listen to Mr. Schmidt , his apparent concerns at the time were enough to justify many articles in the mainstream press....Hashe been investigated yet ? Maybe Mr. Schmidt should n't be the CEO of a company that deals with so much personal information if he does n't understand the need for privacy and how important it is to most people.The argument he makes is the weakest argument people who advocate destroying personal privacy can make - and one of the worst things about it , and something they never seem to consider is that it is a COMPLETELY UNAMERICAN argument , and the reason I say this is because it assumes that the authorities ( government ) are completely infalliable and should be trusted .
One of the main premises of the way our system is supposed to work is checks and balances , they point of which is that we are n't supposed to trust authorities , this is WHY we have checks and balances....and corporations - please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Mr. Schmidt would do well to remember the time he complained in the media about the fact that a lot of his personal details, including his address, etc - were found in Google search.
Apparently he was doing something wrong, and had devious plan - I mean, if we listen to Mr. Schmidt, his apparent concerns at the time were enough to justify many articles in the mainstream press....Hashe been investigated yet?Maybe Mr. Schmidt shouldn't be the CEO of a company that deals with so much personal information if he doesn't understand the need for privacy and how important it is to most people.The argument he makes is the weakest argument people who advocate destroying personal privacy can make - and one of the worst things about it, and something they never seem to consider is that it is a COMPLETELY UNAMERICAN argument, and the reason I say this is because it assumes that the authorities (government) are completely infalliable and should be trusted.
One of the main premises of the way our system is supposed to work is checks and balances, they point of which is that we aren't supposed to trust authorities, this is WHY we have checks and balances....and corporations - please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365446</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy for Wrongdoers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260288720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is that everyone is a wrongdoer by someone's definition.</p></div><p>Yes, and google bends over for anyone with enough clout.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that everyone is a wrongdoer by someone 's definition.Yes , and google bends over for anyone with enough clout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that everyone is a wrongdoer by someone's definition.Yes, and google bends over for anyone with enough clout.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364312</id>
	<title>Privacy debate for dummies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260283200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Privacy debate for dummies:</p><p>Supposition:  You are only concerned about privacy in matters that are clandestine, evil, or shameful.</p><p>Negation:  You have a penis?    Is your penis a terrorist?  Is it defective?  Are you ashamed of it?  Even if you answered no to the last three questions, I highly doubt you want details of your c*ck becoming a matter of public record.</p><p>It's as simple as that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy debate for dummies : Supposition : You are only concerned about privacy in matters that are clandestine , evil , or shameful.Negation : You have a penis ?
Is your penis a terrorist ?
Is it defective ?
Are you ashamed of it ?
Even if you answered no to the last three questions , I highly doubt you want details of your c * ck becoming a matter of public record.It 's as simple as that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy debate for dummies:Supposition:  You are only concerned about privacy in matters that are clandestine, evil, or shameful.Negation:  You have a penis?
Is your penis a terrorist?
Is it defective?
Are you ashamed of it?
Even if you answered no to the last three questions, I highly doubt you want details of your c*ck becoming a matter of public record.It's as simple as that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364130</id>
	<title>Right</title>
	<author>ilovegeorgebush</author>
	<datestamp>1260282180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Privacy isn't about hiding a wrong.<br> <br> <br>

But whatever, by his logic he'd be happy to share his credit card details and the key-code to his security at home?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy is n't about hiding a wrong .
But whatever , by his logic he 'd be happy to share his credit card details and the key-code to his security at home ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy isn't about hiding a wrong.
But whatever, by his logic he'd be happy to share his credit card details and the key-code to his security at home?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366504</id>
	<title>The "Big Brother" Picture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260292920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is Big Brother.</p><p>They have a nice, child like logo, all colorful and inviteing.</p><p>They give away all their services "for free."</p><p>They want you to use their online office software, their spreadsheets, their social networking, their email, their search, their DNS, their voicemail which will "automatically convert voice to text and email it to you" and recently their announced "take a photo with your cell phone and GPS co-ordinates," not to mention already having satellite photos of your house, your car, your dog in your backyard.</p><p>This is all fine and well, except, you cannot trust Google. They are a corporation, who have an obligation to shareholders to make money. That is their primary obligation. Customers are just a tool used to meet that obligation.</p><p>They are also subject to any government whos country they want to continue operating in, which is pretty much all of them.</p><p>If this isnt Big Brother, then nothing is Big Brother.</p><p>As for Mr. Eric "The Worm" Schmidts comments on how "people shouldnt be doing anything if it needs to be private"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Google regulary conducts its business, its research, in private.</p><p>I have known an employee of Google, who routinely wanted my source code, yet, would never discuss what Google was working on. He would say "oh this new big project" or "the other new big project" and hold the fact that Google had projects out like carrots, but fail to provide any information. So Google itself conducts its business, in private.</p><p>The reported numbers of servers Google operates, has routinely tickled the fancy of geeks everywhere when discussed in the media. But why would google need 500,000<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or 1,000,000 servers, given<br>the processing power of a modern quad core cpu and mobo ? It's definately not to serve web pages. You could serve Googles daily traffic on a mere 20 or 30 or 40 or so powerful servers ( storage aside ).</p><p>Google isnt just archiving traffic. They are analysing it. All of it. Every bit they can get their hands on. And they will sell that information to anyone with money that wants it. Including, anyone that wants to conduct an investigation on the number of pimples on your butt.</p><p>"One of the great secrets of Google is that we are not quite as unconventional as we say we are," -- Eric Schmidt</p><p>"We are moving to a Google that knows more about you." -- Eric Schmidt</p><p>I've spoken to fellow geeks about why using Google Docs is a bad idea, because even tho there is a "privacy policy" concerning it, it essentially states that:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Any information you submit to Google can be used however Google wants to "improve its services" and becomes Googles property. {paraphrased}</p><p>The bottom line of you and Google is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Don't tell Google anything about you that you dont want Google to own, sell, re-publish, or otherwise use against you for profit.</p><p>Meet the new boss<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... Same as the old boss<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>Anonymous Private Coward.</p><p>ps. Ecosia says they keep info for 48 hours, and 80\% of their profit is put towards saving the rain forest, not selling you down the river. I for one have started using it as a search engine.</p><p>pps. As to how to solve the issue of companies like Google who are drunk with power and flush with cash and behaving like every other pathological giant corporate entity ?</p><p>Fully distributed, peered, user operated services, with random re-routeing ( alot like Tor, but acceptably responsive ) would do it. No central servers. No audit trail. Noone for the {insert political party here} to send a court order to demanding records, no records for a demand to be made against, etc. The amount of information a protocol like that would leak to ISPs in the path would be minimal. Server operators could even get paid using the standard advertiseing model, and advertisers could log into any of the distributed servers. Just throwing it out there. Dont ask for complete implementation details. I dont have them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... yet.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is Big Brother.They have a nice , child like logo , all colorful and inviteing.They give away all their services " for free .
" They want you to use their online office software , their spreadsheets , their social networking , their email , their search , their DNS , their voicemail which will " automatically convert voice to text and email it to you " and recently their announced " take a photo with your cell phone and GPS co-ordinates , " not to mention already having satellite photos of your house , your car , your dog in your backyard.This is all fine and well , except , you can not trust Google .
They are a corporation , who have an obligation to shareholders to make money .
That is their primary obligation .
Customers are just a tool used to meet that obligation.They are also subject to any government whos country they want to continue operating in , which is pretty much all of them.If this isnt Big Brother , then nothing is Big Brother.As for Mr. Eric " The Worm " Schmidts comments on how " people shouldnt be doing anything if it needs to be private " ... Google regulary conducts its business , its research , in private.I have known an employee of Google , who routinely wanted my source code , yet , would never discuss what Google was working on .
He would say " oh this new big project " or " the other new big project " and hold the fact that Google had projects out like carrots , but fail to provide any information .
So Google itself conducts its business , in private.The reported numbers of servers Google operates , has routinely tickled the fancy of geeks everywhere when discussed in the media .
But why would google need 500,000 ... or 1,000,000 servers , giventhe processing power of a modern quad core cpu and mobo ?
It 's definately not to serve web pages .
You could serve Googles daily traffic on a mere 20 or 30 or 40 or so powerful servers ( storage aside ) .Google isnt just archiving traffic .
They are analysing it .
All of it .
Every bit they can get their hands on .
And they will sell that information to anyone with money that wants it .
Including , anyone that wants to conduct an investigation on the number of pimples on your butt .
" One of the great secrets of Google is that we are not quite as unconventional as we say we are , " -- Eric Schmidt " We are moving to a Google that knows more about you .
" -- Eric SchmidtI 've spoken to fellow geeks about why using Google Docs is a bad idea , because even tho there is a " privacy policy " concerning it , it essentially states that :     Any information you submit to Google can be used however Google wants to " improve its services " and becomes Googles property .
{ paraphrased } The bottom line of you and Google is ... Do n't tell Google anything about you that you dont want Google to own , sell , re-publish , or otherwise use against you for profit.Meet the new boss .... Same as the old boss ....Anonymous Private Coward.ps .
Ecosia says they keep info for 48 hours , and 80 \ % of their profit is put towards saving the rain forest , not selling you down the river .
I for one have started using it as a search engine.pps .
As to how to solve the issue of companies like Google who are drunk with power and flush with cash and behaving like every other pathological giant corporate entity ? Fully distributed , peered , user operated services , with random re-routeing ( alot like Tor , but acceptably responsive ) would do it .
No central servers .
No audit trail .
Noone for the { insert political party here } to send a court order to demanding records , no records for a demand to be made against , etc .
The amount of information a protocol like that would leak to ISPs in the path would be minimal .
Server operators could even get paid using the standard advertiseing model , and advertisers could log into any of the distributed servers .
Just throwing it out there .
Dont ask for complete implementation details .
I dont have them ... yet. ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is Big Brother.They have a nice, child like logo, all colorful and inviteing.They give away all their services "for free.
"They want you to use their online office software, their spreadsheets, their social networking, their email, their search, their DNS, their voicemail which will "automatically convert voice to text and email it to you" and recently their announced "take a photo with your cell phone and GPS co-ordinates," not to mention already having satellite photos of your house, your car, your dog in your backyard.This is all fine and well, except, you cannot trust Google.
They are a corporation, who have an obligation to shareholders to make money.
That is their primary obligation.
Customers are just a tool used to meet that obligation.They are also subject to any government whos country they want to continue operating in, which is pretty much all of them.If this isnt Big Brother, then nothing is Big Brother.As for Mr. Eric "The Worm" Schmidts comments on how "people shouldnt be doing anything if it needs to be private" ... Google regulary conducts its business, its research, in private.I have known an employee of Google, who routinely wanted my source code, yet, would never discuss what Google was working on.
He would say "oh this new big project" or "the other new big project" and hold the fact that Google had projects out like carrots, but fail to provide any information.
So Google itself conducts its business, in private.The reported numbers of servers Google operates, has routinely tickled the fancy of geeks everywhere when discussed in the media.
But why would google need 500,000 ... or 1,000,000 servers, giventhe processing power of a modern quad core cpu and mobo ?
It's definately not to serve web pages.
You could serve Googles daily traffic on a mere 20 or 30 or 40 or so powerful servers ( storage aside ).Google isnt just archiving traffic.
They are analysing it.
All of it.
Every bit they can get their hands on.
And they will sell that information to anyone with money that wants it.
Including, anyone that wants to conduct an investigation on the number of pimples on your butt.
"One of the great secrets of Google is that we are not quite as unconventional as we say we are," -- Eric Schmidt"We are moving to a Google that knows more about you.
" -- Eric SchmidtI've spoken to fellow geeks about why using Google Docs is a bad idea, because even tho there is a "privacy policy" concerning it, it essentially states that:
    Any information you submit to Google can be used however Google wants to "improve its services" and becomes Googles property.
{paraphrased}The bottom line of you and Google is ... Don't tell Google anything about you that you dont want Google to own, sell, re-publish, or otherwise use against you for profit.Meet the new boss .... Same as the old boss ....Anonymous Private Coward.ps.
Ecosia says they keep info for 48 hours, and 80\% of their profit is put towards saving the rain forest, not selling you down the river.
I for one have started using it as a search engine.pps.
As to how to solve the issue of companies like Google who are drunk with power and flush with cash and behaving like every other pathological giant corporate entity ?Fully distributed, peered, user operated services, with random re-routeing ( alot like Tor, but acceptably responsive ) would do it.
No central servers.
No audit trail.
Noone for the {insert political party here} to send a court order to demanding records, no records for a demand to be made against, etc.
The amount of information a protocol like that would leak to ISPs in the path would be minimal.
Server operators could even get paid using the standard advertiseing model, and advertisers could log into any of the distributed servers.
Just throwing it out there.
Dont ask for complete implementation details.
I dont have them ... yet. ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364460</id>
	<title>Nothing to hide?</title>
	<author>jhhdk</author>
	<datestamp>1260284100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same false argument has been put forward to defend of CCTV.<br>I prefer to shit in privacy, but it seems Eric Schmidt doesn't.</p><p>He should read this article.</p><p>Solove, Daniel J., 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy. San Diego Law Review, Vol. 44, 2007; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 289. Available at SSRN: <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=998565" title="ssrn.com" rel="nofollow">http://ssrn.com/abstract=998565</a> [ssrn.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same false argument has been put forward to defend of CCTV.I prefer to shit in privacy , but it seems Eric Schmidt does n't.He should read this article.Solove , Daniel J. , 'I 've Got Nothing to Hide ' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy .
San Diego Law Review , Vol .
44 , 2007 ; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No .
289. Available at SSRN : http : //ssrn.com/abstract = 998565 [ ssrn.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same false argument has been put forward to defend of CCTV.I prefer to shit in privacy, but it seems Eric Schmidt doesn't.He should read this article.Solove, Daniel J., 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy.
San Diego Law Review, Vol.
44, 2007; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No.
289. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=998565 [ssrn.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366910</id>
	<title>Google's customer list - public information?</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1260294900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
What would Google think if someone released their customer list?
</p><p>
We have it.  A sample of Google AdWords advertisers:
</p><ul>
<li>
saarc.autodesk.com</li><li>
safeguarddd.com</li><li>
safestepproducts.com</li><li>
safetyawarenessposters.com</li><li>
safetyproductsllc.com</li><li>
safetyrailsource.com</li><li>
sagemas.com</li><li>
sagepayservices.com</li><li>
sagonet.com</li><li>
saideigama.com</li></ul><p>
There are about 22,000 Google AdWords customers known to us.  Every time Google puts up an AdWords ad, it exposes the identity of the advertiser.  Our <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/45354" title="mozilla.org">AdRater</a> [mozilla.org] browser plug-in rates on-line  advertisers as their ads are presented to users.  Unlike most plug-ins, we don't monitor user behavior.  Instead, we monitor <i>advertiser</i> behavior, which is in some ways more interesting.
This doesn't violate Google's terms of service.  Every request made of Google was made by a user, not us, during ordinary browsing. We're just watching the ads go by.  It's like clipping ads from newspapers to see what your competitors are doing.
</p><p>
As we <a href="http://www.sitetruth.net/" title="sitetruth.net">point out occasionally</a> [sitetruth.net], about 35\% of Google's advertisers are "bottom feeders".  Google needs to raise the bar on who can run ads with them. Search Google for "Craigslist auto posting tool" and look at the paid ads. You can buy "Easy Ad Poster Deluxe", a program for spamming Craigslist, <a href="http://www.google.com/url?q=craigslist+auto+posting+tool&amp;url=/aclk\%3Fsa\%3Dl\%26ai\%3DCYp-bIYIeS6W8JIWwtQO62\_GSDIX9jI8Bldvdmw7unPDmEwgAEAFQ9v6UEWDJ9viGyKOgGaABw-Gc7QPIAQGqBBlP0Nb2ovMzdqW4t9ZS8NVgTit3ZyEmIkfS\%26sig\%3DAGiWqtzlIT4wv\_MS893HlJAZBk7XKcOfnQ\%26q\%3Dhttp://troopal.com/index.php\%253Fadwordskw\%253Dcraigslist\%252520auto\%252520posting\%252520tool&amp;rct=j&amp;ei=IYIeS4DSI4vWtgOe-4HuCQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNE3Dk2iWl03Ujl2llV5d9wmW0wjvw" title="google.com">through Google Checkout</a> [google.com], so Google isn't just advertising it, they're taking a cut of the revenue as well. That's embarrassing for Google, or should be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would Google think if someone released their customer list ?
We have it .
A sample of Google AdWords advertisers : saarc.autodesk.com safeguarddd.com safestepproducts.com safetyawarenessposters.com safetyproductsllc.com safetyrailsource.com sagemas.com sagepayservices.com sagonet.com saideigama.com There are about 22,000 Google AdWords customers known to us .
Every time Google puts up an AdWords ad , it exposes the identity of the advertiser .
Our AdRater [ mozilla.org ] browser plug-in rates on-line advertisers as their ads are presented to users .
Unlike most plug-ins , we do n't monitor user behavior .
Instead , we monitor advertiser behavior , which is in some ways more interesting .
This does n't violate Google 's terms of service .
Every request made of Google was made by a user , not us , during ordinary browsing .
We 're just watching the ads go by .
It 's like clipping ads from newspapers to see what your competitors are doing .
As we point out occasionally [ sitetruth.net ] , about 35 \ % of Google 's advertisers are " bottom feeders " .
Google needs to raise the bar on who can run ads with them .
Search Google for " Craigslist auto posting tool " and look at the paid ads .
You can buy " Easy Ad Poster Deluxe " , a program for spamming Craigslist , through Google Checkout [ google.com ] , so Google is n't just advertising it , they 're taking a cut of the revenue as well .
That 's embarrassing for Google , or should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
What would Google think if someone released their customer list?
We have it.
A sample of Google AdWords advertisers:


