<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_08_1341225</id>
	<title>USA Has More Open Wi-Fi Hotspots Than EU</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1262961000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Mark.JUK writes <i>"Some <a href="http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/01/08/usa-home-to-more-open-wireless-wifi-broadband-hotspots-than-eu-and-uk.html">40\% of wireless (Wi-Fi) Internet access hotspots in the USA are unlocked</a> and do not require a security password, which compares with 25\% in Europe; according to <a href="http://www.wefi.com/">WeFi</a> based statistics. Across the world, approximately 30\% of recorded Wi-Fi access points are unlocked, while some 70\% are locked. Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously, then. It should be perfectly possible to 'share' Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mark.JUK writes " Some 40 \ % of wireless ( Wi-Fi ) Internet access hotspots in the USA are unlocked and do not require a security password , which compares with 25 \ % in Europe ; according to WeFi based statistics .
Across the world , approximately 30 \ % of recorded Wi-Fi access points are unlocked , while some 70 \ % are locked .
Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously , then .
It should be perfectly possible to 'share ' Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mark.JUK writes "Some 40\% of wireless (Wi-Fi) Internet access hotspots in the USA are unlocked and do not require a security password, which compares with 25\% in Europe; according to WeFi based statistics.
Across the world, approximately 30\% of recorded Wi-Fi access points are unlocked, while some 70\% are locked.
Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously, then.
It should be perfectly possible to 'share' Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694168</id>
	<title>Re:How secure is secured?</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1262965260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>there was a surprising amount of people using WEP</p></div><p>Mostly that will be people with older wireless APs, from before WPA was common, that use WEP by default. Many (A)DSL routers with built in wireless provided by ISPs come pre-configured with the ISP's current standard (now usually WPA, but previously WEP was common) with the default key for the unit printed on a sticker attached to the bottom of the unit. Most people never change these security settings (hence there are many APs left with the default of no security at all) so will stick with WEP until such time as they have reason to get a replacement router/AP and the new one comes pre-configured with WPA instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there was a surprising amount of people using WEPMostly that will be people with older wireless APs , from before WPA was common , that use WEP by default .
Many ( A ) DSL routers with built in wireless provided by ISPs come pre-configured with the ISP 's current standard ( now usually WPA , but previously WEP was common ) with the default key for the unit printed on a sticker attached to the bottom of the unit .
Most people never change these security settings ( hence there are many APs left with the default of no security at all ) so will stick with WEP until such time as they have reason to get a replacement router/AP and the new one comes pre-configured with WPA instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there was a surprising amount of people using WEPMostly that will be people with older wireless APs, from before WPA was common, that use WEP by default.
Many (A)DSL routers with built in wireless provided by ISPs come pre-configured with the ISP's current standard (now usually WPA, but previously WEP was common) with the default key for the unit printed on a sticker attached to the bottom of the unit.
Most people never change these security settings (hence there are many APs left with the default of no security at all) so will stick with WEP until such time as they have reason to get a replacement router/AP and the new one comes pre-configured with WPA instead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694046</id>
	<title>USA! USA! USA!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262964720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, number one, baby!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , number one , baby !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, number one, baby!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694406</id>
	<title>Open and closed</title>
	<author>maroberts</author>
	<datestamp>1262966160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have two wi-fi networks; an open connection and a private one. I live in a small village and don't mind if some hill walker uses the open one to get his mail. Someday I may arrange things to limit the bandwidth on this but haven't had any abuse of it.

It is getting harder to find private open connections; a year or two ago I could wander up any street in major city and find 3-4 open connections in minutes. I believe that most wireless routers nowadays are supplied closed by default and people don't change it....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have two wi-fi networks ; an open connection and a private one .
I live in a small village and do n't mind if some hill walker uses the open one to get his mail .
Someday I may arrange things to limit the bandwidth on this but have n't had any abuse of it .
It is getting harder to find private open connections ; a year or two ago I could wander up any street in major city and find 3-4 open connections in minutes .
I believe that most wireless routers nowadays are supplied closed by default and people do n't change it... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have two wi-fi networks; an open connection and a private one.
I live in a small village and don't mind if some hill walker uses the open one to get his mail.
Someday I may arrange things to limit the bandwidth on this but haven't had any abuse of it.
It is getting harder to find private open connections; a year or two ago I could wander up any street in major city and find 3-4 open connections in minutes.
I believe that most wireless routers nowadays are supplied closed by default and people don't change it....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30697800</id>
	<title>More Wi-Fi Spots != More Percentage of Wi-Fi Spots</title>
	<author>flabordec</author>
	<datestamp>1262979180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article title is wrong, the USA does not have (necessarily) more Wi-Fi hotspots, it just has a better percentage. If I founded my own country in my house and opened my wi-fi router so anyone could connet I would get a 100\% open Wi-Fi hotspot percentage, but I would still have fare less hotspots than the USA.</p><p>Couldn't find any numbers in TFA as to the real number of Wi-Fi hotspots either in Europe or the USA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article title is wrong , the USA does not have ( necessarily ) more Wi-Fi hotspots , it just has a better percentage .
If I founded my own country in my house and opened my wi-fi router so anyone could connet I would get a 100 \ % open Wi-Fi hotspot percentage , but I would still have fare less hotspots than the USA.Could n't find any numbers in TFA as to the real number of Wi-Fi hotspots either in Europe or the USA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article title is wrong, the USA does not have (necessarily) more Wi-Fi hotspots, it just has a better percentage.