saarc.autodesk.com
safeguarddd.com
safestepproducts.com
safetyawarenessposters.com
safetyproductsllc.com
safetyrailsource.com
sagemas.com
sagepayservices.com
sagonet.com
saideigama.com
There are about 22,000 Google AdWords customers known to us.
Every time Google puts up an AdWords ad, it exposes the identity of the advertiser.
Our AdRater [mozilla.org] browser plug-in rates on-line  advertisers as their ads are presented to users.
Unlike most plug-ins, we don't monitor user behavior.
Instead, we monitor advertiser behavior, which is in some ways more interesting.
This doesn't violate Google's terms of service.
Every request made of Google was made by a user, not us, during ordinary browsing.
We're just watching the ads go by.
It's like clipping ads from newspapers to see what your competitors are doing.
As we point out occasionally [sitetruth.net], about 35\% of Google's advertisers are "bottom feeders".
Google needs to raise the bar on who can run ads with them.
Search Google for "Craigslist auto posting tool" and look at the paid ads.
You can buy "Easy Ad Poster Deluxe", a program for spamming Craigslist, through Google Checkout [google.com], so Google isn't just advertising it, they're taking a cut of the revenue as well.
That's embarrassing for Google, or should be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364894</id>
	<title>Re:This is a flawed argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260286320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are lots of things which are perfectly legal yet something one would prefer to keep private.</p></div><p>If you're after an example that is perhaps more rhetorically useful (and safe for work), try the fact that Google requires all its staff to sign confidentiality clauses in their contracts and has NDAs with its partners, not just about inventions but also about business plans -- does that mean that Google's business is something that it shouldn't be doing, or is Eric planning on striking all those confidentiality contracts?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are lots of things which are perfectly legal yet something one would prefer to keep private.If you 're after an example that is perhaps more rhetorically useful ( and safe for work ) , try the fact that Google requires all its staff to sign confidentiality clauses in their contracts and has NDAs with its partners , not just about inventions but also about business plans -- does that mean that Google 's business is something that it should n't be doing , or is Eric planning on striking all those confidentiality contracts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are lots of things which are perfectly legal yet something one would prefer to keep private.If you're after an example that is perhaps more rhetorically useful (and safe for work), try the fact that Google requires all its staff to sign confidentiality clauses in their contracts and has NDAs with its partners, not just about inventions but also about business plans -- does that mean that Google's business is something that it shouldn't be doing, or is Eric planning on striking all those confidentiality contracts?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364140</id>
	<title>It will work only if...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260282180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will work only if LE and any others able to obtain said info are all good all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will work only if LE and any others able to obtain said info are all good all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will work only if LE and any others able to obtain said info are all good all the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30371954</id>
	<title>Re:But what if you are?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260275040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We've all looooooong past the point, in our respective countries, where governments and our fellow citizens recognize their role in society.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, in the same way that we're long past the point when unicorns pranced down the streets giving everyone gold lollipops.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've all looooooong past the point , in our respective countries , where governments and our fellow citizens recognize their role in society.Yes , in the same way that we 're long past the point when unicorns pranced down the streets giving everyone gold lollipops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've all looooooong past the point, in our respective countries, where governments and our fellow citizens recognize their role in society.Yes, in the same way that we're long past the point when unicorns pranced down the streets giving everyone gold lollipops.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365272</id>
	<title>Damaging statement</title>
	<author>horza</author>
	<datestamp>1260287940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is a massively damaging statement by Eric Schmidt, especially considering the large amount of personal data held by the company. Acceptable statements would be "If a user is committing an illegal activity, we have to comply with local laws" or "If law enforcement turns up with a warrant for personal information then we will be obliged to turn it over".</p><p>However, ""If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" is (if not taken out of context, I am waiting for a statement from Google) kamikaze. I would also be interested to hear a response from Bing, and what their privacy policy is. I love Google, but I wouldn't be crazy enough to carry on using them if that really is their policy.</p><p>Phillip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a massively damaging statement by Eric Schmidt , especially considering the large amount of personal data held by the company .
Acceptable statements would be " If a user is committing an illegal activity , we have to comply with local laws " or " If law enforcement turns up with a warrant for personal information then we will be obliged to turn it over " .However , " " If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place " is ( if not taken out of context , I am waiting for a statement from Google ) kamikaze .
I would also be interested to hear a response from Bing , and what their privacy policy is .
I love Google , but I would n't be crazy enough to carry on using them if that really is their policy.Phillip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a massively damaging statement by Eric Schmidt, especially considering the large amount of personal data held by the company.
Acceptable statements would be "If a user is committing an illegal activity, we have to comply with local laws" or "If law enforcement turns up with a warrant for personal information then we will be obliged to turn it over".However, ""If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" is (if not taken out of context, I am waiting for a statement from Google) kamikaze.
I would also be interested to hear a response from Bing, and what their privacy policy is.
I love Google, but I wouldn't be crazy enough to carry on using them if that really is their policy.Phillip.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364424</id>
	<title>He's gotta be 'vanilla' then....</title>
	<author>Raxxon</author>
	<datestamp>1260283860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, in the US it's expected that you're going to hide your pr0n. If you're not into "just the normal in-out, in-out" then you're REALLY going to want to hide it.</p><p>And what about the children? Won't someone think of the children looking at your pr0n?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , in the US it 's expected that you 're going to hide your pr0n .
If you 're not into " just the normal in-out , in-out " then you 're REALLY going to want to hide it.And what about the children ?
Wo n't someone think of the children looking at your pr0n ?
: p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, in the US it's expected that you're going to hide your pr0n.
If you're not into "just the normal in-out, in-out" then you're REALLY going to want to hide it.And what about the children?
Won't someone think of the children looking at your pr0n?
:p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368590</id>
	<title>Oh, I see..</title>
	<author>kheldan</author>
	<datestamp>1260301920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>..so what I like to eat or drink, what I like to watch or read for entertainment, how I wipe my ass when I take a crap, these things are all supposed to be public knowledge? Should we all live in transparent houses as well, so everyone can see what everyone else is doing all the time? Fuck you, Google, and fuck everyone with this attitude, because it's BULLSHIT. All of you who speak this way have your own "hidden" agenda: you want to criticize and control every aspect of everyone's lives, and you can't do that without knowing EVERYTHING that EVERYONE is doing at ALL times. This is how dictatorships start! Well, I got a memo for you assholes: <i>The Underwear Gnomes are going through your underwear drawers at night and touching all your private things, and there is NOTHING you can do about it!</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>..so what I like to eat or drink , what I like to watch or read for entertainment , how I wipe my ass when I take a crap , these things are all supposed to be public knowledge ?
Should we all live in transparent houses as well , so everyone can see what everyone else is doing all the time ?
Fuck you , Google , and fuck everyone with this attitude , because it 's BULLSHIT .
All of you who speak this way have your own " hidden " agenda : you want to criticize and control every aspect of everyone 's lives , and you ca n't do that without knowing EVERYTHING that EVERYONE is doing at ALL times .
This is how dictatorships start !
Well , I got a memo for you assholes : The Underwear Gnomes are going through your underwear drawers at night and touching all your private things , and there is NOTHING you can do about it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..so what I like to eat or drink, what I like to watch or read for entertainment, how I wipe my ass when I take a crap, these things are all supposed to be public knowledge?
Should we all live in transparent houses as well, so everyone can see what everyone else is doing all the time?
Fuck you, Google, and fuck everyone with this attitude, because it's BULLSHIT.
All of you who speak this way have your own "hidden" agenda: you want to criticize and control every aspect of everyone's lives, and you can't do that without knowing EVERYTHING that EVERYONE is doing at ALL times.
This is how dictatorships start!
Well, I got a memo for you assholes: The Underwear Gnomes are going through your underwear drawers at night and touching all your private things, and there is NOTHING you can do about it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366776</id>
	<title>Why hide?</title>
	<author>srees</author>
	<datestamp>1260294180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only bad, evil deer hide from the hunters. The ones that aren't doing anything wrong have nothing to worry about!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only bad , evil deer hide from the hunters .
The ones that are n't doing anything wrong have nothing to worry about !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only bad, evil deer hide from the hunters.
The ones that aren't doing anything wrong have nothing to worry about!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30369188</id>
	<title>Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Kazoo the Clown</author>
	<datestamp>1260304440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's a few things I don't want anyone to know (or at least, anyone to be able to google at will):<br> <br>
My credit card numbers<br>
My SSN<br>
Passwords to my computer systems<br>
My medical records<br> <br>
Shouldn't be doing them, indeed.   If that's what this guy's understanding of privacy is, it does not speak well for his powers of comprehension.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a few things I do n't want anyone to know ( or at least , anyone to be able to google at will ) : My credit card numbers My SSN Passwords to my computer systems My medical records Should n't be doing them , indeed .
If that 's what this guy 's understanding of privacy is , it does not speak well for his powers of comprehension .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a few things I don't want anyone to know (or at least, anyone to be able to google at will): 
My credit card numbers
My SSN
Passwords to my computer systems
My medical records 
Shouldn't be doing them, indeed.
If that's what this guy's understanding of privacy is, it does not speak well for his powers of comprehension.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364730</id>
	<title>Google CEO's bathroom</title>
	<author>British</author>
	<datestamp>1260285600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He should stick to his word with his own bathroom that has a webcam connected 24/7. I mean, sure, what you do in the bathroom is private...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He should stick to his word with his own bathroom that has a webcam connected 24/7 .
I mean , sure , what you do in the bathroom is private.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He should stick to his word with his own bathroom that has a webcam connected 24/7.
I mean, sure, what you do in the bathroom is private...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30375808</id>
	<title>And</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1259584860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who is Eric Schmidt to <i>judge</i> somebody on <i>privacy</i> and <i>wrongdoers</i>?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is Eric Schmidt to judge somebody on privacy and wrongdoers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is Eric Schmidt to judge somebody on privacy and wrongdoers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365408</id>
	<title>wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260288540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..talk about taking someone's quote out of context.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>..talk about taking someone 's quote out of context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..talk about taking someone's quote out of context.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367938</id>
	<title>Re:Right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260299520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both of these examples have to do with Authentication/Authorization, not privacy.</p><p>In order to process a transaction a merchant needs your credit card information.<br>In order to open a secured door, you may need the appropriate passcode.</p><p>I'm not saying I disagree, but next time you should choose better examples (there are plenty listed elsewhere in this discussion).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both of these examples have to do with Authentication/Authorization , not privacy.In order to process a transaction a merchant needs your credit card information.In order to open a secured door , you may need the appropriate passcode.I 'm not saying I disagree , but next time you should choose better examples ( there are plenty listed elsewhere in this discussion ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both of these examples have to do with Authentication/Authorization, not privacy.In order to process a transaction a merchant needs your credit card information.In order to open a secured door, you may need the appropriate passcode.I'm not saying I disagree, but next time you should choose better examples (there are plenty listed elsewhere in this discussion).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366124</id>
	<title>Maybe he knows what he is talking about?</title>
	<author>nanospook</author>
	<datestamp>1260291600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If everyone, gov't, corporations, individuals, you name it have no privacy, what would be the result? Oh, so and so two cubicles down is making 20 grand more than me and does the same job? Why?  I get fair pay.. No more discussions behind closed doors by gov'ts trying to snowball and hide their true intents, no lack of information on why anyone is doing anything? Makes it easier to knwo who you want to shake hands with and who you would rather not..

Maybe privacy is only an issue when some have it and some don't? But if no one has it, then, as long as you have nothing to be ashamed of (or simply don't care), you will have no issues, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If everyone , gov't , corporations , individuals , you name it have no privacy , what would be the result ?
Oh , so and so two cubicles down is making 20 grand more than me and does the same job ?
Why ? I get fair pay.. No more discussions behind closed doors by gov'ts trying to snowball and hide their true intents , no lack of information on why anyone is doing anything ?
Makes it easier to knwo who you want to shake hands with and who you would rather not. . Maybe privacy is only an issue when some have it and some do n't ?
But if no one has it , then , as long as you have nothing to be ashamed of ( or simply do n't care ) , you will have no issues , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If everyone, gov't, corporations, individuals, you name it have no privacy, what would be the result?
Oh, so and so two cubicles down is making 20 grand more than me and does the same job?
Why?  I get fair pay.. No more discussions behind closed doors by gov'ts trying to snowball and hide their true intents, no lack of information on why anyone is doing anything?
Makes it easier to knwo who you want to shake hands with and who you would rather not..

Maybe privacy is only an issue when some have it and some don't?
But if no one has it, then, as long as you have nothing to be ashamed of (or simply don't care), you will have no issues, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368796</id>
	<title>Obama and Eric Schmidt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260302700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And, Google CEO Eric Schmidt is a frequent guest of Obama at the White House.<br> <br>
They have very close ties.  He is also an advisor to the President on Science and Technology.  I guess <i>privacy matters</i> are a low priority.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And , Google CEO Eric Schmidt is a frequent guest of Obama at the White House .
They have very close ties .
He is also an advisor to the President on Science and Technology .
I guess privacy matters are a low priority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, Google CEO Eric Schmidt is a frequent guest of Obama at the White House.
They have very close ties.
He is also an advisor to the President on Science and Technology.
I guess privacy matters are a low priority.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365312</id>
	<title>Re:Context?</title>
	<author>Pictish Prince</author>
	<datestamp>1260288120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You are a moron. Google Search logging the queries is not the problem. Google Analytics is. If I query Google it really isn't that surprising that they know what I am searching for. But they really shouldn't know every single time I visit Slashdot, without even using Google to get there.</p><p>And here again the problem is not that I can't protect me against that. I can. The problem is that the vast majority of web users doesn't even know about it.</p></div><p>
Yes, exactly.  I use <a href="http://noscript.net/" title="noscript.net" rel="nofollow">noscript firefox extension</a> [noscript.net] and it's astounding how many sites have installed a google-analytics script in return for higher page rankings, even ones who are supposedly concerned about privacy.
</p><p>
Considering that many people use other browsers and that most firefox users probably don't even know about noscript or why they need it, the compromising of privacy by google-analytics is on a huge scale.
</p><p>
BTW, on the other end, try to use a private search engine such as the <a href="http://ixquick.com/" title="ixquick.com" rel="nofollow"> ixquick </a> [ixquick.com] meta search engine, which doesn't store your IP.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are a moron .
Google Search logging the queries is not the problem .
Google Analytics is .
If I query Google it really is n't that surprising that they know what I am searching for .
But they really should n't know every single time I visit Slashdot , without even using Google to get there.And here again the problem is not that I ca n't protect me against that .
I can .
The problem is that the vast majority of web users does n't even know about it .
Yes , exactly .
I use noscript firefox extension [ noscript.net ] and it 's astounding how many sites have installed a google-analytics script in return for higher page rankings , even ones who are supposedly concerned about privacy .
Considering that many people use other browsers and that most firefox users probably do n't even know about noscript or why they need it , the compromising of privacy by google-analytics is on a huge scale .
BTW , on the other end , try to use a private search engine such as the ixquick [ ixquick.com ] meta search engine , which does n't store your IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are a moron.
Google Search logging the queries is not the problem.
Google Analytics is.
If I query Google it really isn't that surprising that they know what I am searching for.
But they really shouldn't know every single time I visit Slashdot, without even using Google to get there.And here again the problem is not that I can't protect me against that.
I can.
The problem is that the vast majority of web users doesn't even know about it.
Yes, exactly.
I use noscript firefox extension [noscript.net] and it's astounding how many sites have installed a google-analytics script in return for higher page rankings, even ones who are supposedly concerned about privacy.
Considering that many people use other browsers and that most firefox users probably don't even know about noscript or why they need it, the compromising of privacy by google-analytics is on a huge scale.
BTW, on the other end, try to use a private search engine such as the  ixquick  [ixquick.com] meta search engine, which doesn't store your IP.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365810</id>
	<title>Iranian Crackdown Goes Global</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260290220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't we just have a story this weekend on Iran's government using the public information to arrest and intimidate their people! Whether some act is wrong or right depends on the perspectives of observer.</p><p>http://politics.slashdot.org/story/09/12/05/2044243/Iranian-Crackdown-Goes-Global?from=rss&amp;utm\_source=feedburner&amp;utm\_medium=feed&amp;utm\_campaign=Feed\%3A+Slashdot\%2Fslashdot+(Slashdot)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't we just have a story this weekend on Iran 's government using the public information to arrest and intimidate their people !
Whether some act is wrong or right depends on the perspectives of observer.http : //politics.slashdot.org/story/09/12/05/2044243/Iranian-Crackdown-Goes-Global ? from = rss&amp;utm \ _source = feedburner&amp;utm \ _medium = feed&amp;utm \ _campaign = Feed \ % 3A + Slashdot \ % 2Fslashdot + ( Slashdot )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't we just have a story this weekend on Iran's government using the public information to arrest and intimidate their people!
Whether some act is wrong or right depends on the perspectives of observer.http://politics.slashdot.org/story/09/12/05/2044243/Iranian-Crackdown-Goes-Global?from=rss&amp;utm\_source=feedburner&amp;utm\_medium=feed&amp;utm\_campaign=Feed\%3A+Slashdot\%2Fslashdot+(Slashdot)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364674</id>
	<title>And so it has begun...</title>
	<author>MindPrison</author>
	<datestamp>1260285300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...skynet is here, and it's growing big.</p><p>Google started out with honest, idealistic and good intent by a couple of smart innovative guys that wanted a better alternative to search engines, something that people wanted - uncensored access to information, regardless, boundless - and neutral.</p><p>This has in fact been part of Googles policy for a realy long time, but as with any big business that grows into a majority of power and influence, evil is bound to happen - no man are created equal, greed and power hunger is universal and history repeats itself.</p><p>Now - this may come off a bit cheesy, but let me explain where I'm coming from:</p><p>I, like many of you - grew up in the age of information technology, we started with electronics, had our own personal computers - when the computers indeed were personal, so we got a very good grasp of the concept and the possibilities.</p><p>Picture this:</p><p>1) You have everyone logged onto YOUR network, you have their IP, their OS, their Browsers, their surfing habits, and a database so powerful that it can connect all the dots of habits, locations, IPs, Names, name-searches (ego searches), friends searches, friends-network, friends job, salaries, habits and anything you want.</p><p>2) You have unrivaled access to their information, not even your own government know this much about you and what you like.<br>Now - in the right hands (such as the original guys), this would probably not be an issue, but when you grow big - you get power - power changes everything.</p><p>3) Information like this is worth just about any price you would care to mention, why? Allow me to explain - imagine you were to hire someone for a very important job in your already growing company, you want someone competent - someone with a proven history of success in life, we've all "Googled" our candidates..don't kid yourself, you'd do it too! But we don't get the same information that Google has, and thank the digital-circuit in the sky for that, but they DO have this information - and YOU want it - BADLY.</p><p>Now...Google has a motto, Do no evil, but when power changes hands, the motto doesn't always follow. And besides, what's evil to YOU anyway? We all perceive "Evil" differently, also what is considered good. We have LAWS for this, Google - as with any other company in the world - has to abide by the law just as we do.</p><p>But do they, really? How do you know? Can you prove this? Let's take a look.<br>Let's start with the very nature of a powerful search engine like Google. It picks up anything you let freely out there - gobbles it up like a hungry hamster, and spews it out for your searching pleasures.</p><p>They also employ a massive horde of people to "sift out" material that could potentially damage Googles reputation, or their clients. This is more important now that they're big - than before. This is pretty evident with eg. China - whom Google work together with - blocking content and filtering out content that the Chinese government doesn't want it's users to see, in other words - Censorship.</p><p>The Censorship is pretty evident in itself, if you're a PROXY user - then you already know this far too well, you can try searching something "on the edge" via eg. a German Google, (via a German Proxy), and then a Russian version, vs an English version...and yes...keep trying that, and you'll see how well Google filters content, yes - I am not kidding here, try it if you didn't already know it.</p><p>Google is excused here - it HAS to do this, otherwise it would not survive.</p><p>But here's where things get far more sinister:</p><p>The "Feds" &amp; Governments all over the world - are very aware of the power Google contains, they don't really want to stop Google from having this power - as long as Google "play ball". Imagine this yourself, a country wants to have the upper hand, politicians wants the upper hand - otherwise they'll be unable to govern. Google can provide the country with ENDLESS and VAST information on:</p><p>- Peoples "bulk" feelings<br>- How they're doing as candidates</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...skynet is here , and it 's growing big.Google started out with honest , idealistic and good intent by a couple of smart innovative guys that wanted a better alternative to search engines , something that people wanted - uncensored access to information , regardless , boundless - and neutral.This has in fact been part of Googles policy for a realy long time , but as with any big business that grows into a majority of power and influence , evil is bound to happen - no man are created equal , greed and power hunger is universal and history repeats itself.Now - this may come off a bit cheesy , but let me explain where I 'm coming from : I , like many of you - grew up in the age of information technology , we started with electronics , had our own personal computers - when the computers indeed were personal , so we got a very good grasp of the concept and the possibilities.Picture this : 1 ) You have everyone logged onto YOUR network , you have their IP , their OS , their Browsers , their surfing habits , and a database so powerful that it can connect all the dots of habits , locations , IPs , Names , name-searches ( ego searches ) , friends searches , friends-network , friends job , salaries , habits and anything you want.2 ) You have unrivaled access to their information , not even your own government know this much about you and what you like.Now - in the right hands ( such as the original guys ) , this would probably not be an issue , but when you grow big - you get power - power changes everything.3 ) Information like this is worth just about any price you would care to mention , why ?
Allow me to explain - imagine you were to hire someone for a very important job in your already growing company , you want someone competent - someone with a proven history of success in life , we 've all " Googled " our candidates..do n't kid yourself , you 'd do it too !
But we do n't get the same information that Google has , and thank the digital-circuit in the sky for that , but they DO have this information - and YOU want it - BADLY.Now...Google has a motto , Do no evil , but when power changes hands , the motto does n't always follow .
And besides , what 's evil to YOU anyway ?
We all perceive " Evil " differently , also what is considered good .
We have LAWS for this , Google - as with any other company in the world - has to abide by the law just as we do.But do they , really ?
How do you know ?
Can you prove this ?
Let 's take a look.Let 's start with the very nature of a powerful search engine like Google .
It picks up anything you let freely out there - gobbles it up like a hungry hamster , and spews it out for your searching pleasures.They also employ a massive horde of people to " sift out " material that could potentially damage Googles reputation , or their clients .
This is more important now that they 're big - than before .
This is pretty evident with eg .
China - whom Google work together with - blocking content and filtering out content that the Chinese government does n't want it 's users to see , in other words - Censorship.The Censorship is pretty evident in itself , if you 're a PROXY user - then you already know this far too well , you can try searching something " on the edge " via eg .
a German Google , ( via a German Proxy ) , and then a Russian version , vs an English version...and yes...keep trying that , and you 'll see how well Google filters content , yes - I am not kidding here , try it if you did n't already know it.Google is excused here - it HAS to do this , otherwise it would not survive.But here 's where things get far more sinister : The " Feds " &amp; Governments all over the world - are very aware of the power Google contains , they do n't really want to stop Google from having this power - as long as Google " play ball " .
Imagine this yourself , a country wants to have the upper hand , politicians wants the upper hand - otherwise they 'll be unable to govern .
Google can provide the country with ENDLESS and VAST information on : - Peoples " bulk " feelings- How they 're doing as candidates</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...skynet is here, and it's growing big.Google started out with honest, idealistic and good intent by a couple of smart innovative guys that wanted a better alternative to search engines, something that people wanted - uncensored access to information, regardless, boundless - and neutral.This has in fact been part of Googles policy for a realy long time, but as with any big business that grows into a majority of power and influence, evil is bound to happen - no man are created equal, greed and power hunger is universal and history repeats itself.Now - this may come off a bit cheesy, but let me explain where I'm coming from:I, like many of you - grew up in the age of information technology, we started with electronics, had our own personal computers - when the computers indeed were personal, so we got a very good grasp of the concept and the possibilities.Picture this:1) You have everyone logged onto YOUR network, you have their IP, their OS, their Browsers, their surfing habits, and a database so powerful that it can connect all the dots of habits, locations, IPs, Names, name-searches (ego searches), friends searches, friends-network, friends job, salaries, habits and anything you want.2) You have unrivaled access to their information, not even your own government know this much about you and what you like.Now - in the right hands (such as the original guys), this would probably not be an issue, but when you grow big - you get power - power changes everything.3) Information like this is worth just about any price you would care to mention, why?
Allow me to explain - imagine you were to hire someone for a very important job in your already growing company, you want someone competent - someone with a proven history of success in life, we've all "Googled" our candidates..don't kid yourself, you'd do it too!
But we don't get the same information that Google has, and thank the digital-circuit in the sky for that, but they DO have this information - and YOU want it - BADLY.Now...Google has a motto, Do no evil, but when power changes hands, the motto doesn't always follow.
And besides, what's evil to YOU anyway?
We all perceive "Evil" differently, also what is considered good.
We have LAWS for this, Google - as with any other company in the world - has to abide by the law just as we do.But do they, really?
How do you know?
Can you prove this?
Let's take a look.Let's start with the very nature of a powerful search engine like Google.
It picks up anything you let freely out there - gobbles it up like a hungry hamster, and spews it out for your searching pleasures.They also employ a massive horde of people to "sift out" material that could potentially damage Googles reputation, or their clients.
This is more important now that they're big - than before.
This is pretty evident with eg.
China - whom Google work together with - blocking content and filtering out content that the Chinese government doesn't want it's users to see, in other words - Censorship.The Censorship is pretty evident in itself, if you're a PROXY user - then you already know this far too well, you can try searching something "on the edge" via eg.
a German Google, (via a German Proxy), and then a Russian version, vs an English version...and yes...keep trying that, and you'll see how well Google filters content, yes - I am not kidding here, try it if you didn't already know it.Google is excused here - it HAS to do this, otherwise it would not survive.But here's where things get far more sinister:The "Feds" &amp; Governments all over the world - are very aware of the power Google contains, they don't really want to stop Google from having this power - as long as Google "play ball".
Imagine this yourself, a country wants to have the upper hand, politicians wants the upper hand - otherwise they'll be unable to govern.
Google can provide the country with ENDLESS and VAST information on:- Peoples "bulk" feelings- How they're doing as candidates</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30373560</id>
	<title>It's a warning</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1260286980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>and one of the worst things about it, and something they never seem to consider is that it is a COMPLETELY UNAMERICAN argument, and the reason I say this is because it assumes that the authorities (government) are completely infalliable and should be trusted</i></p><p>The quote I read was Schmidt saying, "hello, remember the USA PATRIOT Act?  We have to give the government your searches.  If you don't want them to have it, be aware that we're doing it because we have to."</p><p>The un-American part here is the USA PATRIOT act.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and one of the worst things about it , and something they never seem to consider is that it is a COMPLETELY UNAMERICAN argument , and the reason I say this is because it assumes that the authorities ( government ) are completely infalliable and should be trustedThe quote I read was Schmidt saying , " hello , remember the USA PATRIOT Act ?
We have to give the government your searches .
If you do n't want them to have it , be aware that we 're doing it because we have to .
" The un-American part here is the USA PATRIOT act .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and one of the worst things about it, and something they never seem to consider is that it is a COMPLETELY UNAMERICAN argument, and the reason I say this is because it assumes that the authorities (government) are completely infalliable and should be trustedThe quote I read was Schmidt saying, "hello, remember the USA PATRIOT Act?
We have to give the government your searches.
If you don't want them to have it, be aware that we're doing it because we have to.
"The un-American part here is the USA PATRIOT act.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367460</id>
	<title>Privacy is bad?</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1260297540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about letting Microsoft Bing people sit in on your next corporate strategy meeting, Eric?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about letting Microsoft Bing people sit in on your next corporate strategy meeting , Eric ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about letting Microsoft Bing people sit in on your next corporate strategy meeting, Eric?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30375370</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous Hermit</author>
	<datestamp>1259578080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see. We can all trust that there won't be any repercussions when doing something that is not illegal in any way, like exposing illegal activity, even if it angers powerful people who think they are above the law. We can all rest assured that no one will be able to purchase our personal details in order to ruin our lives through social engineering, or to simply pinpoint your location so their henchmen can find you. We are lucky to live in societies where everyone is incorruptible, because otherwise the societies within society could abuse the system for their own purposes. <br> <br> Oh what a utopia we live in where only lawbreakers could possibly have any need for privacy. Hallelujah!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see .
We can all trust that there wo n't be any repercussions when doing something that is not illegal in any way , like exposing illegal activity , even if it angers powerful people who think they are above the law .
We can all rest assured that no one will be able to purchase our personal details in order to ruin our lives through social engineering , or to simply pinpoint your location so their henchmen can find you .
We are lucky to live in societies where everyone is incorruptible , because otherwise the societies within society could abuse the system for their own purposes .
Oh what a utopia we live in where only lawbreakers could possibly have any need for privacy .
Hallelujah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see.
We can all trust that there won't be any repercussions when doing something that is not illegal in any way, like exposing illegal activity, even if it angers powerful people who think they are above the law.
We can all rest assured that no one will be able to purchase our personal details in order to ruin our lives through social engineering, or to simply pinpoint your location so their henchmen can find you.
We are lucky to live in societies where everyone is incorruptible, because otherwise the societies within society could abuse the system for their own purposes.
Oh what a utopia we live in where only lawbreakers could possibly have any need for privacy.
Hallelujah!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364442</id>
	<title>Nice, Eric</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1260283980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'</i>

</p><p>Taken out of context this group might scan what you're saying, but keep in mind an unfortunate percentage of your adult audience can't find Australia on a map.

</p><p>We know what you meant, but it's really okay to pause during an interview to give yourself a second to think.  There's a natural tendency to keep talking when the red light is on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place .
' Taken out of context this group might scan what you 're saying , but keep in mind an unfortunate percentage of your adult audience ca n't find Australia on a map .
We know what you meant , but it 's really okay to pause during an interview to give yourself a second to think .
There 's a natural tendency to keep talking when the red light is on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
'

Taken out of context this group might scan what you're saying, but keep in mind an unfortunate percentage of your adult audience can't find Australia on a map.
We know what you meant, but it's really okay to pause during an interview to give yourself a second to think.
There's a natural tendency to keep talking when the red light is on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365844</id>
	<title>Therefore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260290400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google should publish all corporate documents including contracts and agreements for all to see. If they have any thing to hide then maybe they should not be doing it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google should publish all corporate documents including contracts and agreements for all to see .
If they have any thing to hide then maybe they should not be doing it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google should publish all corporate documents including contracts and agreements for all to see.
If they have any thing to hide then maybe they should not be doing it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364304</id>
	<title>Fundemental misunderstdg about how democracy works</title>
	<author>AbbeyRoad</author>
	<datestamp>1260283140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The purpose of privacy is to protect the people who are protecting the public<br>from governments.</p><p>Governments are the biggest evil, and therefore our society needs privacy.</p><p>It is not criminals who are the biggest threat to society.</p><p>By dissalowing privacy, it becomes impossible for institutions like the press to<br>hold governments accountable.</p><p>Democracy functions on the pillars of human rights not only because of moral<br>concerns, but because those pillars are necessary cogs in the social machine.</p><p>- Right to privacy<br>- Freedom of press<br>- One man one vote<br>- Separation of church and state<br>- Term limits<br>- Independence of the supreme court<br>etc.</p><p>Remove any of these pillars and democracy stops working.</p><p>A recent example is George W Bush - America blurred the line between<br>church and state by electing someone purely because he stood against<br>abortion... elected in spite of the fact that he had no other positive attributes<br>besides being a devout Christian.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and look what happened.</p><p>-paul</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The purpose of privacy is to protect the people who are protecting the publicfrom governments.Governments are the biggest evil , and therefore our society needs privacy.It is not criminals who are the biggest threat to society.By dissalowing privacy , it becomes impossible for institutions like the press tohold governments accountable.Democracy functions on the pillars of human rights not only because of moralconcerns , but because those pillars are necessary cogs in the social machine.- Right to privacy- Freedom of press- One man one vote- Separation of church and state- Term limits- Independence of the supreme courtetc.Remove any of these pillars and democracy stops working.A recent example is George W Bush - America blurred the line betweenchurch and state by electing someone purely because he stood againstabortion... elected in spite of the fact that he had no other positive attributesbesides being a devout Christian .
...and look what happened.-paul</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The purpose of privacy is to protect the people who are protecting the publicfrom governments.Governments are the biggest evil, and therefore our society needs privacy.It is not criminals who are the biggest threat to society.By dissalowing privacy, it becomes impossible for institutions like the press tohold governments accountable.Democracy functions on the pillars of human rights not only because of moralconcerns, but because those pillars are necessary cogs in the social machine.- Right to privacy- Freedom of press- One man one vote- Separation of church and state- Term limits- Independence of the supreme courtetc.Remove any of these pillars and democracy stops working.A recent example is George W Bush - America blurred the line betweenchurch and state by electing someone purely because he stood againstabortion... elected in spite of the fact that he had no other positive attributesbesides being a devout Christian.
...and look what happened.-paul</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364136</id>
	<title>transparency vs. honesty</title>
	<author>erg5hp</author>
	<datestamp>1260282180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't want Google "to be transparent to users about the information that is stored"
I want them to be more honest . . .</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want Google " to be transparent to users about the information that is stored " I want them to be more honest .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want Google "to be transparent to users about the information that is stored"
I want them to be more honest .
. .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364930</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260286500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really? Ask the person who recently lost their benefits due to some photos on Facebook. Apparently the definition of "wrongdoer" by insurance companies is important too - and they can obviously access some data. Perhaps the people denied employment because of things posted on the internet might contest your point too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Ask the person who recently lost their benefits due to some photos on Facebook .
Apparently the definition of " wrongdoer " by insurance companies is important too - and they can obviously access some data .
Perhaps the people denied employment because of things posted on the internet might contest your point too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Ask the person who recently lost their benefits due to some photos on Facebook.
Apparently the definition of "wrongdoer" by insurance companies is important too - and they can obviously access some data.
Perhaps the people denied employment because of things posted on the internet might contest your point too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368630</id>
	<title>Reflects common attitude</title>
	<author>CyberPhart</author>
	<datestamp>1260302100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, the CEO's comment reflects an attitude that appears to becoming more common: You don't need privacy if you're not doing anything wrong. How about my right to decide that some private, legal action or attitude of mine is just none of your damn business?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , the CEO 's comment reflects an attitude that appears to becoming more common : You do n't need privacy if you 're not doing anything wrong .
How about my right to decide that some private , legal action or attitude of mine is just none of your damn business ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, the CEO's comment reflects an attitude that appears to becoming more common: You don't need privacy if you're not doing anything wrong.
How about my right to decide that some private, legal action or attitude of mine is just none of your damn business?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367738</id>
	<title>He should learn nettiquete</title>
	<author>higuita</author>
	<datestamp>1260298620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He should learn the most basic rule of nettiquete: dont do to others what you dont want other to do it to you.</p><p>If there is no problem, then we all would like to know all his internet usage and maybe even his private life... he should publish it every day, if he doesnt have anything to hide...</p><p>Its called privacy, because is private, not because its bad</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He should learn the most basic rule of nettiquete : dont do to others what you dont want other to do it to you.If there is no problem , then we all would like to know all his internet usage and maybe even his private life... he should publish it every day , if he doesnt have anything to hide...Its called privacy , because is private , not because its bad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He should learn the most basic rule of nettiquete: dont do to others what you dont want other to do it to you.If there is no problem, then we all would like to know all his internet usage and maybe even his private life... he should publish it every day, if he doesnt have anything to hide...Its called privacy, because is private, not because its bad</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365162</id>
	<title>Scary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260287460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, that's just really, really scary. Isn't there ANYONE we can trust anymore? Dammit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , that 's just really , really scary .
Is n't there ANYONE we can trust anymore ?
Dammit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, that's just really, really scary.
Isn't there ANYONE we can trust anymore?
Dammit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30373776</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to hide?</title>
	<author>slashqwerty</author>
	<datestamp>1260289320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks.  That was an excellent article.  It really does hit at the fallacy of the argument.  It's not the information itself that is a problem, it's what the data can or will be used for.  I certainly don't want the government to aggregate and profile all my data and use it as an excuse to kick me off an airplane or subject me to specialized screening any time I travel.  I don't want the government to investigate me just because my groceries fit the profile of certain undesirables.  And to make things worse, when the data is wrong I can't do anything to get it corrected.

<br> <br>It won't be long before lawyers are buying internet profiles of potential jurors and using them to exclude any juror that might be able to make an informed opinion about the case.  Insurance companies would love to use a person's spending habits as an excuse to charge higher premiums.  When businesses get a hold of someone's phone number, they routinely call at the most inappropriate times.

<br> <br>The fallacy of the argument is that it assumes privacy is about hiding wrongdoing.  In reality, privacy is about protecting yourself from someone else's wrongdoing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks .
That was an excellent article .
It really does hit at the fallacy of the argument .
It 's not the information itself that is a problem , it 's what the data can or will be used for .
I certainly do n't want the government to aggregate and profile all my data and use it as an excuse to kick me off an airplane or subject me to specialized screening any time I travel .
I do n't want the government to investigate me just because my groceries fit the profile of certain undesirables .
And to make things worse , when the data is wrong I ca n't do anything to get it corrected .
It wo n't be long before lawyers are buying internet profiles of potential jurors and using them to exclude any juror that might be able to make an informed opinion about the case .
Insurance companies would love to use a person 's spending habits as an excuse to charge higher premiums .
When businesses get a hold of someone 's phone number , they routinely call at the most inappropriate times .
The fallacy of the argument is that it assumes privacy is about hiding wrongdoing .
In reality , privacy is about protecting yourself from someone else 's wrongdoing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks.
That was an excellent article.
It really does hit at the fallacy of the argument.
It's not the information itself that is a problem, it's what the data can or will be used for.
I certainly don't want the government to aggregate and profile all my data and use it as an excuse to kick me off an airplane or subject me to specialized screening any time I travel.
I don't want the government to investigate me just because my groceries fit the profile of certain undesirables.
And to make things worse, when the data is wrong I can't do anything to get it corrected.
It won't be long before lawyers are buying internet profiles of potential jurors and using them to exclude any juror that might be able to make an informed opinion about the case.
Insurance companies would love to use a person's spending habits as an excuse to charge higher premiums.
When businesses get a hold of someone's phone number, they routinely call at the most inappropriate times.
The fallacy of the argument is that it assumes privacy is about hiding wrongdoing.
In reality, privacy is about protecting yourself from someone else's wrongdoing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366438</id>
	<title>One flaw in that logic: Whistleblowers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260292740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the person who wants to bring evil to light?</p><p>Don't we want to protect that person?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the person who wants to bring evil to light ? Do n't we want to protect that person ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the person who wants to bring evil to light?Don't we want to protect that person?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364540</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260284520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please stop spewing out ridiculous maxims.  There is only one definition of a wrongdoer that matters here, and it's defined by the law.  You break the law and you can expect some consequences, especially if you leave a record of it.  It's simple enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please stop spewing out ridiculous maxims .
There is only one definition of a wrongdoer that matters here , and it 's defined by the law .
You break the law and you can expect some consequences , especially if you leave a record of it .
It 's simple enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please stop spewing out ridiculous maxims.
There is only one definition of a wrongdoer that matters here, and it's defined by the law.
You break the law and you can expect some consequences, especially if you leave a record of it.
It's simple enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364632</id>
	<title>First do no evil</title>
	<author>CharlieG</author>
	<datestamp>1260285060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess it wasn't a motto, but a command to us to follow, then we have nothing to hide, eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess it was n't a motto , but a command to us to follow , then we have nothing to hide , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess it wasn't a motto, but a command to us to follow, then we have nothing to hide, eh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364380</id>
	<title>wow</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1260283560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the first time, I think that they have taken a step towards being like MS.<br> <br>
Hmmm. Maybe it is time to take a little closer look at Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the first time , I think that they have taken a step towards being like MS . Hmmm. Maybe it is time to take a little closer look at Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the first time, I think that they have taken a step towards being like MS. 
Hmmm. Maybe it is time to take a little closer look at Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30369834</id>
	<title>This guy's an idiot</title>
	<author>Mex</author>
	<datestamp>1260264240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least in Mexico, the biggest concern with Facebook is that kidnappers will use it to track your movements, friends and use all the information there to blackmail you or outright kidnap you or your family. It goes from simple phone calls to abduction or killing of family members.</p><p>The blackmails used to be based from information stolen from banks or discarded receipts, but the info is now so easily available...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least in Mexico , the biggest concern with Facebook is that kidnappers will use it to track your movements , friends and use all the information there to blackmail you or outright kidnap you or your family .
It goes from simple phone calls to abduction or killing of family members.The blackmails used to be based from information stolen from banks or discarded receipts , but the info is now so easily available.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least in Mexico, the biggest concern with Facebook is that kidnappers will use it to track your movements, friends and use all the information there to blackmail you or outright kidnap you or your family.
It goes from simple phone calls to abduction or killing of family members.The blackmails used to be based from information stolen from banks or discarded receipts, but the info is now so easily available...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364904</id>
	<title>The truth finally comes out...</title>
	<author>pongo000</author>
	<datestamp>1260286380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and the Google fanboys who routinely moderate down any comments that disparage Google are strangely silent.</p><p>As I've stated in the past:  Google is dangerous.  Make no mistake about it.  Having a monopoly on <i>data</i> (as well as controlling how the data is accessed, and in what ways the data is aggregated) is the death knell for anything resembling personal privacy.  Google is a for-profit organization, and they certainly aren't gathering data for altruistic purposes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and the Google fanboys who routinely moderate down any comments that disparage Google are strangely silent.As I 've stated in the past : Google is dangerous .
Make no mistake about it .
Having a monopoly on data ( as well as controlling how the data is accessed , and in what ways the data is aggregated ) is the death knell for anything resembling personal privacy .
Google is a for-profit organization , and they certainly are n't gathering data for altruistic purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and the Google fanboys who routinely moderate down any comments that disparage Google are strangely silent.As I've stated in the past:  Google is dangerous.
Make no mistake about it.
Having a monopoly on data (as well as controlling how the data is accessed, and in what ways the data is aggregated) is the death knell for anything resembling personal privacy.
Google is a for-profit organization, and they certainly aren't gathering data for altruistic purposes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367442</id>
	<title>Re:Partially true</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1260297480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He might have a point about (1)</p></div><p>Not really. Morals change, you know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He might have a point about ( 1 ) Not really .
Morals change , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He might have a point about (1)Not really.
Morals change, you know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368510</id>
	<title>Re:Or perhaps....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260301620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fundamental of Left Wing Thinking:<br>People by nature are poor in judgement and inheritly evil and need a strong authority to keep their behavior in check, a.k.a "The Lord of the Flies" scenario.</p></div><p>Ahh, that's why all the nazis long for a strong leader: because they are left wing. LOL - must be newspeak that they are usually called "Ultra right wing"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fundamental of Left Wing Thinking : People by nature are poor in judgement and inheritly evil and need a strong authority to keep their behavior in check , a.k.a " The Lord of the Flies " scenario.Ahh , that 's why all the nazis long for a strong leader : because they are left wing .
LOL - must be newspeak that they are usually called " Ultra right wing "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fundamental of Left Wing Thinking:People by nature are poor in judgement and inheritly evil and need a strong authority to keep their behavior in check, a.k.a "The Lord of the Flies" scenario.Ahh, that's why all the nazis long for a strong leader: because they are left wing.
LOL - must be newspeak that they are usually called "Ultra right wing"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364812</id>
	<title>FTFY...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260286020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't <b>live in a judgmental society which bases its morality on a code of ethics that has been outdated for about 4,000 years now and is purposely designed to make you feel bad for being human</b>.'</p></div><p>

There, I said it. Our society looks down upon individuals for engaging in such a wide swath of behaviors that you either have to avoid living your life to the fullest, or keep some things to yourself if you want to be a productive member of society. Hopefully we can get to the point where people learn to mind their own business about such things, but until then, we all have a damn good reason to want some privacy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't live in a judgmental society which bases its morality on a code of ethics that has been outdated for about 4,000 years now and is purposely designed to make you feel bad for being human .
' There , I said it .
Our society looks down upon individuals for engaging in such a wide swath of behaviors that you either have to avoid living your life to the fullest , or keep some things to yourself if you want to be a productive member of society .
Hopefully we can get to the point where people learn to mind their own business about such things , but until then , we all have a damn good reason to want some privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't live in a judgmental society which bases its morality on a code of ethics that has been outdated for about 4,000 years now and is purposely designed to make you feel bad for being human.
'

There, I said it.
Our society looks down upon individuals for engaging in such a wide swath of behaviors that you either have to avoid living your life to the fullest, or keep some things to yourself if you want to be a productive member of society.
Hopefully we can get to the point where people learn to mind their own business about such things, but until then, we all have a damn good reason to want some privacy.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365136</id>
	<title>You are being watched!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260287340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot serves Google's AdSense ads which means Google knows you are here as well as Google's advertisers.  Beside search terms being recorded, Google knows where you have been with the help of AdSenses embedded in content publishers web pages.  That goes the same for Google Analytic.  Creepy.  Evil.</p><p>Don't be evil + Don't be creepy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot serves Google 's AdSense ads which means Google knows you are here as well as Google 's advertisers .
Beside search terms being recorded , Google knows where you have been with the help of AdSenses embedded in content publishers web pages .
That goes the same for Google Analytic .
Creepy. Evil.Do n't be evil + Do n't be creepy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot serves Google's AdSense ads which means Google knows you are here as well as Google's advertisers.
Beside search terms being recorded, Google knows where you have been with the help of AdSenses embedded in content publishers web pages.
That goes the same for Google Analytic.
Creepy.  Evil.Don't be evil + Don't be creepy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365964</id>
	<title>And this is exactly why...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260290880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't use ANY other google services besides the search engine at google.com. This statement actually made me think about switching to some open source search engine or "less evil" alternative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use ANY other google services besides the search engine at google.com .
This statement actually made me think about switching to some open source search engine or " less evil " alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use ANY other google services besides the search engine at google.com.
This statement actually made me think about switching to some open source search engine or "less evil" alternative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365328</id>
	<title>strong words,</title>
	<author>wall0159</author>
	<datestamp>1260288180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and he's backing them by scattering live streaming webcams throughout his house that anyone can connect to. Oh wait, he's not? Oh...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and he 's backing them by scattering live streaming webcams throughout his house that anyone can connect to .
Oh wait , he 's not ?
Oh.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and he's backing them by scattering live streaming webcams throughout his house that anyone can connect to.
Oh wait, he's not?
Oh...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368694</id>
	<title>Our motto is your motto</title>
	<author>RandCraw</author>
	<datestamp>1260302280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google: 'Our motto is, "Don't be evil"'.</p><p>'What?  You thought that meant <b>US</b>?  Silly boy.  It means <b>YOU!</b>'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google : 'Our motto is , " Do n't be evil " '.'What ?
You thought that meant US ?
Silly boy .
It means YOU !
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google: 'Our motto is, "Don't be evil"'.'What?
You thought that meant US?
Silly boy.
It means YOU!
'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367900</id>
	<title>Re:Same old fallacy</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1260299340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's an obvious fallacy.  The old "You have nothing to worry about if you're doing nothing wrong" argument rests on a belief in perfect justice.  You'll only be punished for things which you shouldn't be doing. </p></div><p>Christians know that Jesus was crucified. Do they think it was justice? How is it that a (so called) nation of Christians can fall for this tired old argument when they *know* that innocent people get punished?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an obvious fallacy .
The old " You have nothing to worry about if you 're doing nothing wrong " argument rests on a belief in perfect justice .
You 'll only be punished for things which you should n't be doing .
Christians know that Jesus was crucified .
Do they think it was justice ?
How is it that a ( so called ) nation of Christians can fall for this tired old argument when they * know * that innocent people get punished ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an obvious fallacy.
The old "You have nothing to worry about if you're doing nothing wrong" argument rests on a belief in perfect justice.
You'll only be punished for things which you shouldn't be doing.
Christians know that Jesus was crucified.
Do they think it was justice?
How is it that a (so called) nation of Christians can fall for this tired old argument when they *know* that innocent people get punished?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365988</id>
	<title>Moderator...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260291000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please mod TFA as Troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please mod TFA as Troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please mod TFA as Troll.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365280</id>
	<title>They have a point</title>
	<author>mlankton</author>
	<datestamp>1260288000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly, the internet is no different than any other public domain. Too many people sit behind their keyboards and feel they are entitled to do things that would constitute criminal activity in the real world, or just display what cowardly, anti-social jackasses they really are behind the veil of anonymity.

If you don't want the rest of the internet scrutinizing what kind of citizen you are, maybe you aren't such a good citizen in the first place.

The problem I have with the EFF and their ilk is that what they want benefits thieves and pedophiles as much as it does the paranoid individuals who prize their privacy so much. Tell you what, go start a family, have children, and then tell me you don't think every pedophile deserves a bullet in the back of the head.

What you do and say on the internet should be subject to the same inhibitions and legality that what you do and say in the real world is. If you are that afraid of what someone might do with some info on you, disconnect your phone and internet and don't leave your home.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , the internet is no different than any other public domain .
Too many people sit behind their keyboards and feel they are entitled to do things that would constitute criminal activity in the real world , or just display what cowardly , anti-social jackasses they really are behind the veil of anonymity .
If you do n't want the rest of the internet scrutinizing what kind of citizen you are , maybe you are n't such a good citizen in the first place .
The problem I have with the EFF and their ilk is that what they want benefits thieves and pedophiles as much as it does the paranoid individuals who prize their privacy so much .
Tell you what , go start a family , have children , and then tell me you do n't think every pedophile deserves a bullet in the back of the head .
What you do and say on the internet should be subject to the same inhibitions and legality that what you do and say in the real world is .
If you are that afraid of what someone might do with some info on you , disconnect your phone and internet and do n't leave your home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, the internet is no different than any other public domain.
Too many people sit behind their keyboards and feel they are entitled to do things that would constitute criminal activity in the real world, or just display what cowardly, anti-social jackasses they really are behind the veil of anonymity.
If you don't want the rest of the internet scrutinizing what kind of citizen you are, maybe you aren't such a good citizen in the first place.
The problem I have with the EFF and their ilk is that what they want benefits thieves and pedophiles as much as it does the paranoid individuals who prize their privacy so much.
Tell you what, go start a family, have children, and then tell me you don't think every pedophile deserves a bullet in the back of the head.
What you do and say on the internet should be subject to the same inhibitions and legality that what you do and say in the real world is.
If you are that afraid of what someone might do with some info on you, disconnect your phone and internet and don't leave your home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364608</id>
	<title>I don't mind...</title>
	<author>v4vijayakumar</author>
	<datestamp>1260284940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't mind when they tend to display ads that I want to see, but it is really a problem when they start doing what I am planning to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't mind when they tend to display ads that I want to see , but it is really a problem when they start doing what I am planning to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't mind when they tend to display ads that I want to see, but it is really a problem when they start doing what I am planning to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364252</id>
	<title>Mr. Schmidt's  financial details are online where?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1260282780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Eric Schmidt told reporter Maria Bartiromo, 'If you have something that you<br>&gt; don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first<br>&gt; place.'</p><p>Has a Webcam in his bedroom, does he?  I can find his medical records with a Google search?  Everything he says at board meetings is published?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Eric Schmidt told reporter Maria Bartiromo , 'If you have something that you &gt; do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first &gt; place .
'Has a Webcam in his bedroom , does he ?
I can find his medical records with a Google search ?
Everything he says at board meetings is published ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Eric Schmidt told reporter Maria Bartiromo, 'If you have something that you&gt; don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first&gt; place.
'Has a Webcam in his bedroom, does he?
I can find his medical records with a Google search?
Everything he says at board meetings is published?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367132</id>
	<title>Eric please post your Tax Returns</title>
	<author>strangeattraction</author>
	<datestamp>1260295980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you don't you are obviously hiding something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't you are obviously hiding something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't you are obviously hiding something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364936</id>
	<title>Re:Or perhaps....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260286560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Or perhaps if I have something that I don't want anyone to know, it's NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS! </i></p><p>There's also a nice bit of equivocation in Schmidt's statement.  Privacy is mostly not about "not wanting anyone to know";  it's mostly about not wanting <em>everyone</em> to know.</p><p>My g/f knows what I like in the bedroom.  My mother (I hope!) does not and never will.</p><p>Privacy is about personal control over facts about ourselves.  We want to be able to limit who knows what about us, and that is an entirely reasonable desire.</p><p>"Google" is a collection of people who at the moment mostly claim to want to protect our control over facts about ourselves, but those facts persist on the servers those people have control over  pretty much forever, and tomorrow or ten years from now those servers will be under the control of an entirely different group of people.  So as a matter of inevitable fact, any information that the group of people who constitute "Google" have today will be in the hands of a random group of strangers in the future.</p><p>So be prepared for everything you have ever allowed the people at Google to tie to your personal identity to be public knowledge at some future date.  It is certain to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or perhaps if I have something that I do n't want anyone to know , it 's NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS !
There 's also a nice bit of equivocation in Schmidt 's statement .
Privacy is mostly not about " not wanting anyone to know " ; it 's mostly about not wanting everyone to know.My g/f knows what I like in the bedroom .
My mother ( I hope !
) does not and never will.Privacy is about personal control over facts about ourselves .
We want to be able to limit who knows what about us , and that is an entirely reasonable desire .
" Google " is a collection of people who at the moment mostly claim to want to protect our control over facts about ourselves , but those facts persist on the servers those people have control over pretty much forever , and tomorrow or ten years from now those servers will be under the control of an entirely different group of people .
So as a matter of inevitable fact , any information that the group of people who constitute " Google " have today will be in the hands of a random group of strangers in the future.So be prepared for everything you have ever allowed the people at Google to tie to your personal identity to be public knowledge at some future date .
It is certain to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or perhaps if I have something that I don't want anyone to know, it's NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS!
There's also a nice bit of equivocation in Schmidt's statement.
Privacy is mostly not about "not wanting anyone to know";  it's mostly about not wanting everyone to know.My g/f knows what I like in the bedroom.
My mother (I hope!
) does not and never will.Privacy is about personal control over facts about ourselves.
We want to be able to limit who knows what about us, and that is an entirely reasonable desire.
"Google" is a collection of people who at the moment mostly claim to want to protect our control over facts about ourselves, but those facts persist on the servers those people have control over  pretty much forever, and tomorrow or ten years from now those servers will be under the control of an entirely different group of people.
So as a matter of inevitable fact, any information that the group of people who constitute "Google" have today will be in the hands of a random group of strangers in the future.So be prepared for everything you have ever allowed the people at Google to tie to your personal identity to be public knowledge at some future date.
It is certain to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366988</id>
	<title>Here's something for you Schmidt</title>
	<author>SpacePunk</author>
	<datestamp>1260295320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't we install camera's in Schmidt's house.  After all, if he has nothing to hide, he doesn't have any privacy concerns.  Perhaps we can stream his phone calls over the internet for all to listen to?</p><p>Bite me Schmidt, die in a fire, and go to hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't we install camera 's in Schmidt 's house .
After all , if he has nothing to hide , he does n't have any privacy concerns .
Perhaps we can stream his phone calls over the internet for all to listen to ? Bite me Schmidt , die in a fire , and go to hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't we install camera's in Schmidt's house.
After all, if he has nothing to hide, he doesn't have any privacy concerns.
Perhaps we can stream his phone calls over the internet for all to listen to?Bite me Schmidt, die in a fire, and go to hell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364922</id>
	<title>Not just what is stored ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260286500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But who has access. That's Part 2 of the information people need to make a considered decision about whether to give up their information. Organizations and corporations are even worse about disclosing that than they are about disclosing what gets stored.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But who has access .
That 's Part 2 of the information people need to make a considered decision about whether to give up their information .
Organizations and corporations are even worse about disclosing that than they are about disclosing what gets stored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But who has access.
That's Part 2 of the information people need to make a considered decision about whether to give up their information.
Organizations and corporations are even worse about disclosing that than they are about disclosing what gets stored.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364198</id>
	<title>Another one in a long row ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260282600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's an arrogant statement by Schmidt (and yes, I read the whole thing). How often have we heard the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument over the decades? Add Google to that long list - and it's not an honor roll! I guess "Don't be evil" is leaving the building. It was a matter of time, anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's an arrogant statement by Schmidt ( and yes , I read the whole thing ) .
How often have we heard the " if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear " argument over the decades ?
Add Google to that long list - and it 's not an honor roll !
I guess " Do n't be evil " is leaving the building .
It was a matter of time , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's an arrogant statement by Schmidt (and yes, I read the whole thing).
How often have we heard the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument over the decades?
Add Google to that long list - and it's not an honor roll!
I guess "Don't be evil" is leaving the building.
It was a matter of time, anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366304</id>
	<title>Real Badguys</title>
	<author>hyperion2010</author>
	<datestamp>1260292200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real badguys already use proxies, so way to go google, punish the stupid wannabe badguys &gt;\_.  Well I guess social darwinism is still in.  Also, they may say it, but they still index it.  That said there are ways for google to really increase privacy but then the wouldnt get their precious data and they would fall behind so its a damned if you do and damned if you dont.  Also, after reading the old somethingawful leaked AOL searches I think we can agree that sometimes it would be better if you could just call the police when you saw search logs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real badguys already use proxies , so way to go google , punish the stupid wannabe badguys &gt; \ _ .
Well I guess social darwinism is still in .
Also , they may say it , but they still index it .
That said there are ways for google to really increase privacy but then the wouldnt get their precious data and they would fall behind so its a damned if you do and damned if you dont .
Also , after reading the old somethingawful leaked AOL searches I think we can agree that sometimes it would be better if you could just call the police when you saw search logs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real badguys already use proxies, so way to go google, punish the stupid wannabe badguys &gt;\_.
Well I guess social darwinism is still in.
Also, they may say it, but they still index it.
That said there are ways for google to really increase privacy but then the wouldnt get their precious data and they would fall behind so its a damned if you do and damned if you dont.
Also, after reading the old somethingawful leaked AOL searches I think we can agree that sometimes it would be better if you could just call the police when you saw search logs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364184</id>
	<title>Or perhaps....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260282480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'</i> <br> <br>

Or perhaps if I have something that I don't want anyone to know, it's NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS! I'm tired of this presumption of guilt that's become all the rage these days. We really need to get these idiots out of positions of power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place .
' Or perhaps if I have something that I do n't want anyone to know , it 's NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS !
I 'm tired of this presumption of guilt that 's become all the rage these days .
We really need to get these idiots out of positions of power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
'  

Or perhaps if I have something that I don't want anyone to know, it's NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS!
I'm tired of this presumption of guilt that's become all the rage these days.
We really need to get these idiots out of positions of power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30378602</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>bartyboy</author>
	<datestamp>1259605800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You completely missed the point of my original post.</p><p>I called your assertion that</p><blockquote><div><p>everyone is a wrongdoer by someone's definition.</p></div></blockquote><p>wrong because a person's actions can only have consequences under the letter of the law.</p><p>If I am speeding and get caught, I am a wrongdoer under the law.  If I'm on a bus and don't offer my seat to a 90 year old lady, I am a wrongdoer in someone's books.</p><p>One action has consequences, the other has none (ignoring any beliefs in karma etc).  Thus, the law's definition of wrongdoer is the only one that matters here.</p><p>If you break the law, you should expect consequences.  You should expect that your trial will be unfair.  You should expect Google (or anyone else) to provide evidence about your crime.  You should expect to get the maximum penalty.</p><p>Similarly, if you do something that's legal in your jurisdiction but offends someone, their opinion of your actions is ultimately inconsequential.</p><p>(By the way, the fact that people regularly break laws simply means that the benefits outweigh the risks.  They don't do it to stick it to The Man, who enforces the law "capriciously and inconsistently".)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You completely missed the point of my original post.I called your assertion thateveryone is a wrongdoer by someone 's definition.wrong because a person 's actions can only have consequences under the letter of the law.If I am speeding and get caught , I am a wrongdoer under the law .
If I 'm on a bus and do n't offer my seat to a 90 year old lady , I am a wrongdoer in someone 's books.One action has consequences , the other has none ( ignoring any beliefs in karma etc ) .
Thus , the law 's definition of wrongdoer is the only one that matters here.If you break the law , you should expect consequences .
You should expect that your trial will be unfair .
You should expect Google ( or anyone else ) to provide evidence about your crime .
You should expect to get the maximum penalty.Similarly , if you do something that 's legal in your jurisdiction but offends someone , their opinion of your actions is ultimately inconsequential .
( By the way , the fact that people regularly break laws simply means that the benefits outweigh the risks .
They do n't do it to stick it to The Man , who enforces the law " capriciously and inconsistently " .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You completely missed the point of my original post.I called your assertion thateveryone is a wrongdoer by someone's definition.wrong because a person's actions can only have consequences under the letter of the law.If I am speeding and get caught, I am a wrongdoer under the law.
If I'm on a bus and don't offer my seat to a 90 year old lady, I am a wrongdoer in someone's books.One action has consequences, the other has none (ignoring any beliefs in karma etc).
Thus, the law's definition of wrongdoer is the only one that matters here.If you break the law, you should expect consequences.
You should expect that your trial will be unfair.
You should expect Google (or anyone else) to provide evidence about your crime.
You should expect to get the maximum penalty.Similarly, if you do something that's legal in your jurisdiction but offends someone, their opinion of your actions is ultimately inconsequential.
(By the way, the fact that people regularly break laws simply means that the benefits outweigh the risks.
They don't do it to stick it to The Man, who enforces the law "capriciously and inconsistently".
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364526</id>
	<title>And upon hearing this...</title>
	<author>denalione</author>
	<datestamp>1260284400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I changed my default search engine to (shudder) bing.com.   I hate having to choose between fecal matter and something that stinks really bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I changed my default search engine to ( shudder ) bing.com .
I hate having to choose between fecal matter and something that stinks really bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I changed my default search engine to (shudder) bing.com.
I hate having to choose between fecal matter and something that stinks really bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365414</id>
	<title>Oh, okay.</title>
	<author>goodmorningsunshine</author>
	<datestamp>1260288540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then he won't mind me watching him make love to his wife.
Because if he does, he shouldn't be doing it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then he wo n't mind me watching him make love to his wife .
Because if he does , he should n't be doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then he won't mind me watching him make love to his wife.
Because if he does, he shouldn't be doing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30371238</id>
	<title>right, but misleading</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1260271080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'</p> </div><p>Strictly speaking, he's correct. If you take "anyone" to mean "nobody should ever know" in this context. As soon as you replace "anyone" with something a little closer to real-life, say "something that you don't want too many people to know", things change dramatically.</p><p>My love letters are in the "<b>someone</b> can know them" category - but that "someone" is well-defined, and it isn't Google.<br>What I do in my bedroom is something I share with at least one person anyways, and may tell to a few select others - the keyword being "select".<br>My medical issues are between me and my doctor.<br>And so on.</p><p>In every case, the strictly "if you don't want <b>anyone</b> to know" is true. But that "anyone" is usually one specific person.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place .
' Strictly speaking , he 's correct .
If you take " anyone " to mean " nobody should ever know " in this context .
As soon as you replace " anyone " with something a little closer to real-life , say " something that you do n't want too many people to know " , things change dramatically.My love letters are in the " someone can know them " category - but that " someone " is well-defined , and it is n't Google.What I do in my bedroom is something I share with at least one person anyways , and may tell to a few select others - the keyword being " select " .My medical issues are between me and my doctor.And so on.In every case , the strictly " if you do n't want anyone to know " is true .
But that " anyone " is usually one specific person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
' Strictly speaking, he's correct.
If you take "anyone" to mean "nobody should ever know" in this context.
As soon as you replace "anyone" with something a little closer to real-life, say "something that you don't want too many people to know", things change dramatically.My love letters are in the "someone can know them" category - but that "someone" is well-defined, and it isn't Google.What I do in my bedroom is something I share with at least one person anyways, and may tell to a few select others - the keyword being "select".My medical issues are between me and my doctor.And so on.In every case, the strictly "if you don't want anyone to know" is true.
But that "anyone" is usually one specific person.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30387252</id>
	<title>In some cases it isnt privacy but accuricy</title>
	<author>DRACO-</author>
	<datestamp>1260455400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Privacy is not the issue, it's the inaccuracy that could occur that would dishonor a user.  Do you always remember to log out of google when a friend borrows a computer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy is not the issue , it 's the inaccuracy that could occur that would dishonor a user .
Do you always remember to log out of google when a friend borrows a computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy is not the issue, it's the inaccuracy that could occur that would dishonor a user.
Do you always remember to log out of google when a friend borrows a computer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367638</id>
	<title>Let's put Eric's privacy where his mouth is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260298320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$50 to the first person to snap a pic of Eric Schmidt on the crapper and pop it onto the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 50 to the first person to snap a pic of Eric Schmidt on the crapper and pop it onto the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$50 to the first person to snap a pic of Eric Schmidt on the crapper and pop it onto the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365002</id>
	<title>I guess I understood him wrong then.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260286740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was under the impression that what he meant is if you are searching for something you know is illegal, maybe you should not do it on a website like google where the information could be requested by law enforcement. In the end google can try to give you privacy but they still have to obey the law. Same goes for other sites where you probably should not put stupid information (facebook, twitter).</p><p>Be smart about it. Only stupid criminals get caught. You have to realize that their is no free privacy on the internet. If you need it, you have to work to get it (even with tor+ssh+... it's hard to not leave traces)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that what he meant is if you are searching for something you know is illegal , maybe you should not do it on a website like google where the information could be requested by law enforcement .
In the end google can try to give you privacy but they still have to obey the law .
Same goes for other sites where you probably should not put stupid information ( facebook , twitter ) .Be smart about it .
Only stupid criminals get caught .
You have to realize that their is no free privacy on the internet .
If you need it , you have to work to get it ( even with tor + ssh + ... it 's hard to not leave traces )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that what he meant is if you are searching for something you know is illegal, maybe you should not do it on a website like google where the information could be requested by law enforcement.
In the end google can try to give you privacy but they still have to obey the law.
Same goes for other sites where you probably should not put stupid information (facebook, twitter).Be smart about it.
Only stupid criminals get caught.
You have to realize that their is no free privacy on the internet.
If you need it, you have to work to get it (even with tor+ssh+... it's hard to not leave traces)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30370126</id>
	<title>Time to Switch!</title>
	<author>Stolovaya</author>
	<datestamp>1260265920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've used Gmail for years; hearing this, I think it's about time to switch. Does anyone have any good suggestions for a web email service comparable with Gmail, but maybe not quite so evil?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used Gmail for years ; hearing this , I think it 's about time to switch .
Does anyone have any good suggestions for a web email service comparable with Gmail , but maybe not quite so evil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used Gmail for years; hearing this, I think it's about time to switch.
Does anyone have any good suggestions for a web email service comparable with Gmail, but maybe not quite so evil?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364546</id>
	<title>Re:This is a flawed argument</title>
	<author>OzPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1260284580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are lots of things which are perfectly legal yet something one would prefer to keep private.</p></div><p>There was an example of this in richmond, VA 3 years or so ago.  There was an art teacher here who was using his Ass to paint pictures and actually sell on the Internet [1].  He had a video of his process on youtube, but in that video he wore a disguise, used a pseudonym and generally tried to disconnect himself from his professional life.  However it all came to light and he was hounded out of his job.  See <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121302137.html" title="washingtonpost.com">this article</a> [washingtonpost.com] in the Washington Post.</p><p>[1] Its his choice to call it Art.  But then again I have a painting on my wall from a famous US pornstar who painted her tits and impressed them on paper - see her [NSFW [2]??] <a href="http://www.anniesprinkle.org/html/art/tit\_prints.html" title="anniesprinkle.org">catalogue here </a> [anniesprinkle.org] </p><p>[2] Is nude art NSFW?  What about the nudes by the old masters?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are lots of things which are perfectly legal yet something one would prefer to keep private.There was an example of this in richmond , VA 3 years or so ago .
There was an art teacher here who was using his Ass to paint pictures and actually sell on the Internet [ 1 ] .
He had a video of his process on youtube , but in that video he wore a disguise , used a pseudonym and generally tried to disconnect himself from his professional life .
However it all came to light and he was hounded out of his job .
See this article [ washingtonpost.com ] in the Washington Post .
[ 1 ] Its his choice to call it Art .
But then again I have a painting on my wall from a famous US pornstar who painted her tits and impressed them on paper - see her [ NSFW [ 2 ] ? ?
] catalogue here [ anniesprinkle.org ] [ 2 ] Is nude art NSFW ?
What about the nudes by the old masters ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are lots of things which are perfectly legal yet something one would prefer to keep private.There was an example of this in richmond, VA 3 years or so ago.
There was an art teacher here who was using his Ass to paint pictures and actually sell on the Internet [1].
He had a video of his process on youtube, but in that video he wore a disguise, used a pseudonym and generally tried to disconnect himself from his professional life.
However it all came to light and he was hounded out of his job.
See this article [washingtonpost.com] in the Washington Post.
[1] Its his choice to call it Art.
But then again I have a painting on my wall from a famous US pornstar who painted her tits and impressed them on paper - see her [NSFW [2]??
] catalogue here  [anniesprinkle.org] [2] Is nude art NSFW?
What about the nudes by the old masters?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30371314</id>
	<title>Actually, a nice sociological experiment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260271440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think about it that way - what if everyone knew everything about everyone else? What if everybody had unrestricted access to know the deepest secrets of anyone. How would the society work? I think this is an interesting question. Would we end up in some denial game, when everyone would try to twist the facts to support their "evildoing"? Would it be easier to control the people or more difficult? Would the bad example kill the enthusiasm of people or on the other hand motivate people to improve themselves, "not to be like they are"? What do you think?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think about it that way - what if everyone knew everything about everyone else ?
What if everybody had unrestricted access to know the deepest secrets of anyone .
How would the society work ?
I think this is an interesting question .
Would we end up in some denial game , when everyone would try to twist the facts to support their " evildoing " ?
Would it be easier to control the people or more difficult ?
Would the bad example kill the enthusiasm of people or on the other hand motivate people to improve themselves , " not to be like they are " ?
What do you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think about it that way - what if everyone knew everything about everyone else?
What if everybody had unrestricted access to know the deepest secrets of anyone.
How would the society work?
I think this is an interesting question.
Would we end up in some denial game, when everyone would try to twist the facts to support their "evildoing"?
Would it be easier to control the people or more difficult?
Would the bad example kill the enthusiasm of people or on the other hand motivate people to improve themselves, "not to be like they are"?
What do you think?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367332</id>
	<title>Re:Right</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1260296940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Eric is right. If there are no wrongdoers in the world I wouldn't have to care about my privacy. Only a wrongdoer would abuse your credit card details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Eric is right .
If there are no wrongdoers in the world I would n't have to care about my privacy .
Only a wrongdoer would abuse your credit card details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Eric is right.
If there are no wrongdoers in the world I wouldn't have to care about my privacy.
Only a wrongdoer would abuse your credit card details.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30371670</id>
	<title>Let's do this:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260273420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just put all his private stuff up the Internet. Indexed by Google itself. ^^<br>Then lock the FOX speculation-hate-machine onto it.</p><p>Let&rsquo;s see him not worry about his privacy then. ^^</p><p>For fun and giggles, we can add some fake stuff in there too that will get him into pound-me-in-the-ass-prison.</p><p>Is that some kind of Streisand effect, or do we need a new name?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just put all his private stuff up the Internet .
Indexed by Google itself .
^ ^ Then lock the FOX speculation-hate-machine onto it.Let    s see him not worry about his privacy then .
^ ^ For fun and giggles , we can add some fake stuff in there too that will get him into pound-me-in-the-ass-prison.Is that some kind of Streisand effect , or do we need a new name ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just put all his private stuff up the Internet.
Indexed by Google itself.
^^Then lock the FOX speculation-hate-machine onto it.Let’s see him not worry about his privacy then.
^^For fun and giggles, we can add some fake stuff in there too that will get him into pound-me-in-the-ass-prison.Is that some kind of Streisand effect, or do we need a new name?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366630</id>
	<title>Re:Thank Your, Mr. Schmidt.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260293400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Overreaction much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Overreaction much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Overreaction much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368410</id>
	<title>moronic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260301320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A second perusing the welter of laws and regulations much less the increasing power taken by the state to do whatever it will to its citizens would immediately preclude making such an idiotic statement.</p><p>Also I am sure that Eric would not like all his business affairs and plans leaked to everyone that cared to look by the lack of sufficient privacy safeguards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A second perusing the welter of laws and regulations much less the increasing power taken by the state to do whatever it will to its citizens would immediately preclude making such an idiotic statement.Also I am sure that Eric would not like all his business affairs and plans leaked to everyone that cared to look by the lack of sufficient privacy safeguards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A second perusing the welter of laws and regulations much less the increasing power taken by the state to do whatever it will to its citizens would immediately preclude making such an idiotic statement.Also I am sure that Eric would not like all his business affairs and plans leaked to everyone that cared to look by the lack of sufficient privacy safeguards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30375068</id>
	<title>SkyNet?</title>
	<author>merauder</author>
	<datestamp>1259572920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Dyson listened while the Terminator laid it all down. Skynet, Judgment Day, the history of things to come. It's not every day that you find out you're responsible for three billion deaths. He took it pretty well. "</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Dyson listened while the Terminator laid it all down .
Skynet , Judgment Day , the history of things to come .
It 's not every day that you find out you 're responsible for three billion deaths .
He took it pretty well .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Dyson listened while the Terminator laid it all down.
Skynet, Judgment Day, the history of things to come.
It's not every day that you find out you're responsible for three billion deaths.
He took it pretty well.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364324</id>
	<title>Hey Eric!</title>
	<author>Uzik2</author>
	<datestamp>1260283260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want video of you having sex on the internet. I want your home phone number, social security number, and address too. After all, you have nothing to hide because you're not doing anything wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want video of you having sex on the internet .
I want your home phone number , social security number , and address too .
After all , you have nothing to hide because you 're not doing anything wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want video of you having sex on the internet.
I want your home phone number, social security number, and address too.
After all, you have nothing to hide because you're not doing anything wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30371018</id>
	<title>Hmmm.  So isGoogle the new Apple around here...</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1260270000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like I remember Apple being this great white knight circa 2004/2005 and then after a couple years they are "evil" and "propitiatory", yet Apple is one of the more OSS friendly companies out there by buying and supporting CUPS (Those who like the fact their printer works with Linux has Apple to thank for that), and then Webkit, and a number of other things.</p><p>Basically they got the same treatment that Google has the past couple years, but now it looks like the tide is starting to turn as I predict that 2010 will the year that Google becomes widely regarded as "evil" around<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like I remember Apple being this great white knight circa 2004/2005 and then after a couple years they are " evil " and " propitiatory " , yet Apple is one of the more OSS friendly companies out there by buying and supporting CUPS ( Those who like the fact their printer works with Linux has Apple to thank for that ) , and then Webkit , and a number of other things.Basically they got the same treatment that Google has the past couple years , but now it looks like the tide is starting to turn as I predict that 2010 will the year that Google becomes widely regarded as " evil " around / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like I remember Apple being this great white knight circa 2004/2005 and then after a couple years they are "evil" and "propitiatory", yet Apple is one of the more OSS friendly companies out there by buying and supporting CUPS (Those who like the fact their printer works with Linux has Apple to thank for that), and then Webkit, and a number of other things.Basically they got the same treatment that Google has the past couple years, but now it looks like the tide is starting to turn as I predict that 2010 will the year that Google becomes widely regarded as "evil" around /.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30369998</id>
	<title>Have My Cake and Eat This.</title>
	<author>DarkMage0707077</author>
	<datestamp>1260265260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alright, Google. I can't do much about your beliefs on privacy. After all, you are free to run your company as you see fit within the bounds of the law. However, I do like my privacy on certain personal topics.<br>
<br>
So how will I serve both? Simple: I'll stop using the internet entirely.<br>
<br>
I'm sure you'll agree that this is the preffered solution for both parties: you get to keep using the information that you've already obtained freely (so long as it's legal), and I get to retain all of my personal information that I collect from this point forward.<br>
<br>
I like this idea. In fact, I like it so much, I'm going to tell my friends to do it; most of them have issues that they want kept private, and the internet is only a source of idle time-wasting anyway. And they will tell theirs. Assuming the trend keeps up, after a while there won't be anyone left who uses the internet at all.<br>
<br>
But that's not a big deal to you, right, Google? After all, it's not like the internet is part of your business in any way...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alright , Google .
I ca n't do much about your beliefs on privacy .
After all , you are free to run your company as you see fit within the bounds of the law .
However , I do like my privacy on certain personal topics .
So how will I serve both ?
Simple : I 'll stop using the internet entirely .
I 'm sure you 'll agree that this is the preffered solution for both parties : you get to keep using the information that you 've already obtained freely ( so long as it 's legal ) , and I get to retain all of my personal information that I collect from this point forward .
I like this idea .
In fact , I like it so much , I 'm going to tell my friends to do it ; most of them have issues that they want kept private , and the internet is only a source of idle time-wasting anyway .
And they will tell theirs .
Assuming the trend keeps up , after a while there wo n't be anyone left who uses the internet at all .
But that 's not a big deal to you , right , Google ?
After all , it 's not like the internet is part of your business in any way.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alright, Google.
I can't do much about your beliefs on privacy.
After all, you are free to run your company as you see fit within the bounds of the law.
However, I do like my privacy on certain personal topics.
So how will I serve both?
Simple: I'll stop using the internet entirely.
I'm sure you'll agree that this is the preffered solution for both parties: you get to keep using the information that you've already obtained freely (so long as it's legal), and I get to retain all of my personal information that I collect from this point forward.
I like this idea.
In fact, I like it so much, I'm going to tell my friends to do it; most of them have issues that they want kept private, and the internet is only a source of idle time-wasting anyway.
And they will tell theirs.
Assuming the trend keeps up, after a while there won't be anyone left who uses the internet at all.
But that's not a big deal to you, right, Google?
After all, it's not like the internet is part of your business in any way...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366332</id>
	<title>3 major reasons why good people want privacy,</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1260292380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1.   People are judgemental,hatefull creatures.  I don't want that gossipy B/SOB from Human Resources - you know the one that makes snide comments about everyone's clothing and hair - to know about my intimiate medical details.
<p>
2.  While I don't do anything wrong, YOU DO.  By you I mean the people collecting the information.   Corporations and Governments over-reach and embrace tyranny, and even if they don't, they can be bought out/conquered.  Ann Frank did not want the nice, sweet, wonderful government of Holland to know anything about her, even though she did nothing wrong.  Look how that turned out.  That is EXACTLY why we don't want you to know anything.
</p><p>
3.  Selective prosecution.   People sin.   No one is truly innocent (how many priets were caught...)   We need to learn to get along with people with faults, not expect everyone to be perfect.  But if you know everything about everyone, then you can blackmail those you dislike, while leaving your 'friends' alone.   If you truly wish to ask "what do you have to hide" you must first reveal EVERYTHING about yourself AND your family.  I want to see the tax returns, psychiatric notes, report cards, arrest reports, of EVERY single employee AND stock holder of Google before they have the gall to say "if you don't have anything to hide..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
People are judgemental,hatefull creatures .
I do n't want that gossipy B/SOB from Human Resources - you know the one that makes snide comments about everyone 's clothing and hair - to know about my intimiate medical details .
2. While I do n't do anything wrong , YOU DO .
By you I mean the people collecting the information .
Corporations and Governments over-reach and embrace tyranny , and even if they do n't , they can be bought out/conquered .
Ann Frank did not want the nice , sweet , wonderful government of Holland to know anything about her , even though she did nothing wrong .
Look how that turned out .
That is EXACTLY why we do n't want you to know anything .
3. Selective prosecution .
People sin .
No one is truly innocent ( how many priets were caught... ) We need to learn to get along with people with faults , not expect everyone to be perfect .
But if you know everything about everyone , then you can blackmail those you dislike , while leaving your 'friends ' alone .
If you truly wish to ask " what do you have to hide " you must first reveal EVERYTHING about yourself AND your family .
I want to see the tax returns , psychiatric notes , report cards , arrest reports , of EVERY single employee AND stock holder of Google before they have the gall to say " if you do n't have anything to hide... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
People are judgemental,hatefull creatures.
I don't want that gossipy B/SOB from Human Resources - you know the one that makes snide comments about everyone's clothing and hair - to know about my intimiate medical details.
2.  While I don't do anything wrong, YOU DO.
By you I mean the people collecting the information.
Corporations and Governments over-reach and embrace tyranny, and even if they don't, they can be bought out/conquered.
Ann Frank did not want the nice, sweet, wonderful government of Holland to know anything about her, even though she did nothing wrong.
Look how that turned out.
That is EXACTLY why we don't want you to know anything.
3.  Selective prosecution.
People sin.
No one is truly innocent (how many priets were caught...)   We need to learn to get along with people with faults, not expect everyone to be perfect.
But if you know everything about everyone, then you can blackmail those you dislike, while leaving your 'friends' alone.
If you truly wish to ask "what do you have to hide" you must first reveal EVERYTHING about yourself AND your family.
I want to see the tax returns, psychiatric notes, report cards, arrest reports, of EVERY single employee AND stock holder of Google before they have the gall to say "if you don't have anything to hide..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368950</id>
	<title>Re:Context?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260303420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just don't allow Google Analytics in your NoScript. If you're not using NoScript, then how can you really claim to be protective of your online privacy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just do n't allow Google Analytics in your NoScript .
If you 're not using NoScript , then how can you really claim to be protective of your online privacy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just don't allow Google Analytics in your NoScript.
If you're not using NoScript, then how can you really claim to be protective of your online privacy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364402</id>
	<title>Laughable</title>
	<author>TheNinjaroach</author>
	<datestamp>1260283680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a laughably lame argument. It's the same one spouted over and over again by authorities who want to push the envelope when it comes to our privacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a laughably lame argument .
It 's the same one spouted over and over again by authorities who want to push the envelope when it comes to our privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a laughably lame argument.
It's the same one spouted over and over again by authorities who want to push the envelope when it comes to our privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364578</id>
	<title>Privacy is for wrongdoers, like Founding Fathers?</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1260284760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how Thomas Paine, George Washington, and the rest felt about the need for privacy and secrecy in late 1776?</p><p>I wonder how those running the Underground Railroad felt about the need for privacy prior to the end of legal American slavery?</p><p>I wonder how those who have "alternative lifestyles" feel about keeping certain facts away from their employers and family members?</p><p>I wonder how Google's employees and executives would feel if Human Resources records were open to the world?</p><p>Privacy is for everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how Thomas Paine , George Washington , and the rest felt about the need for privacy and secrecy in late 1776 ? I wonder how those running the Underground Railroad felt about the need for privacy prior to the end of legal American slavery ? I wonder how those who have " alternative lifestyles " feel about keeping certain facts away from their employers and family members ? I wonder how Google 's employees and executives would feel if Human Resources records were open to the world ? Privacy is for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how Thomas Paine, George Washington, and the rest felt about the need for privacy and secrecy in late 1776?I wonder how those running the Underground Railroad felt about the need for privacy prior to the end of legal American slavery?I wonder how those who have "alternative lifestyles" feel about keeping certain facts away from their employers and family members?I wonder how Google's employees and executives would feel if Human Resources records were open to the world?Privacy is for everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365634</id>
	<title>Re:wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260289500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I reckon they're probably worse.</p><p>Microsoft is out to get your money. They do this by selling you as many Microsoft products as they can(sometimes whether you want them or not) and occaisionally knifing a competitor. Not exactly perfect behaviour, but predictable and relatively harmless. Microsoft doesn't really care what you do with their products so long as you pay for them. Want to write political manifestos in Word, Microsoft doesn't care. Features of Word may make your document easier to tie back to you, but it's other people doing the tieing.</p><p>Google on the other hand has been collecting information on everything they can for as long as they've been around, more and more and more every year. They know about your web searches, if you hit a web site with analytics, they own everthing you create in their application framework, now they're going to start logging your DNS searches.</p><p>Why are they doing this? I don't really know. At best they've falled into the "perfect information" trap and and have convinced themselves that if they just knew more about people they could make the world better. It's a common pitfall for IT workers, particularly the kind who are bright enough to get hired at google and sufficiently social retarded to willingly work the kind of hours the company seems to expect. Even that's not exactly a great situation and there are plenty of alternatives which are far more worrying.</p><p>Sure they've got to turn this stuff over to every government they deal with who wants it, that's part of doing business. Companies who disagree with that sort of thing tend to fight it by limiting their logging to what is legally required though, and Google sure does't do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I reckon they 're probably worse.Microsoft is out to get your money .
They do this by selling you as many Microsoft products as they can ( sometimes whether you want them or not ) and occaisionally knifing a competitor .
Not exactly perfect behaviour , but predictable and relatively harmless .
Microsoft does n't really care what you do with their products so long as you pay for them .
Want to write political manifestos in Word , Microsoft does n't care .
Features of Word may make your document easier to tie back to you , but it 's other people doing the tieing.Google on the other hand has been collecting information on everything they can for as long as they 've been around , more and more and more every year .
They know about your web searches , if you hit a web site with analytics , they own everthing you create in their application framework , now they 're going to start logging your DNS searches.Why are they doing this ?
I do n't really know .
At best they 've falled into the " perfect information " trap and and have convinced themselves that if they just knew more about people they could make the world better .
It 's a common pitfall for IT workers , particularly the kind who are bright enough to get hired at google and sufficiently social retarded to willingly work the kind of hours the company seems to expect .
Even that 's not exactly a great situation and there are plenty of alternatives which are far more worrying.Sure they 've got to turn this stuff over to every government they deal with who wants it , that 's part of doing business .
Companies who disagree with that sort of thing tend to fight it by limiting their logging to what is legally required though , and Google sure does't do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I reckon they're probably worse.Microsoft is out to get your money.
They do this by selling you as many Microsoft products as they can(sometimes whether you want them or not) and occaisionally knifing a competitor.
Not exactly perfect behaviour, but predictable and relatively harmless.
Microsoft doesn't really care what you do with their products so long as you pay for them.
Want to write political manifestos in Word, Microsoft doesn't care.
Features of Word may make your document easier to tie back to you, but it's other people doing the tieing.Google on the other hand has been collecting information on everything they can for as long as they've been around, more and more and more every year.
They know about your web searches, if you hit a web site with analytics, they own everthing you create in their application framework, now they're going to start logging your DNS searches.Why are they doing this?
I don't really know.
At best they've falled into the "perfect information" trap and and have convinced themselves that if they just knew more about people they could make the world better.
It's a common pitfall for IT workers, particularly the kind who are bright enough to get hired at google and sufficiently social retarded to willingly work the kind of hours the company seems to expect.
Even that's not exactly a great situation and there are plenty of alternatives which are far more worrying.Sure they've got to turn this stuff over to every government they deal with who wants it, that's part of doing business.
Companies who disagree with that sort of thing tend to fight it by limiting their logging to what is legally required though, and Google sure does't do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364348</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>Mattskimo</author>
	<datestamp>1260283320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google CEO Eric Schmidt posts social security number, credit card number, his home address,details of where his children go to school etc etc on google.com homepage. Yeah I thought not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google CEO Eric Schmidt posts social security number , credit card number , his home address,details of where his children go to school etc etc on google.com homepage .
Yeah I thought not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google CEO Eric Schmidt posts social security number, credit card number, his home address,details of where his children go to school etc etc on google.com homepage.
Yeah I thought not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364564</id>
	<title>Re:This is a flawed argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260284700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't need to go that far.<br>
I'm sure in lot of places, being gay, having the wrong faith, vote for the wrong party, read the wrong book,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... would label you a "sick pervert".
<br> <br>
Anyway under the same assumptions, why should voting be kept private ? After all you have nothing to hide - and there is really nothing you would do in the voting booth that could be considered illegal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't need to go that far .
I 'm sure in lot of places , being gay , having the wrong faith , vote for the wrong party , read the wrong book , ... would label you a " sick pervert " .
Anyway under the same assumptions , why should voting be kept private ?
After all you have nothing to hide - and there is really nothing you would do in the voting booth that could be considered illegal .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't need to go that far.
I'm sure in lot of places, being gay, having the wrong faith, vote for the wrong party, read the wrong book, ... would label you a "sick pervert".
Anyway under the same assumptions, why should voting be kept private ?
After all you have nothing to hide - and there is really nothing you would do in the voting booth that could be considered illegal ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366174</id>
	<title>If you're worried about privacy..</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1260291780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..then <em>you</em> ought to worry about privacy.  And if you're doing something you don't want people to know about, why are you knowingly transmitting it to a stranger (as well as unknowingly to <em>other</em> strangers, since people still don't encrypt)?</p><p>I don't get how people can whine about Google's power and completely ignore where their power comes from.  Google doesn't know anything about my search history that I didn't tell them (while also telling my ISP and anyone else on the wire such as NSA).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..then you ought to worry about privacy .
And if you 're doing something you do n't want people to know about , why are you knowingly transmitting it to a stranger ( as well as unknowingly to other strangers , since people still do n't encrypt ) ? I do n't get how people can whine about Google 's power and completely ignore where their power comes from .
Google does n't know anything about my search history that I did n't tell them ( while also telling my ISP and anyone else on the wire such as NSA ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..then you ought to worry about privacy.
And if you're doing something you don't want people to know about, why are you knowingly transmitting it to a stranger (as well as unknowingly to other strangers, since people still don't encrypt)?I don't get how people can whine about Google's power and completely ignore where their power comes from.
Google doesn't know anything about my search history that I didn't tell them (while also telling my ISP and anyone else on the wire such as NSA).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364642</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260285120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Laws change<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... next year marihuana might be legal and somewhere in the future having sex with men might become illegal (again).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Laws change ... next year marihuana might be legal and somewhere in the future having sex with men might become illegal ( again ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laws change ... next year marihuana might be legal and somewhere in the future having sex with men might become illegal (again).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365644</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy for Wrongdoers</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1260289500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously if you don't want the government to brand you a potential evildoer, you shouldn't enlist to defend it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously if you do n't want the government to brand you a potential evildoer , you should n't enlist to defend it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously if you don't want the government to brand you a potential evildoer, you shouldn't enlist to defend it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30370084</id>
	<title>privacy only for criminals?</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1260265740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'
</p><p>
Yeah, ok.  For example, for someone hiding out from a bad person, just continuing to exist is something you don't want them to know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place .
' Yeah , ok. For example , for someone hiding out from a bad person , just continuing to exist is something you do n't want them to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
'

Yeah, ok.  For example, for someone hiding out from a bad person, just continuing to exist is something you don't want them to know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367032</id>
	<title>Piracy?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260295500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh, I read it as "Google CEO Says Piracy Worries Are For Wrongdoers"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Now stop spying on me and my torrents!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , I read it as " Google CEO Says Piracy Worries Are For Wrongdoers " ... Now stop spying on me and my torrents !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, I read it as "Google CEO Says Piracy Worries Are For Wrongdoers" ... Now stop spying on me and my torrents!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364756</id>
	<title>A request for Mr. Schmidt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260285720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In that case Mr. Schmidt, can you give use your private phone number, your cell phone number, your social security number?, and oh yeah.. while you are at it.. post you Visa Platinum card number too!.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In that case Mr. Schmidt , can you give use your private phone number , your cell phone number , your social security number ? , and oh yeah.. while you are at it.. post you Visa Platinum card number too ! .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In that case Mr. Schmidt, can you give use your private phone number, your cell phone number, your social security number?, and oh yeah.. while you are at it.. post you Visa Platinum card number too!.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366698</id>
	<title>Think it's time to put a 24 hour tail on this guy.</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1260293760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's human.  He'll do something embarassing, wrong or illegal within a year.</p><p>Perhaps a web page dedicated to pictures of him digging in his nose with his finger would be a good start.  I mean.. everyone does it, what's wrong with publishing pictures of him doing that.  Perhaps scratching his ass and looking down ladies blouse's too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's human .
He 'll do something embarassing , wrong or illegal within a year.Perhaps a web page dedicated to pictures of him digging in his nose with his finger would be a good start .
I mean.. everyone does it , what 's wrong with publishing pictures of him doing that .
Perhaps scratching his ass and looking down ladies blouse 's too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's human.
He'll do something embarassing, wrong or illegal within a year.Perhaps a web page dedicated to pictures of him digging in his nose with his finger would be a good start.
I mean.. everyone does it, what's wrong with publishing pictures of him doing that.
Perhaps scratching his ass and looking down ladies blouse's too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364766</id>
	<title>Re:Or perhaps....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260285780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, don't use google then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , do n't use google then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, don't use google then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364846</id>
	<title>Eric Schmidt's Sexual History</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1260286200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He has no trouble with a play by play of his sexual activities being make public?  If he doesn't want it known he shouldn't be doing it.</p><p>Is he willing to turn over his bank records?</p><p>Anytime someone brings up this argument it should be followed by:</p><p>"Please strip naked I think you have (random illegal item) secreted on you."</p><p>or</p><p>"So you have no trouble with installing cameras in all rooms of your house?  Since you're doing nothing wrong it shouldn't be an issue."</p><p>or</p><p>"Please show me your bank records.  I think you're (performing illegal financial act)."</p><p>I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Google is the next Microsoft and will be hated as much as MS ever was or more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He has no trouble with a play by play of his sexual activities being make public ?
If he does n't want it known he should n't be doing it.Is he willing to turn over his bank records ? Anytime someone brings up this argument it should be followed by : " Please strip naked I think you have ( random illegal item ) secreted on you .
" or " So you have no trouble with installing cameras in all rooms of your house ?
Since you 're doing nothing wrong it should n't be an issue .
" or " Please show me your bank records .
I think you 're ( performing illegal financial act ) .
" I 've said it before and I 'll say it again .
Google is the next Microsoft and will be hated as much as MS ever was or more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He has no trouble with a play by play of his sexual activities being make public?
If he doesn't want it known he shouldn't be doing it.Is he willing to turn over his bank records?Anytime someone brings up this argument it should be followed by:"Please strip naked I think you have (random illegal item) secreted on you.
"or"So you have no trouble with installing cameras in all rooms of your house?
Since you're doing nothing wrong it shouldn't be an issue.
"or"Please show me your bank records.
I think you're (performing illegal financial act).
"I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Google is the next Microsoft and will be hated as much as MS ever was or more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364084</id>
	<title>Context?</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1260281820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>First he starts with<p><div class="quote"><p>Well, I think judgment matters.</p></div><p>Then we get a voice over and a cutaway.  Then the snippet in question is suspiciously selected with nothing preceding it.  That's his direct quote and it was stupid to say 'maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place' but what was said before it seems to be edited.  If the context is search engines (which I think it is), then what he says is true.  As in 'if you're looking for ways to murder your husband, maybe you shouldn't be using the Google Search engine to find that information in the first place.'  Here's what follows the inflammatory statement:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines--including Google--do retain this information for some time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... um<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and it's important--for example that we are all subject to the United States Patriot Act--it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.</p></div><p>I don't want to sound like a fanboy bending over backwards to absolve Schmidt but I want to point out that the important message people should take away from this is simply that your searches are not private.  Your searches leave the premises of your private property.  They go to a semi-public resting place where--under the Patriot Act--the government has the ability to access them with little commotion.  <br> <br>

I mean, if you enjoy doing something illegal like smoking weed, don't do it in public.  You shouldn't be doing it in public in the first place.  Do it in the privacy of your own home.  If you go to a cafe or place of business and smoke weed, the owner and workers at that cafe might be obligated to call the authorities.  Similarly if you're buying weed, don't use the Google search engine to do it.  <br> <br>

I would like to hear his whole unedited statement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First he starts withWell , I think judgment matters.Then we get a voice over and a cutaway .
Then the snippet in question is suspiciously selected with nothing preceding it .
That 's his direct quote and it was stupid to say 'maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place ' but what was said before it seems to be edited .
If the context is search engines ( which I think it is ) , then what he says is true .
As in 'if you 're looking for ways to murder your husband , maybe you should n't be using the Google Search engine to find that information in the first place .
' Here 's what follows the inflammatory statement : But if you really need that kind of privacy , the reality is that search engines--including Google--do retain this information for some time ... um ... and it 's important--for example that we are all subject to the United States Patriot Act--it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.I do n't want to sound like a fanboy bending over backwards to absolve Schmidt but I want to point out that the important message people should take away from this is simply that your searches are not private .
Your searches leave the premises of your private property .
They go to a semi-public resting place where--under the Patriot Act--the government has the ability to access them with little commotion .
I mean , if you enjoy doing something illegal like smoking weed , do n't do it in public .
You should n't be doing it in public in the first place .
Do it in the privacy of your own home .
If you go to a cafe or place of business and smoke weed , the owner and workers at that cafe might be obligated to call the authorities .
Similarly if you 're buying weed , do n't use the Google search engine to do it .
I would like to hear his whole unedited statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First he starts withWell, I think judgment matters.Then we get a voice over and a cutaway.
Then the snippet in question is suspiciously selected with nothing preceding it.
That's his direct quote and it was stupid to say 'maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place' but what was said before it seems to be edited.
If the context is search engines (which I think it is), then what he says is true.
As in 'if you're looking for ways to murder your husband, maybe you shouldn't be using the Google Search engine to find that information in the first place.
'  Here's what follows the inflammatory statement:But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines--including Google--do retain this information for some time ... um ... and it's important--for example that we are all subject to the United States Patriot Act--it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.I don't want to sound like a fanboy bending over backwards to absolve Schmidt but I want to point out that the important message people should take away from this is simply that your searches are not private.
Your searches leave the premises of your private property.
They go to a semi-public resting place where--under the Patriot Act--the government has the ability to access them with little commotion.
I mean, if you enjoy doing something illegal like smoking weed, don't do it in public.
You shouldn't be doing it in public in the first place.
Do it in the privacy of your own home.
If you go to a cafe or place of business and smoke weed, the owner and workers at that cafe might be obligated to call the authorities.
Similarly if you're buying weed, don't use the Google search engine to do it.
I would like to hear his whole unedited statement.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364604</id>
	<title>Re:This is a flawed argument</title>
	<author>twostix</author>
	<datestamp>1260284940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"My favorite example is a primary school teacher who happens to like BDSM sex. People who are into this adhere to the Safe, sane and consensual principle. (Note: NSFW image in Wikipedia article.) In short, whatever happens happens between consenting adults."</p><p>From that link:</p><p>"Other people in the BDSM community do not consider SSC to be an accurate term for these relationships/activities. The term Risk Aware Consensual Kink (RACK) is sometimes used as a substitute description."</p><p>You know western society has jumped the shark when buzzword bingo and mindless corporate doublespeak and pedantic arguments about meaningless acronyms has even managed to invade our bedrooms.</p><p>Also I'm just going to put it out there that I only clicked that link *after* reading that it had a NSFW image.</p><p>Bit of a let down, just saying...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" My favorite example is a primary school teacher who happens to like BDSM sex .
People who are into this adhere to the Safe , sane and consensual principle .
( Note : NSFW image in Wikipedia article .
) In short , whatever happens happens between consenting adults .
" From that link : " Other people in the BDSM community do not consider SSC to be an accurate term for these relationships/activities .
The term Risk Aware Consensual Kink ( RACK ) is sometimes used as a substitute description .
" You know western society has jumped the shark when buzzword bingo and mindless corporate doublespeak and pedantic arguments about meaningless acronyms has even managed to invade our bedrooms.Also I 'm just going to put it out there that I only clicked that link * after * reading that it had a NSFW image.Bit of a let down , just saying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"My favorite example is a primary school teacher who happens to like BDSM sex.
People who are into this adhere to the Safe, sane and consensual principle.
(Note: NSFW image in Wikipedia article.
) In short, whatever happens happens between consenting adults.
"From that link:"Other people in the BDSM community do not consider SSC to be an accurate term for these relationships/activities.
The term Risk Aware Consensual Kink (RACK) is sometimes used as a substitute description.
"You know western society has jumped the shark when buzzword bingo and mindless corporate doublespeak and pedantic arguments about meaningless acronyms has even managed to invade our bedrooms.Also I'm just going to put it out there that I only clicked that link *after* reading that it had a NSFW image.Bit of a let down, just saying...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364592</id>
	<title>Rediculous</title>
	<author>GottMitUns</author>
	<datestamp>1260284880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'</p> </div><p>If I was just about to take the major shit, ahem, maybe I shouldn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place .
' If I was just about to take the major shit , ahem , maybe I should n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
' If I was just about to take the major shit, ahem, maybe I shouldn't.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364124</id>
	<title>Privacy for Wrongdoers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260282120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that everyone is a wrongdoer by someone's definition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that everyone is a wrongdoer by someone 's definition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that everyone is a wrongdoer by someone's definition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366292</id>
	<title>Add This to the List of Infamous Quotations</title>
	<author>careysub</author>
	<datestamp>1260292140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Charles Fitzgerald, Microsoft program manager, (1996): "If you want security on the 'Net', unplug your computer."</p><p>Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems, (1999): "You, us folks, peasants, you already have zero privacy. Get over it."</p><p>Eric Schmidt, Google CEO, (2009): "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."</p><p>Our corporate masters have always felt that our private lives are their property to abuse as they see fit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Charles Fitzgerald , Microsoft program manager , ( 1996 ) : " If you want security on the 'Net ' , unplug your computer .
" Scott McNealy , CEO of Sun Microsystems , ( 1999 ) : " You , us folks , peasants , you already have zero privacy .
Get over it .
" Eric Schmidt , Google CEO , ( 2009 ) : " If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place .
" Our corporate masters have always felt that our private lives are their property to abuse as they see fit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charles Fitzgerald, Microsoft program manager, (1996): "If you want security on the 'Net', unplug your computer.
"Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems, (1999): "You, us folks, peasants, you already have zero privacy.
Get over it.
"Eric Schmidt, Google CEO, (2009): "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
"Our corporate masters have always felt that our private lives are their property to abuse as they see fit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368932</id>
	<title>Posting Eric Schmidt's Christmas Presents</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1260303360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wonder how Eric Schmidt would feel if the day before Christmas or any holiday or birthday someone told Eric's family and friends what he purchased as their gifts?  I mean, he would only want to keep it a secret if he is an evil doer, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wonder how Eric Schmidt would feel if the day before Christmas or any holiday or birthday someone told Eric 's family and friends what he purchased as their gifts ?
I mean , he would only want to keep it a secret if he is an evil doer , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wonder how Eric Schmidt would feel if the day before Christmas or any holiday or birthday someone told Eric's family and friends what he purchased as their gifts?
I mean, he would only want to keep it a secret if he is an evil doer, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364194</id>
	<title>Re:Context?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260282540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are a moron. Google Search logging the queries is not the problem. Google Analytics is. If I query Google it really isn't that surprising that they know what I am searching for. But they really shouldn't know every single time I visit Slashdot, without even using Google to get there.</p><p>And here again the problem is not that I can't protect me against that. I can. The problem is that the vast majority of web users doesn't even know about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are a moron .
Google Search logging the queries is not the problem .
Google Analytics is .
If I query Google it really is n't that surprising that they know what I am searching for .
But they really should n't know every single time I visit Slashdot , without even using Google to get there.And here again the problem is not that I ca n't protect me against that .
I can .
The problem is that the vast majority of web users does n't even know about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are a moron.
Google Search logging the queries is not the problem.
Google Analytics is.
If I query Google it really isn't that surprising that they know what I am searching for.
But they really shouldn't know every single time I visit Slashdot, without even using Google to get there.And here again the problem is not that I can't protect me against that.
I can.
The problem is that the vast majority of web users doesn't even know about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30370046</id>
	<title>thejosh</title>
	<author>tr09d0r</author>
	<datestamp>1260265440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As far as the privacy thing is concerned, I suppose I understand the apprehension.  Google is saying, in effect, "if you are a criminal, you have something to hide and thus value your privacy.  Therefore, if you value your privacy you are a criminal and have something to hide."  Blatantly fallacious logic is more deeply offensive to me than their invading my privacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as the privacy thing is concerned , I suppose I understand the apprehension .
Google is saying , in effect , " if you are a criminal , you have something to hide and thus value your privacy .
Therefore , if you value your privacy you are a criminal and have something to hide .
" Blatantly fallacious logic is more deeply offensive to me than their invading my privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as the privacy thing is concerned, I suppose I understand the apprehension.
Google is saying, in effect, "if you are a criminal, you have something to hide and thus value your privacy.
Therefore, if you value your privacy you are a criminal and have something to hide.
"  Blatantly fallacious logic is more deeply offensive to me than their invading my privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364942</id>
	<title>Re:Not this again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260286560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like the scroogle idea, but I don't trust that anyone providing such a service isn't either tapped or run by the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the scroogle idea , but I do n't trust that anyone providing such a service is n't either tapped or run by the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the scroogle idea, but I don't trust that anyone providing such a service isn't either tapped or run by the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364200</id>
	<title>It's this kind of attitude...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260282600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the reason that people who want help with social ills are afraid to seek help. A guy who has a problem with drugs or alcohol or a less-than-ideal medical issue are afraid, at the very least, of the stigma of what will be associated with them if they come out to find proper help. It would be nice to think that the internet could be a place for these people to take a first step towards recovery but even those who supposedly do no evil aren't willing to give these people a bit of wiggle room to find themselves the kinds of assistance that they need.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the reason that people who want help with social ills are afraid to seek help .
A guy who has a problem with drugs or alcohol or a less-than-ideal medical issue are afraid , at the very least , of the stigma of what will be associated with them if they come out to find proper help .
It would be nice to think that the internet could be a place for these people to take a first step towards recovery but even those who supposedly do no evil are n't willing to give these people a bit of wiggle room to find themselves the kinds of assistance that they need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the reason that people who want help with social ills are afraid to seek help.
A guy who has a problem with drugs or alcohol or a less-than-ideal medical issue are afraid, at the very least, of the stigma of what will be associated with them if they come out to find proper help.
It would be nice to think that the internet could be a place for these people to take a first step towards recovery but even those who supposedly do no evil aren't willing to give these people a bit of wiggle room to find themselves the kinds of assistance that they need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30373672</id>
	<title>What about a private tech idea that beats Google</title>
	<author>geng45</author>
	<datestamp>1260288180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>May I raise another issue about keeping "privacy"?  As a researcher, I really want to keep my idea in private, especially from a huge business in technical innovation like google, in order to prevent them to have a guess about what is happening inside my brain.  For it is all about ideas and who is the first person who comes up with a new idea and publish it in scientific/technique research.  And I don't think there is anything evil with such ideas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>May I raise another issue about keeping " privacy " ?
As a researcher , I really want to keep my idea in private , especially from a huge business in technical innovation like google , in order to prevent them to have a guess about what is happening inside my brain .
For it is all about ideas and who is the first person who comes up with a new idea and publish it in scientific/technique research .
And I do n't think there is anything evil with such ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May I raise another issue about keeping "privacy"?
As a researcher, I really want to keep my idea in private, especially from a huge business in technical innovation like google, in order to prevent them to have a guess about what is happening inside my brain.
For it is all about ideas and who is the first person who comes up with a new idea and publish it in scientific/technique research.
And I don't think there is anything evil with such ideas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365616</id>
	<title>Famous last words.</title>
	<author>wolfguru</author>
	<datestamp>1260289380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm surprised that the senior officer of a company that does nearly all its business on the web could spout such an absurd comment with a straight face.  Do the words "identity theft" not resonate at some level, or the fact that the information collected by these companies can be abused by anyone that wishes to take advantage of someone by knowing something about them?

Companies have long understood the absolute necessity of maintaining the privacy of their information to avoid making things easier for their competitors to use it against them. The entire industry of programming, service applications and other valuable intellectual property is based on the maintaining of valuable knowledge.  How blithely foolish does someone have to be to fail to understand that if "knowledge is power", privacy is the only currency of value.

"Don't worry about what we collect, it's harmless unless you are doing something wrong...."  I've faced enough discrimination, fought enough battles with healthcare companies over what they consider pre-existing conditions and dealt with enough credit scammers and spam to value my privacy far more than google seems to.

I wonder how the person would feel about his purchasing habits, social security number, home phone number, bank accounts, private club memberships and web browsing history posted as the new home page of Google.

After all, he's not doing anything wrong... what would he have to worry about?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised that the senior officer of a company that does nearly all its business on the web could spout such an absurd comment with a straight face .
Do the words " identity theft " not resonate at some level , or the fact that the information collected by these companies can be abused by anyone that wishes to take advantage of someone by knowing something about them ?
Companies have long understood the absolute necessity of maintaining the privacy of their information to avoid making things easier for their competitors to use it against them .
The entire industry of programming , service applications and other valuable intellectual property is based on the maintaining of valuable knowledge .
How blithely foolish does someone have to be to fail to understand that if " knowledge is power " , privacy is the only currency of value .
" Do n't worry about what we collect , it 's harmless unless you are doing something wrong.... " I 've faced enough discrimination , fought enough battles with healthcare companies over what they consider pre-existing conditions and dealt with enough credit scammers and spam to value my privacy far more than google seems to .
I wonder how the person would feel about his purchasing habits , social security number , home phone number , bank accounts , private club memberships and web browsing history posted as the new home page of Google .
After all , he 's not doing anything wrong... what would he have to worry about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised that the senior officer of a company that does nearly all its business on the web could spout such an absurd comment with a straight face.
Do the words "identity theft" not resonate at some level, or the fact that the information collected by these companies can be abused by anyone that wishes to take advantage of someone by knowing something about them?
Companies have long understood the absolute necessity of maintaining the privacy of their information to avoid making things easier for their competitors to use it against them.
The entire industry of programming, service applications and other valuable intellectual property is based on the maintaining of valuable knowledge.
How blithely foolish does someone have to be to fail to understand that if "knowledge is power", privacy is the only currency of value.
"Don't worry about what we collect, it's harmless unless you are doing something wrong...."  I've faced enough discrimination, fought enough battles with healthcare companies over what they consider pre-existing conditions and dealt with enough credit scammers and spam to value my privacy far more than google seems to.
I wonder how the person would feel about his purchasing habits, social security number, home phone number, bank accounts, private club memberships and web browsing history posted as the new home page of Google.
After all, he's not doing anything wrong... what would he have to worry about?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365188</id>
	<title>OK, now I'm officially worried</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260287520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> That statement is exactly in line with the ugly police state mentality that asks, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what are you worried about?"  The answer is that as a responsible, law-abiding adult in a free society, you have the RIGHT to go about your lawful business and live your life without interference from either the government or other citizens. </p><p> There are many, many things some people within a free society might disapprove of, and they might very well have the opportunity to affect your life.  Try getting hired at a company full of true believers if you happen to be an atheist...and they know it.  Or watch what happens to your kids if your standards of acceptable behaviour (though legal) aren't the community norm. </p><p> If that's what Eric Schmidt actually believes, he's a crypto-fascist, and we'd better start keeping a very close eye on Google. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That statement is exactly in line with the ugly police state mentality that asks , " If you are n't doing anything wrong , what are you worried about ?
" The answer is that as a responsible , law-abiding adult in a free society , you have the RIGHT to go about your lawful business and live your life without interference from either the government or other citizens .
There are many , many things some people within a free society might disapprove of , and they might very well have the opportunity to affect your life .
Try getting hired at a company full of true believers if you happen to be an atheist...and they know it .
Or watch what happens to your kids if your standards of acceptable behaviour ( though legal ) are n't the community norm .
If that 's what Eric Schmidt actually believes , he 's a crypto-fascist , and we 'd better start keeping a very close eye on Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That statement is exactly in line with the ugly police state mentality that asks, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what are you worried about?
"  The answer is that as a responsible, law-abiding adult in a free society, you have the RIGHT to go about your lawful business and live your life without interference from either the government or other citizens.
There are many, many things some people within a free society might disapprove of, and they might very well have the opportunity to affect your life.
Try getting hired at a company full of true believers if you happen to be an atheist...and they know it.
Or watch what happens to your kids if your standards of acceptable behaviour (though legal) aren't the community norm.
If that's what Eric Schmidt actually believes, he's a crypto-fascist, and we'd better start keeping a very close eye on Google. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366578</id>
	<title>Re:Mr. Schmidt's financial details are online wher</title>
	<author>dswensen</author>
	<datestamp>1260293220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be absurd. He means people without money or power. Schmidt's a CEO; his rules don't apply to himself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be absurd .
He means people without money or power .
Schmidt 's a CEO ; his rules do n't apply to himself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be absurd.
He means people without money or power.
Schmidt's a CEO; his rules don't apply to himself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365602</id>
	<title>Re:Same old fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260289320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your right!</p><p>I am reading slashdot at work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your right ! I am reading slashdot at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your right!I am reading slashdot at work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364224</id>
	<title>This is a flawed argument</title>
	<author>Max Romantschuk</author>
	<datestamp>1260282660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are lots of things which are perfectly legal yet something one would prefer to keep private.</p><p>My favorite example is a primary school teacher who happens to like BDSM sex. People who are into this adhere to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe,\_sane\_and\_consensual" title="wikipedia.org">Safe, sane and consensual</a> [wikipedia.org] principle. (Note: NSFW image in Wikipedia article.) In short, whatever happens happens between consenting adults.</p><p>Yet I'd wager that given the average primary school class at least one of the parents will throw a fit if they find the kids' teacher is "a sick pervert".</p><p>So no, it's not as simple as simply abstaining from anything you wouldn't like other people to know. This is an extreme example, but I'm sure other people can come up with more subtle ones if need be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are lots of things which are perfectly legal yet something one would prefer to keep private.My favorite example is a primary school teacher who happens to like BDSM sex .
People who are into this adhere to the Safe , sane and consensual [ wikipedia.org ] principle .
( Note : NSFW image in Wikipedia article .
) In short , whatever happens happens between consenting adults.Yet I 'd wager that given the average primary school class at least one of the parents will throw a fit if they find the kids ' teacher is " a sick pervert " .So no , it 's not as simple as simply abstaining from anything you would n't like other people to know .
This is an extreme example , but I 'm sure other people can come up with more subtle ones if need be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are lots of things which are perfectly legal yet something one would prefer to keep private.My favorite example is a primary school teacher who happens to like BDSM sex.
People who are into this adhere to the Safe, sane and consensual [wikipedia.org] principle.
(Note: NSFW image in Wikipedia article.
) In short, whatever happens happens between consenting adults.Yet I'd wager that given the average primary school class at least one of the parents will throw a fit if they find the kids' teacher is "a sick pervert".So no, it's not as simple as simply abstaining from anything you wouldn't like other people to know.
This is an extreme example, but I'm sure other people can come up with more subtle ones if need be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364542</id>
	<title>Thank Your, Mr. Schmidt.</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1260284520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have long suspected that you and your company were, in fact, completely evil and not deserving of the hype surrounding you, nor the trust placed in you.  I will now no longer be using my Gmail account, which I have had for years.  The few things which are still sent there regularly, I will be changing to send to another address on my personal mail server.  I will continue not responding to Voice and Wave invites.  I will no longer be logging into Google for search results, nor will be accepting cookies from you, and as soon as I can find a reasonable search engine to replace you, I will not be coming back.<br><br>At least this will give me something to do this morning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have long suspected that you and your company were , in fact , completely evil and not deserving of the hype surrounding you , nor the trust placed in you .
I will now no longer be using my Gmail account , which I have had for years .
The few things which are still sent there regularly , I will be changing to send to another address on my personal mail server .
I will continue not responding to Voice and Wave invites .
I will no longer be logging into Google for search results , nor will be accepting cookies from you , and as soon as I can find a reasonable search engine to replace you , I will not be coming back.At least this will give me something to do this morning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have long suspected that you and your company were, in fact, completely evil and not deserving of the hype surrounding you, nor the trust placed in you.
I will now no longer be using my Gmail account, which I have had for years.
The few things which are still sent there regularly, I will be changing to send to another address on my personal mail server.
I will continue not responding to Voice and Wave invites.
I will no longer be logging into Google for search results, nor will be accepting cookies from you, and as soon as I can find a reasonable search engine to replace you, I will not be coming back.At least this will give me something to do this morning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364210</id>
	<title>In other words, there are no private citizens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260282660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone has "opted in" to be subjected to the same 24x7 scrutiny and commentary previously reserved to politicians and celebrities, thanks largely to the path blazed by Google in its ambitions for world domination (um, service - sorry).</p><p>Had Google not moved so quickly and in such a non-reflective manner, chances are societies would've had a chance to have debates on the issue of privacy before the horse had left the barn.  Now, the answer will be that it doesn't much matter what laws are passed, millions of web surfers have developed habits and expectations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone has " opted in " to be subjected to the same 24x7 scrutiny and commentary previously reserved to politicians and celebrities , thanks largely to the path blazed by Google in its ambitions for world domination ( um , service - sorry ) .Had Google not moved so quickly and in such a non-reflective manner , chances are societies would 've had a chance to have debates on the issue of privacy before the horse had left the barn .
Now , the answer will be that it does n't much matter what laws are passed , millions of web surfers have developed habits and expectations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone has "opted in" to be subjected to the same 24x7 scrutiny and commentary previously reserved to politicians and celebrities, thanks largely to the path blazed by Google in its ambitions for world domination (um, service - sorry).Had Google not moved so quickly and in such a non-reflective manner, chances are societies would've had a chance to have debates on the issue of privacy before the horse had left the barn.
Now, the answer will be that it doesn't much matter what laws are passed, millions of web surfers have developed habits and expectations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364382</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy for Wrongdoers</title>
	<author>dlt074</author>
	<datestamp>1260283560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>and sometimes it's your own government that will define you. imagine my surprise to find i just made somebodies watch list. <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/" title="washingtontimes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/</a> [washingtontimes.com]

i guess believing in my oath to the Constitution is enough to get me on a bad person list.

it's way too easy to become a wrongdoer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and sometimes it 's your own government that will define you .
imagine my surprise to find i just made somebodies watch list .
http : //www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/ [ washingtontimes.com ] i guess believing in my oath to the Constitution is enough to get me on a bad person list .
it 's way too easy to become a wrongdoer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and sometimes it's your own government that will define you.
imagine my surprise to find i just made somebodies watch list.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/ [washingtontimes.com]

i guess believing in my oath to the Constitution is enough to get me on a bad person list.
it's way too easy to become a wrongdoer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30375446</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous Hermit</author>
	<datestamp>1259579280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, it is in fact covered under article 12 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.<br> <br> "Article 12
    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal\_Declaration\_of\_Human\_Rights</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it is in fact covered under article 12 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights .
" Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy , family , home or correspondence , nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation .
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks .
" http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal \ _Declaration \ _of \ _Human \ _Rights</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it is in fact covered under article 12 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
"Article 12
    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal\_Declaration\_of\_Human\_Rights</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365128</id>
	<title>My rule of thumb</title>
	<author>SpaghettiPattern</author>
	<datestamp>1260287340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm the meek kind a guy and I don't have anything to hide when push come to shove.<br> <br>

However, I completely despise the argument that if you're not a wrongdoer you have nothing to fear. Being a wrongdoer is mostly a definition of the government you fall under. Almost all god fearing and tax paying citizen are well off in the USA. But ideas you may freely express in the USA are considered as wrongdoing in certain bastard states.<br> <br>

If google were to comply by laws of bastard states it most likely would have to hand over data from "wrongdoers" who'd be completely innocent in democratic states.<br> <br>

Privacy from any government, not only from the bastards peeping Toms, is the minimum I'd be satisfied with.<br> <br>

So, my rule of thumb is that any critical arguments coming from my person will never be stored at an email provider.<br> <br>

The hard part is finding inspiration to criticize. Will do so in due time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm the meek kind a guy and I do n't have anything to hide when push come to shove .
However , I completely despise the argument that if you 're not a wrongdoer you have nothing to fear .
Being a wrongdoer is mostly a definition of the government you fall under .
Almost all god fearing and tax paying citizen are well off in the USA .
But ideas you may freely express in the USA are considered as wrongdoing in certain bastard states .
If google were to comply by laws of bastard states it most likely would have to hand over data from " wrongdoers " who 'd be completely innocent in democratic states .
Privacy from any government , not only from the bastards peeping Toms , is the minimum I 'd be satisfied with .
So , my rule of thumb is that any critical arguments coming from my person will never be stored at an email provider .
The hard part is finding inspiration to criticize .
Will do so in due time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm the meek kind a guy and I don't have anything to hide when push come to shove.
However, I completely despise the argument that if you're not a wrongdoer you have nothing to fear.
Being a wrongdoer is mostly a definition of the government you fall under.
Almost all god fearing and tax paying citizen are well off in the USA.
But ideas you may freely express in the USA are considered as wrongdoing in certain bastard states.
If google were to comply by laws of bastard states it most likely would have to hand over data from "wrongdoers" who'd be completely innocent in democratic states.
Privacy from any government, not only from the bastards peeping Toms, is the minimum I'd be satisfied with.
So, my rule of thumb is that any critical arguments coming from my person will never be stored at an email provider.
The hard part is finding inspiration to criticize.
Will do so in due time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364234</id>
	<title>Isn't this.....</title>
	<author>zach\_the\_lizard</author>
	<datestamp>1260282660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this the kind of reasoning that the neocons use when confronted about wiretapping and such? "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this the kind of reasoning that the neocons use when confronted about wiretapping and such ?
" You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this the kind of reasoning that the neocons use when confronted about wiretapping and such?
"You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30373702</id>
	<title>Re:It's this kind of attitude...</title>
	<author>PTFD5023</author>
	<datestamp>1260288540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could not agree more. I have struggled with depression for many years; as anyone who has can tell you, some days are better than others. Once, during a very low point in my life, I left work a couple hours early (told them I was sick), went to the bar and had a couple beers, then planned to commit suicide. Obviously in my line of work, this is something that I really needed to keep to myself.</p><p>Anyway, it eventually came out what had happened. Never mind the fact that I was ready to off myself (I had the knife blade against my wrists), they focused on the fact that I abused sick time by claiming to be sick, then going drinking. Lost my job, lost a lot of "friends", and my wife left me. So much for "through sickness and health".</p><p>The point is, there are many reasons to want to hide search results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could not agree more .
I have struggled with depression for many years ; as anyone who has can tell you , some days are better than others .
Once , during a very low point in my life , I left work a couple hours early ( told them I was sick ) , went to the bar and had a couple beers , then planned to commit suicide .
Obviously in my line of work , this is something that I really needed to keep to myself.Anyway , it eventually came out what had happened .
Never mind the fact that I was ready to off myself ( I had the knife blade against my wrists ) , they focused on the fact that I abused sick time by claiming to be sick , then going drinking .
Lost my job , lost a lot of " friends " , and my wife left me .
So much for " through sickness and health " .The point is , there are many reasons to want to hide search results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could not agree more.
I have struggled with depression for many years; as anyone who has can tell you, some days are better than others.
Once, during a very low point in my life, I left work a couple hours early (told them I was sick), went to the bar and had a couple beers, then planned to commit suicide.
Obviously in my line of work, this is something that I really needed to keep to myself.Anyway, it eventually came out what had happened.
Never mind the fact that I was ready to off myself (I had the knife blade against my wrists), they focused on the fact that I abused sick time by claiming to be sick, then going drinking.
Lost my job, lost a lot of "friends", and my wife left me.
So much for "through sickness and health".The point is, there are many reasons to want to hide search results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30374468</id>
	<title>Big brother said:</title>
	<author>lorteau</author>
	<datestamp>1260298620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."</p></div><p>This sounds just like 1984, and that mere point is kind of scary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place .
" This sounds just like 1984 , and that mere point is kind of scary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
"This sounds just like 1984, and that mere point is kind of scary.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365206</id>
	<title>First Tiger's facade, now Google's...</title>
	<author>Evil Shabazz</author>
	<datestamp>1260287640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a week..  First I find out my golf hero is a cheater, and now I find another article describing just how slimy the underbelly of Google really is.  Eric Schmidt is an asshole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a week.. First I find out my golf hero is a cheater , and now I find another article describing just how slimy the underbelly of Google really is .
Eric Schmidt is an asshole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a week..  First I find out my golf hero is a cheater, and now I find another article describing just how slimy the underbelly of Google really is.
Eric Schmidt is an asshole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365444</id>
	<title>Privacy is about being a human being</title>
	<author>rick\_campbell</author>
	<datestamp>1260288720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.''</p><p>What a great idea!<br>
&nbsp; . . . said the teenage girl impregnated by her stepfather<br>
&nbsp; . . . said everyone everywhere who has a disease that they want to keep secret<br>
&nbsp; . . . said the Chinese dissident trying to communicate with her child</p><p>People use envelopes on their personal letters to be private, not criminal.  People keep their medical, and other, records private because they're personal.  ``None of your business'' does not mean ``I'm committing a crime.''</p><p>Privacy is about being a human being.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place .
''What a great idea !
  .
. .
said the teenage girl impregnated by her stepfather   .
. .
said everyone everywhere who has a disease that they want to keep secret   .
. .
said the Chinese dissident trying to communicate with her childPeople use envelopes on their personal letters to be private , not criminal .
People keep their medical , and other , records private because they 're personal .
` ` None of your business' ' does not mean ` ` I 'm committing a crime .
''Privacy is about being a human being .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
''What a great idea!
  .
. .
said the teenage girl impregnated by her stepfather
  .
. .
said everyone everywhere who has a disease that they want to keep secret
  .
. .
said the Chinese dissident trying to communicate with her childPeople use envelopes on their personal letters to be private, not criminal.
People keep their medical, and other, records private because they're personal.
``None of your business'' does not mean ``I'm committing a crime.
''Privacy is about being a human being.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367458</id>
	<title>Surprised he's that honest</title>
	<author>swordgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1260297540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People have generally described this as a big misstep on Schmidt's part. Maybe it is, but only in that he revealed a bit more of Google's attitude than they normally do.</p><p>Google has been prancing around for years saying, "oh, don't worry about our data collection. We're the GOOD guys! We even have a motto that says don't be evil, and in fact we're <i>so</i> good that it's not even official." In the meantime, they've been behaving just like any other smart corporation in a sensitive monopoly position. It amazes me that nobody in the media and damned few people in the industry seem to care about what they're doing, just that they've said "don't be evil" and so everything is OK.</p><p>So either Schmidt has revealed more than he meant to (which would be a misstep), or he realises that they are so powerful that they don't have to pretend anymore. You can be sure, however, that he did NOT misrepresent Google or its values.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People have generally described this as a big misstep on Schmidt 's part .
Maybe it is , but only in that he revealed a bit more of Google 's attitude than they normally do.Google has been prancing around for years saying , " oh , do n't worry about our data collection .
We 're the GOOD guys !
We even have a motto that says do n't be evil , and in fact we 're so good that it 's not even official .
" In the meantime , they 've been behaving just like any other smart corporation in a sensitive monopoly position .
It amazes me that nobody in the media and damned few people in the industry seem to care about what they 're doing , just that they 've said " do n't be evil " and so everything is OK.So either Schmidt has revealed more than he meant to ( which would be a misstep ) , or he realises that they are so powerful that they do n't have to pretend anymore .
You can be sure , however , that he did NOT misrepresent Google or its values .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have generally described this as a big misstep on Schmidt's part.
Maybe it is, but only in that he revealed a bit more of Google's attitude than they normally do.Google has been prancing around for years saying, "oh, don't worry about our data collection.
We're the GOOD guys!
We even have a motto that says don't be evil, and in fact we're so good that it's not even official.
" In the meantime, they've been behaving just like any other smart corporation in a sensitive monopoly position.
It amazes me that nobody in the media and damned few people in the industry seem to care about what they're doing, just that they've said "don't be evil" and so everything is OK.So either Schmidt has revealed more than he meant to (which would be a misstep), or he realises that they are so powerful that they don't have to pretend anymore.
You can be sure, however, that he did NOT misrepresent Google or its values.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365792</id>
	<title>seems a little one one-dimensional in perspective</title>
	<author>SethJohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1260290160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'</p></div></blockquote><p>

How about if I'm:
</p><ul>
<li>Creating a revolutionary product that I want to bring to market without giving my competition advance notice?</li>
<li>Running a political campaign, and I don't want my opposition to see our strategy notes.</li>
<li>Resisting state tyranny online and don't want to be put to death because my ISP fingered me.</li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place .
' How about if I 'm : Creating a revolutionary product that I want to bring to market without giving my competition advance notice ?
Running a political campaign , and I do n't want my opposition to see our strategy notes .
Resisting state tyranny online and do n't want to be put to death because my ISP fingered me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
'

How about if I'm:

Creating a revolutionary product that I want to bring to market without giving my competition advance notice?
Running a political campaign, and I don't want my opposition to see our strategy notes.
Resisting state tyranny online and don't want to be put to death because my ISP fingered me.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365138</id>
	<title>Re:Right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260287340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Privacy isn't about hiding a wrong.</p><p>But whatever, by his logic he'd be happy to share his credit card details and the key-code to his security at home?</p></div><p>No, by his logic he shouldn't have credit card details or a key-code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy is n't about hiding a wrong.But whatever , by his logic he 'd be happy to share his credit card details and the key-code to his security at home ? No , by his logic he should n't have credit card details or a key-code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy isn't about hiding a wrong.But whatever, by his logic he'd be happy to share his credit card details and the key-code to his security at home?No, by his logic he shouldn't have credit card details or a key-code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366342</id>
	<title>Fanboy here ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260292380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as a long term, self confessed Google fanboy, today was the day I officially hung up my Google gloves.</p><p>Today they overstepped the mark.</p><p>It's over.</p><p>And it happened far quicker than I expected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow ... as a long term , self confessed Google fanboy , today was the day I officially hung up my Google gloves.Today they overstepped the mark.It 's over.And it happened far quicker than I expected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow ... as a long term, self confessed Google fanboy, today was the day I officially hung up my Google gloves.Today they overstepped the mark.It's over.And it happened far quicker than I expected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366092</id>
	<title>Reading between the lines</title>
	<author>Jodka</author>
	<datestamp>1260291420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google CEO Eric Schmidt told reporter Maria Bartiromo</p><p> <i> 'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'</i> </p><p>For those who missed it, Schmidt's statement is very likely an indirect reference to Climategate.  Google is heavily invested in climate-change mitigation initiatives such as <a href="http://www.google.org/rec.html" title="google.org">RE&lt;C</a> [google.org] through its non-profit arm Google.org.  The Climategate scandal would be on his radar and the description of people "who have something that you don't anyone to know" and who "shouldn't be doing it in the first place" fits the perpetrators of Climategate to a tee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google CEO Eric Schmidt told reporter Maria Bartiromo 'If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place .
' For those who missed it , Schmidt 's statement is very likely an indirect reference to Climategate .
Google is heavily invested in climate-change mitigation initiatives such as RE [ google.org ] through its non-profit arm Google.org .
The Climategate scandal would be on his radar and the description of people " who have something that you do n't anyone to know " and who " should n't be doing it in the first place " fits the perpetrators of Climategate to a tee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google CEO Eric Schmidt told reporter Maria Bartiromo  'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
' For those who missed it, Schmidt's statement is very likely an indirect reference to Climategate.
Google is heavily invested in climate-change mitigation initiatives such as RE [google.org] through its non-profit arm Google.org.
The Climategate scandal would be on his radar and the description of people "who have something that you don't anyone to know" and who "shouldn't be doing it in the first place" fits the perpetrators of Climategate to a tee.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365454</id>
	<title>I shouldn't be...</title>
	<author>holophrastic</author>
	<datestamp>1260288720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doing anything new or innovative.<br>Taking pride in my work.<br>Discussing trade secrets with colleagues.<br>Discussing competitive business strategies.<br>Uisg any word that could be misunderstood my someone as something illegal.</p><p>A few years ago, I was at a bar with a client.  He had observed in his web-site logs that many of his visitors arrive from searches for "child pornography".  My client is a comedian, and one of his blogs used the words within a joke.  Suddenly, some drunken idiot from across the bar stumbled over with the intent of physically brutalizing us -- having overheard two words out of two hundred.  Needless to say, drunken stumbling idiots aren't difficult to subdue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Doing anything new or innovative.Taking pride in my work.Discussing trade secrets with colleagues.Discussing competitive business strategies.Uisg any word that could be misunderstood my someone as something illegal.A few years ago , I was at a bar with a client .
He had observed in his web-site logs that many of his visitors arrive from searches for " child pornography " .
My client is a comedian , and one of his blogs used the words within a joke .
Suddenly , some drunken idiot from across the bar stumbled over with the intent of physically brutalizing us -- having overheard two words out of two hundred .
Needless to say , drunken stumbling idiots are n't difficult to subdue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doing anything new or innovative.Taking pride in my work.Discussing trade secrets with colleagues.Discussing competitive business strategies.Uisg any word that could be misunderstood my someone as something illegal.A few years ago, I was at a bar with a client.
He had observed in his web-site logs that many of his visitors arrive from searches for "child pornography".
My client is a comedian, and one of his blogs used the words within a joke.
Suddenly, some drunken idiot from across the bar stumbled over with the intent of physically brutalizing us -- having overheard two words out of two hundred.
Needless to say, drunken stumbling idiots aren't difficult to subdue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364892</id>
	<title>So he's saying...</title>
	<author>HideyoshiJP</author>
	<datestamp>1260286320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're not guilty of something, you have nothing to hide. That always works out well. What next? Think of the children?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're not guilty of something , you have nothing to hide .
That always works out well .
What next ?
Think of the children ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're not guilty of something, you have nothing to hide.
That always works out well.
What next?
Think of the children?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368536</id>
	<title>Re:Thank Your, Mr. Schmidt.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260301680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same here. Does anyone know any good webmail alternatives to gmail?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here .
Does anyone know any good webmail alternatives to gmail ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here.
Does anyone know any good webmail alternatives to gmail?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364574</id>
	<title>He's just citing an old chinese saying.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260284760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's just citing an old chinese saying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's just citing an old chinese saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's just citing an old chinese saying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30369268</id>
	<title>Eric "Bush" Schmidt</title>
	<author>man\_the\_king</author>
	<datestamp>1260304920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That quote sounds worryingly similar to what the BushCo regime used to say. Something like "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear".

Hopefully this was just a slip of tongue and mind, and not an insight into the way Schmidt thinks.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That quote sounds worryingly similar to what the BushCo regime used to say .
Something like " If you 've done nothing wrong , you have nothing to fear " .
Hopefully this was just a slip of tongue and mind , and not an insight into the way Schmidt thinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That quote sounds worryingly similar to what the BushCo regime used to say.
Something like "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear".
Hopefully this was just a slip of tongue and mind, and not an insight into the way Schmidt thinks.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368684</id>
	<title>Re:This is a flawed argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260302220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sick pervert!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sick pervert !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sick pervert!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365386</id>
	<title>Re:Right</title>
	<author>DMiax</author>
	<datestamp>1260288480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are tons of comments like this: how can you not realize that you prove his point?</p><p> <b>Since he does not want those details online he does not put them online</b>. Because, I have to tell you, if you <b>put something online</b>, then it may happen that <b>it goes online</b>.</p><p>If you send information on the wire it's leaving your home, like your mail. And like your mail and your phone line it is protected, but only to some extent. Even your credit card transaction logs may be examined by the cops if they are relevant in a criminal case.</p><p>And I bet that he does not google his credit card number anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are tons of comments like this : how can you not realize that you prove his point ?
Since he does not want those details online he does not put them online .
Because , I have to tell you , if you put something online , then it may happen that it goes online.If you send information on the wire it 's leaving your home , like your mail .
And like your mail and your phone line it is protected , but only to some extent .
Even your credit card transaction logs may be examined by the cops if they are relevant in a criminal case.And I bet that he does not google his credit card number anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are tons of comments like this: how can you not realize that you prove his point?
Since he does not want those details online he does not put them online.
Because, I have to tell you, if you put something online, then it may happen that it goes online.If you send information on the wire it's leaving your home, like your mail.
And like your mail and your phone line it is protected, but only to some extent.
Even your credit card transaction logs may be examined by the cops if they are relevant in a criminal case.And I bet that he does not google his credit card number anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364518</id>
	<title>Re:Not this again</title>
	<author>Almonday</author>
	<datestamp>1260284400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being well and truly debunked tends to have precious little effect on the persistence of a meme. That said, GWU law prof Daniel Solove did a fairly decent job with <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/10/2054219" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">I've Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy.</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being well and truly debunked tends to have precious little effect on the persistence of a meme .
That said , GWU law prof Daniel Solove did a fairly decent job with I 've Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy .
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being well and truly debunked tends to have precious little effect on the persistence of a meme.
That said, GWU law prof Daniel Solove did a fairly decent job with I've Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy.
[slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367214</id>
	<title>Thanks for the excuse</title>
	<author>TranscendentalAnarch</author>
	<datestamp>1260296340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>to stop using your services.<br><br>A while back I thought about moving all of my personal correspondence to my personal mail server. However, as Gmail and Google had yet to demonstrate a complete disregard for privacy, I decided to stick with them as the services are very convenient.<br><br>I guess it's time to go through with my initial plans.<br><br>I use Google for quite a few things but, I will be avoiding all Google products going forward. You've lost a patron today, Google, and I trust I'm not the only one.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>to stop using your services.A while back I thought about moving all of my personal correspondence to my personal mail server .
However , as Gmail and Google had yet to demonstrate a complete disregard for privacy , I decided to stick with them as the services are very convenient.I guess it 's time to go through with my initial plans.I use Google for quite a few things but , I will be avoiding all Google products going forward .
You 've lost a patron today , Google , and I trust I 'm not the only one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to stop using your services.A while back I thought about moving all of my personal correspondence to my personal mail server.
However, as Gmail and Google had yet to demonstrate a complete disregard for privacy, I decided to stick with them as the services are very convenient.I guess it's time to go through with my initial plans.I use Google for quite a few things but, I will be avoiding all Google products going forward.
You've lost a patron today, Google, and I trust I'm not the only one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366866</id>
	<title>Re:This is a flawed argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260294660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or even being accused of something.  Nothing like having that be what people see despite a favorable outcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or even being accused of something .
Nothing like having that be what people see despite a favorable outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or even being accused of something.
Nothing like having that be what people see despite a favorable outcome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364584</id>
	<title>DUH!</title>
	<author>EMG at MU</author>
	<datestamp>1260284820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All he is saying is that if you want complete privacy you shouldn't be using the cloud or internet services. Everyone already knows this. Apply a real world scenario: <br>

You are a criminal, and you don't want to be found. Intuitively you would not open a checking account under your real name, get a membership at the local fitness club, or do anything else that someone looking for you will use to find you.<br>
<br>
How is Google any different? They have to abide by laws, that means surrendering user data when required legally by law enforcement (illegally is an entirely different matter). If you want complete privacy, don't use google. I never ever for one second think that what I type and send across the internet is private, unless it is explicitly said so and the connection is encrypted. I think that its pretty common sense to assume so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All he is saying is that if you want complete privacy you should n't be using the cloud or internet services .
Everyone already knows this .
Apply a real world scenario : You are a criminal , and you do n't want to be found .
Intuitively you would not open a checking account under your real name , get a membership at the local fitness club , or do anything else that someone looking for you will use to find you .
How is Google any different ?
They have to abide by laws , that means surrendering user data when required legally by law enforcement ( illegally is an entirely different matter ) .
If you want complete privacy , do n't use google .
I never ever for one second think that what I type and send across the internet is private , unless it is explicitly said so and the connection is encrypted .
I think that its pretty common sense to assume so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All he is saying is that if you want complete privacy you shouldn't be using the cloud or internet services.
Everyone already knows this.
Apply a real world scenario: 

You are a criminal, and you don't want to be found.
Intuitively you would not open a checking account under your real name, get a membership at the local fitness club, or do anything else that someone looking for you will use to find you.
How is Google any different?
They have to abide by laws, that means surrendering user data when required legally by law enforcement (illegally is an entirely different matter).
If you want complete privacy, don't use google.
I never ever for one second think that what I type and send across the internet is private, unless it is explicitly said so and the connection is encrypted.
I think that its pretty common sense to assume so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365078</id>
	<title>Hunters -  yet again</title>
	<author>SuperBanana</author>
	<datestamp>1260287040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is about the third or fourth time I have posted this on Slashdot.  I'm glad I copied the text of the post when I saw it.  Please note, the text is not mine.  I just found it brilliant, that's all.</p><blockquote><div><p>"Yeah! Hunters don't kill the *innocent* animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species!"</p><p>"If the're not guilty, why are they running?"</p><p>
&nbsp; I wrote about this a while ago. Here's the text:</p><p>"If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"</p><p>Ever heard that one? I work in information security, so I have heard it more than my fair share. I've always hated that reasoning, because I am a little bit paranoid by nature, something which serves me very well in my profession. So my standard response to people who have asked that question near me has been "because I'm paranoid." But that doesn't usually help, since most people who would ask that question see paranoia as a bad thing to begin with. So for a long time I've been trying to come up with a valid, reasoned, and intelligent answer which shoots the holes in the flawed logic that need to be there.</p><p>And someone unknowingly provided me with just that answer today. In a conversation about hunting, somebody posted this about prey animals and hunters:<br>"Yeah! Hunters don't kill the *innocent* animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species!"<br>but in a brilliant (and very funny) retort, someone else said:<br>"If the're not guilty, why are they running?"</p><p>Suddenly it made sense, that nagging thing in the back of my head. The logical reason why a reasonable dose of paranoia is healthy. Because it's one thing to be afraid of the TRUTH. People who commit murder or otherwise deprive others of their Natural Rights are afraid of the TRUTH, because it is the light of TRUTH that will help bring them to justice.</p><p>But it's another thing entirely to be afraid of hunters. And all too often, the hunters are the ones proclaiming to be looking for TRUTH. But they are more concerned with removing any obstactles to finding the TRUTH, even when that means bulldozing over people's rights (the right to privacy, the right to anonymity) in their quest for it. And sadly, these people often cannot tell the difference between the appearance of TRUTH and TRUTH itself. And these, the ones who are so convinced they have found the TRUTH that they stop looking for it, are some of the worst oppressors of Natural Rights the world has ever known.</p><p>They are the hunters, and it is right and good for the prey to be afraid of the hunters, and to run away from them. Do not be fooled when a hunter says "why are you running from me if you have nothing to hide?" Because having something to hide is not the only reason to be hiding something.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is about the third or fourth time I have posted this on Slashdot .
I 'm glad I copied the text of the post when I saw it .
Please note , the text is not mine .
I just found it brilliant , that 's all. " Yeah !
Hunters do n't kill the * innocent * animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species !
" " If the 're not guilty , why are they running ?
"   I wrote about this a while ago .
Here 's the text : " If you have n't done anything wrong , what do you have to hide ?
" Ever heard that one ?
I work in information security , so I have heard it more than my fair share .
I 've always hated that reasoning , because I am a little bit paranoid by nature , something which serves me very well in my profession .
So my standard response to people who have asked that question near me has been " because I 'm paranoid .
" But that does n't usually help , since most people who would ask that question see paranoia as a bad thing to begin with .
So for a long time I 've been trying to come up with a valid , reasoned , and intelligent answer which shoots the holes in the flawed logic that need to be there.And someone unknowingly provided me with just that answer today .
In a conversation about hunting , somebody posted this about prey animals and hunters : " Yeah !
Hunters do n't kill the * innocent * animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species !
" but in a brilliant ( and very funny ) retort , someone else said : " If the 're not guilty , why are they running ?
" Suddenly it made sense , that nagging thing in the back of my head .
The logical reason why a reasonable dose of paranoia is healthy .
Because it 's one thing to be afraid of the TRUTH .
People who commit murder or otherwise deprive others of their Natural Rights are afraid of the TRUTH , because it is the light of TRUTH that will help bring them to justice.But it 's another thing entirely to be afraid of hunters .
And all too often , the hunters are the ones proclaiming to be looking for TRUTH .
But they are more concerned with removing any obstactles to finding the TRUTH , even when that means bulldozing over people 's rights ( the right to privacy , the right to anonymity ) in their quest for it .
And sadly , these people often can not tell the difference between the appearance of TRUTH and TRUTH itself .
And these , the ones who are so convinced they have found the TRUTH that they stop looking for it , are some of the worst oppressors of Natural Rights the world has ever known.They are the hunters , and it is right and good for the prey to be afraid of the hunters , and to run away from them .
Do not be fooled when a hunter says " why are you running from me if you have nothing to hide ?
" Because having something to hide is not the only reason to be hiding something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is about the third or fourth time I have posted this on Slashdot.
I'm glad I copied the text of the post when I saw it.
Please note, the text is not mine.
I just found it brilliant, that's all."Yeah!
Hunters don't kill the *innocent* animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species!
""If the're not guilty, why are they running?
"
  I wrote about this a while ago.
Here's the text:"If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?
"Ever heard that one?
I work in information security, so I have heard it more than my fair share.
I've always hated that reasoning, because I am a little bit paranoid by nature, something which serves me very well in my profession.
So my standard response to people who have asked that question near me has been "because I'm paranoid.
" But that doesn't usually help, since most people who would ask that question see paranoia as a bad thing to begin with.
So for a long time I've been trying to come up with a valid, reasoned, and intelligent answer which shoots the holes in the flawed logic that need to be there.And someone unknowingly provided me with just that answer today.
In a conversation about hunting, somebody posted this about prey animals and hunters:"Yeah!
Hunters don't kill the *innocent* animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species!
"but in a brilliant (and very funny) retort, someone else said:"If the're not guilty, why are they running?
"Suddenly it made sense, that nagging thing in the back of my head.
The logical reason why a reasonable dose of paranoia is healthy.
Because it's one thing to be afraid of the TRUTH.
People who commit murder or otherwise deprive others of their Natural Rights are afraid of the TRUTH, because it is the light of TRUTH that will help bring them to justice.But it's another thing entirely to be afraid of hunters.
And all too often, the hunters are the ones proclaiming to be looking for TRUTH.
But they are more concerned with removing any obstactles to finding the TRUTH, even when that means bulldozing over people's rights (the right to privacy, the right to anonymity) in their quest for it.
And sadly, these people often cannot tell the difference between the appearance of TRUTH and TRUTH itself.
And these, the ones who are so convinced they have found the TRUTH that they stop looking for it, are some of the worst oppressors of Natural Rights the world has ever known.They are the hunters, and it is right and good for the prey to be afraid of the hunters, and to run away from them.
Do not be fooled when a hunter says "why are you running from me if you have nothing to hide?
" Because having something to hide is not the only reason to be hiding something.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30369458</id>
	<title>ok...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260305760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In a surprising statement to CNBC, Google CEO Eric Schmidt told reporter Maria Bartiromo, 'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'"</p><p>Privacy has nothing to do with right- or wrongdoing. It's control over access to personal information.</p><p>This should sum up my thoughts nicely:</p><p>Fuck you, Eric Schmidt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In a surprising statement to CNBC , Google CEO Eric Schmidt told reporter Maria Bartiromo , 'If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place .
' " Privacy has nothing to do with right- or wrongdoing .
It 's control over access to personal information.This should sum up my thoughts nicely : Fuck you , Eric Schmidt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In a surprising statement to CNBC, Google CEO Eric Schmidt told reporter Maria Bartiromo, 'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
'"Privacy has nothing to do with right- or wrongdoing.
It's control over access to personal information.This should sum up my thoughts nicely:Fuck you, Eric Schmidt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365488</id>
	<title>The "Prophet" is a fraud!</title>
	<author>wytcld</author>
	<datestamp>1260288900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not want the Scientologists, nor the Muslims, nor the Objectivists<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... (well, it's a long list) to know that I, personally, am both certain that their "prophet" is a fraud, but also that they follow that "prophet" at great risk to both themselves and to much that is good in this world. So maybe I should stop saying such things. Because they might like to kill me for it. Even though nothing may be more important to the future of humanity than that we stop following false prophets. Please don't count on me any longer to contribute to that future. Because Google has warned me that if I don't hide thoughts like this, maybe I deserve what's coming.</p><p>They're clearly aligning themselves <i>precisely</i> with evil here. Because it applies across the board. Even if you don't agree with my list, any group following any false leader that you might expose as such, and that might be truly threatening to you, Google wants you to be naked to their retaliation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not want the Scientologists , nor the Muslims , nor the Objectivists ... ( well , it 's a long list ) to know that I , personally , am both certain that their " prophet " is a fraud , but also that they follow that " prophet " at great risk to both themselves and to much that is good in this world .
So maybe I should stop saying such things .
Because they might like to kill me for it .
Even though nothing may be more important to the future of humanity than that we stop following false prophets .
Please do n't count on me any longer to contribute to that future .
Because Google has warned me that if I do n't hide thoughts like this , maybe I deserve what 's coming.They 're clearly aligning themselves precisely with evil here .
Because it applies across the board .
Even if you do n't agree with my list , any group following any false leader that you might expose as such , and that might be truly threatening to you , Google wants you to be naked to their retaliation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not want the Scientologists, nor the Muslims, nor the Objectivists ... (well, it's a long list) to know that I, personally, am both certain that their "prophet" is a fraud, but also that they follow that "prophet" at great risk to both themselves and to much that is good in this world.
So maybe I should stop saying such things.
Because they might like to kill me for it.
Even though nothing may be more important to the future of humanity than that we stop following false prophets.
Please don't count on me any longer to contribute to that future.
Because Google has warned me that if I don't hide thoughts like this, maybe I deserve what's coming.They're clearly aligning themselves precisely with evil here.
Because it applies across the board.
Even if you don't agree with my list, any group following any false leader that you might expose as such, and that might be truly threatening to you, Google wants you to be naked to their retaliation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30427354</id>
	<title>Re:This is a flawed argument</title>
	<author>ChilyWily</author>
	<datestamp>1260718380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just had to say - I loved the 'voting' example to explain privacy.<br>Effective and simple to bring up in day to day discourse!<br>+1 mod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just had to say - I loved the 'voting ' example to explain privacy.Effective and simple to bring up in day to day discourse ! + 1 mod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just had to say - I loved the 'voting' example to explain privacy.Effective and simple to bring up in day to day discourse!+1 mod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368886</id>
	<title>Privacy policy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260303180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then why does Google have privacy policy at all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then why does Google have privacy policy at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then why does Google have privacy policy at all?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368050</id>
	<title>"Gay" is not an appropriate tag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260300000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but using "gay" as a tag for a story is not appropriate in any terms for Slashdot's policy. Such usage of a derogatory slang bring the stories down: from decisive posting of relevant news to adolescent whining best reserved for Youtube comments...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but using " gay " as a tag for a story is not appropriate in any terms for Slashdot 's policy .
Such usage of a derogatory slang bring the stories down : from decisive posting of relevant news to adolescent whining best reserved for Youtube comments.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but using "gay" as a tag for a story is not appropriate in any terms for Slashdot's policy.
Such usage of a derogatory slang bring the stories down: from decisive posting of relevant news to adolescent whining best reserved for Youtube comments...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30369818</id>
	<title>facepalm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260264180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Some tips to help keep your Google account safe: - Keep secrets! Never tell anyone your password, or your secret question and answer."<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ~ http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=29407</p><p>"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ~ Google CEO Eric Schmidt</p><p>Well, you heard it from the CEO himself: if google says you don't want anyone to know your account login info, maybe you shouldn't have any in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Some tips to help keep your Google account safe : - Keep secrets !
Never tell anyone your password , or your secret question and answer .
"         ~ http : //mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py ? hl = en&amp;answer = 29407 " If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place .
"         ~ Google CEO Eric SchmidtWell , you heard it from the CEO himself : if google says you do n't want anyone to know your account login info , maybe you should n't have any in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Some tips to help keep your Google account safe: - Keep secrets!
Never tell anyone your password, or your secret question and answer.
"
        ~ http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=29407"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
"
        ~ Google CEO Eric SchmidtWell, you heard it from the CEO himself: if google says you don't want anyone to know your account login info, maybe you shouldn't have any in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366146</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260291660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please stop spewing ridiculous idealism.</p><p>Nearly everyone in here broke the speed limit on their way to work, has pornography that is considered illegal in some states, software that is being used outside of its licensing terms, used drugs that are illegal somewhere in the world, music or movies that violate copyright law, and probably had sex in a way that is illegal in many states and cities. Not to mention the fact that you will be hard-pressed to find someone who does not have opinions they have expressed that could be used to incriminate them of something in the wrong context, or that some people who want to be political power consider to be illegal.</p><p>Laws are arbitrary rules written by those in charge. Rules that can change, rules that can be enforced capriciously and inconsistently. YOU PERSONALLY have done something illegal in that last year, and probably several things that a large number of people would like to make illegal. Lawyers and judges study the law for years, and even they only know a small subset of what actually is legal and illegal in any given area.</p><p>It's a trite maxim, but it's true. Here's a great video from a lawyer and a cop about why the right against to self-incrimination and privacy is so important even to people who don't think they have anything to hide. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please stop spewing ridiculous idealism.Nearly everyone in here broke the speed limit on their way to work , has pornography that is considered illegal in some states , software that is being used outside of its licensing terms , used drugs that are illegal somewhere in the world , music or movies that violate copyright law , and probably had sex in a way that is illegal in many states and cities .
Not to mention the fact that you will be hard-pressed to find someone who does not have opinions they have expressed that could be used to incriminate them of something in the wrong context , or that some people who want to be political power consider to be illegal.Laws are arbitrary rules written by those in charge .
Rules that can change , rules that can be enforced capriciously and inconsistently .
YOU PERSONALLY have done something illegal in that last year , and probably several things that a large number of people would like to make illegal .
Lawyers and judges study the law for years , and even they only know a small subset of what actually is legal and illegal in any given area.It 's a trite maxim , but it 's true .
Here 's a great video from a lawyer and a cop about why the right against to self-incrimination and privacy is so important even to people who do n't think they have anything to hide .
http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = i8z7NC5sgik [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please stop spewing ridiculous idealism.Nearly everyone in here broke the speed limit on their way to work, has pornography that is considered illegal in some states, software that is being used outside of its licensing terms, used drugs that are illegal somewhere in the world, music or movies that violate copyright law, and probably had sex in a way that is illegal in many states and cities.
Not to mention the fact that you will be hard-pressed to find someone who does not have opinions they have expressed that could be used to incriminate them of something in the wrong context, or that some people who want to be political power consider to be illegal.Laws are arbitrary rules written by those in charge.
Rules that can change, rules that can be enforced capriciously and inconsistently.
YOU PERSONALLY have done something illegal in that last year, and probably several things that a large number of people would like to make illegal.
Lawyers and judges study the law for years, and even they only know a small subset of what actually is legal and illegal in any given area.It's a trite maxim, but it's true.
Here's a great video from a lawyer and a cop about why the right against to self-incrimination and privacy is so important even to people who don't think they have anything to hide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364082</id>
	<title>Don't be evil?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260281820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With that attitude, I guess Google will have to start worrying about privacy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With that attitude , I guess Google will have to start worrying about privacy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With that attitude, I guess Google will have to start worrying about privacy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364216</id>
	<title>Same old fallacy</title>
	<author>SecurityGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1260282660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's an obvious fallacy.  The old "You have nothing to worry about if you're doing nothing wrong" argument rests on a belief in perfect justice.  You'll only be punished for things which you shouldn't be doing.  However, history is riddled with examples of people doing and being things for which they should not be punished, but are.  Like black, gay, catholic and/or protestant in Northern Ireland, Jewish, a journalist anywhere the state doesn't want its secrets told, etc.  It assumes punishments fit the crimes, which in many cases they obviously don't, like becoming a registered sex offender for peeing on a tree in a world where you can kill someone without becoming a registered murderer.  You have nothing to worry about if you're not doing anything anyone in the world considers wrong.</p><p>News flash:  You -are- doing something someone in the world considers wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an obvious fallacy .
The old " You have nothing to worry about if you 're doing nothing wrong " argument rests on a belief in perfect justice .
You 'll only be punished for things which you should n't be doing .
However , history is riddled with examples of people doing and being things for which they should not be punished , but are .
Like black , gay , catholic and/or protestant in Northern Ireland , Jewish , a journalist anywhere the state does n't want its secrets told , etc .
It assumes punishments fit the crimes , which in many cases they obviously do n't , like becoming a registered sex offender for peeing on a tree in a world where you can kill someone without becoming a registered murderer .
You have nothing to worry about if you 're not doing anything anyone in the world considers wrong.News flash : You -are- doing something someone in the world considers wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an obvious fallacy.
The old "You have nothing to worry about if you're doing nothing wrong" argument rests on a belief in perfect justice.
You'll only be punished for things which you shouldn't be doing.
However, history is riddled with examples of people doing and being things for which they should not be punished, but are.
Like black, gay, catholic and/or protestant in Northern Ireland, Jewish, a journalist anywhere the state doesn't want its secrets told, etc.
It assumes punishments fit the crimes, which in many cases they obviously don't, like becoming a registered sex offender for peeing on a tree in a world where you can kill someone without becoming a registered murderer.
You have nothing to worry about if you're not doing anything anyone in the world considers wrong.News flash:  You -are- doing something someone in the world considers wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366622</id>
	<title>Re:This is a flawed argument</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1260293400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There are lots of things which are perfectly legal yet something one would prefer to keep private</i></p><p>Just try and get into one of the Google data centers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are lots of things which are perfectly legal yet something one would prefer to keep privateJust try and get into one of the Google data centers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are lots of things which are perfectly legal yet something one would prefer to keep privateJust try and get into one of the Google data centers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366794</id>
	<title>Re:Thank Your, Mr. Schmidt.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260294240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bye.  Can I have your stuff?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bye .
Can I have your stuff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bye.
Can I have your stuff?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365708</id>
	<title>Re:Context?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260289860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But they really shouldn't know every single time I visit Slashdot, without even using Google to get there.</p></div></blockquote><p>The responsibility is shared.  Slashdot starts your problem by serving you a page that advises you to talk to Google.  Then you obey that suggestion.  Then Google receives the information that you send them.  Google bears some responsibility, but they are third in line.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But they really should n't know every single time I visit Slashdot , without even using Google to get there.The responsibility is shared .
Slashdot starts your problem by serving you a page that advises you to talk to Google .
Then you obey that suggestion .
Then Google receives the information that you send them .
Google bears some responsibility , but they are third in line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they really shouldn't know every single time I visit Slashdot, without even using Google to get there.The responsibility is shared.
Slashdot starts your problem by serving you a page that advises you to talk to Google.
Then you obey that suggestion.
Then Google receives the information that you send them.
Google bears some responsibility, but they are third in line.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364772</id>
	<title>I've got nothing to hide... today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260285780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like all that proprietary code Google owns which made them an internet search behemoth and personally made Eric Schmidt a bijillion dollars?  You mean like that information you might not want anyone to know?</p><p>In case nobody else linked this yet, back in 2007 Slashdot posted a link to a very interesting article detailing the flaws in the "I've got nothing to hide" argument against privacy:  http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/10/2054219</p><p>For me the most important thing to consider is that not only are we all considered "wrongdoers" by someone else's judgment, by even the common understanding of wrongdoing changes over time, whereas the data I make public in any fashion can stick around for quite a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like all that proprietary code Google owns which made them an internet search behemoth and personally made Eric Schmidt a bijillion dollars ?
You mean like that information you might not want anyone to know ? In case nobody else linked this yet , back in 2007 Slashdot posted a link to a very interesting article detailing the flaws in the " I 've got nothing to hide " argument against privacy : http : //yro.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 07/07/10/2054219For me the most important thing to consider is that not only are we all considered " wrongdoers " by someone else 's judgment , by even the common understanding of wrongdoing changes over time , whereas the data I make public in any fashion can stick around for quite a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like all that proprietary code Google owns which made them an internet search behemoth and personally made Eric Schmidt a bijillion dollars?
You mean like that information you might not want anyone to know?In case nobody else linked this yet, back in 2007 Slashdot posted a link to a very interesting article detailing the flaws in the "I've got nothing to hide" argument against privacy:  http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/10/2054219For me the most important thing to consider is that not only are we all considered "wrongdoers" by someone else's judgment, by even the common understanding of wrongdoing changes over time, whereas the data I make public in any fashion can stick around for quite a while.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364704</id>
	<title>Re:Or perhaps....</title>
	<author>jgeiger</author>
	<datestamp>1260285480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or perhaps if I have something that I don't want anyone to know, it's NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS!</p></div><p>You don't HAVE to search using Google. You can always go down to your public library.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or perhaps if I have something that I do n't want anyone to know , it 's NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS ! You do n't HAVE to search using Google .
You can always go down to your public library .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or perhaps if I have something that I don't want anyone to know, it's NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS!You don't HAVE to search using Google.
You can always go down to your public library.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30374320</id>
	<title>And</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1260296460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can I check how much money you've in your Bank Account?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I check how much money you 've in your Bank Account ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I check how much money you've in your Bank Account?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30369540</id>
	<title>Maybe Eric Schmidt is Wrong CEO</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1260262920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps contacting some Google stockholders is in order.<br>They would be interested to know Eric Schmidt hasn't grasped the concept that wrongdoing is in the eye of the beholder and he isn't very well equipped to make the call. Now if we all were bound to the moral compass of Eric Schmidt, perhaps that would be different.<br>I believe that quoting Voltaire is appropriate , "As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities."<br>I can see Eric Schmidts moral policy turning Chinese over to secret police or any Americans information to "authorities" on a want basis.<br>I can see Eric Schmidt in a job that is safer and more helpful to society merely by his asking " do you want fries with that?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps contacting some Google stockholders is in order.They would be interested to know Eric Schmidt has n't grasped the concept that wrongdoing is in the eye of the beholder and he is n't very well equipped to make the call .
Now if we all were bound to the moral compass of Eric Schmidt , perhaps that would be different.I believe that quoting Voltaire is appropriate , " As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities .
" I can see Eric Schmidts moral policy turning Chinese over to secret police or any Americans information to " authorities " on a want basis.I can see Eric Schmidt in a job that is safer and more helpful to society merely by his asking " do you want fries with that ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps contacting some Google stockholders is in order.They would be interested to know Eric Schmidt hasn't grasped the concept that wrongdoing is in the eye of the beholder and he isn't very well equipped to make the call.
Now if we all were bound to the moral compass of Eric Schmidt, perhaps that would be different.I believe that quoting Voltaire is appropriate , "As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
"I can see Eric Schmidts moral policy turning Chinese over to secret police or any Americans information to "authorities" on a want basis.I can see Eric Schmidt in a job that is safer and more helpful to society merely by his asking " do you want fries with that?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30375446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30373776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30382566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30373702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30371954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30374822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30376988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30375370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30378602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30370980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30427354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30369032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30369518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30376526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_0127219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30373560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30373560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30373776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30373702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30374822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30371954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30369032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30367398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30375446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30368684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30369518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30376526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30427354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30382566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30370980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366146
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30378602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30375370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30365446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_0127219.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30364252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30366578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_0127219.30376988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