If I founded my own country in my house and opened my wi-fi router so anyone could connet I would get a 100\% open Wi-Fi hotspot percentage, but I would still have fare less hotspots than the USA.Couldn't find any numbers in TFA as to the real number of Wi-Fi hotspots either in Europe or the USA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694992</id>
	<title>You expect anything less?</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1262968380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> "...It should be perfectly possible to "share" Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time." </p></div><p>While it is perfectly "possible" to share WPA-secured Wi-Fi, it's not feasible, or the path requiring "minimal effort", which in many aspects of consumer electronics today, seems to be the mantra.</p><p>Also, maybe I'm alone in my thinking here, but generally if I see somewhere advertising a "hotspot", I tend to get a bit pissed when it's not easily (i.e. you connect and it just works) accessible.  Isn't that the whole point of offering a "hotspot" to begin with?  I don't read these statistics of unsecure "hotspots" as bad as most do I guess.  I just see it as many more places offering free Wi-Fi.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...It should be perfectly possible to " share " Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time .
" While it is perfectly " possible " to share WPA-secured Wi-Fi , it 's not feasible , or the path requiring " minimal effort " , which in many aspects of consumer electronics today , seems to be the mantra.Also , maybe I 'm alone in my thinking here , but generally if I see somewhere advertising a " hotspot " , I tend to get a bit pissed when it 's not easily ( i.e .
you connect and it just works ) accessible .
Is n't that the whole point of offering a " hotspot " to begin with ?
I do n't read these statistics of unsecure " hotspots " as bad as most do I guess .
I just see it as many more places offering free Wi-Fi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "...It should be perfectly possible to "share" Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time.
" While it is perfectly "possible" to share WPA-secured Wi-Fi, it's not feasible, or the path requiring "minimal effort", which in many aspects of consumer electronics today, seems to be the mantra.Also, maybe I'm alone in my thinking here, but generally if I see somewhere advertising a "hotspot", I tend to get a bit pissed when it's not easily (i.e.
you connect and it just works) accessible.
Isn't that the whole point of offering a "hotspot" to begin with?
I don't read these statistics of unsecure "hotspots" as bad as most do I guess.
I just see it as many more places offering free Wi-Fi.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694746</id>
	<title>I'm doing my part!</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1262967600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Across the world, approximately 30\% of recorded Wi-Fi access points are unlocked, while some 70\% are locked. Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously..."</p><p>F U, I've been intentionally open since 2002 or so. (Basically, since I got it.) It's like, if you leave your lights on and windows open, someone can sit outside your house and read a book with the light you're giving off--OH NOES!</p><p>First of all, it doesn't cost anything to share a bit of WiFi. If someone happens to be driving by and needs it, they can park and use it. If a neighbor loses their connectivity for a day and wants to use mine, FINE, GO AHEAD--I won't even notice or care. Nor will my ISP.</p><p>Secondly: security? What security? I doubt there is a band of leet hackers hiding behind my fence trying to get financial data off my wife's laptop (hint: it's usually closed) or trying to pull my credit card number or bank login name as it whizzes by among gigs of other data. (Hint: you'll also have to crack HTTPS.)</p><p>You're worried about credit card fraud? Worry more about the 19-year-old you give your card to at a restaurant who disappears with it for a couple minutes. My family and I have had credit card info stolen and abused several times in the last decade and not once was the Internet involved, let alone hackers sitting outside our house at night doing MITM attacks. I'm more worried about an ACTUAL break-in (which I've also experienced) than a cyber one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Across the world , approximately 30 \ % of recorded Wi-Fi access points are unlocked , while some 70 \ % are locked .
Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously... " F U , I 've been intentionally open since 2002 or so .
( Basically , since I got it .
) It 's like , if you leave your lights on and windows open , someone can sit outside your house and read a book with the light you 're giving off--OH NOES ! First of all , it does n't cost anything to share a bit of WiFi .
If someone happens to be driving by and needs it , they can park and use it .
If a neighbor loses their connectivity for a day and wants to use mine , FINE , GO AHEAD--I wo n't even notice or care .
Nor will my ISP.Secondly : security ?
What security ?
I doubt there is a band of leet hackers hiding behind my fence trying to get financial data off my wife 's laptop ( hint : it 's usually closed ) or trying to pull my credit card number or bank login name as it whizzes by among gigs of other data .
( Hint : you 'll also have to crack HTTPS .
) You 're worried about credit card fraud ?
Worry more about the 19-year-old you give your card to at a restaurant who disappears with it for a couple minutes .
My family and I have had credit card info stolen and abused several times in the last decade and not once was the Internet involved , let alone hackers sitting outside our house at night doing MITM attacks .
I 'm more worried about an ACTUAL break-in ( which I 've also experienced ) than a cyber one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Across the world, approximately 30\% of recorded Wi-Fi access points are unlocked, while some 70\% are locked.
Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously..."F U, I've been intentionally open since 2002 or so.
(Basically, since I got it.
) It's like, if you leave your lights on and windows open, someone can sit outside your house and read a book with the light you're giving off--OH NOES!First of all, it doesn't cost anything to share a bit of WiFi.
If someone happens to be driving by and needs it, they can park and use it.
If a neighbor loses their connectivity for a day and wants to use mine, FINE, GO AHEAD--I won't even notice or care.
Nor will my ISP.Secondly: security?
What security?
I doubt there is a band of leet hackers hiding behind my fence trying to get financial data off my wife's laptop (hint: it's usually closed) or trying to pull my credit card number or bank login name as it whizzes by among gigs of other data.
(Hint: you'll also have to crack HTTPS.
)You're worried about credit card fraud?
Worry more about the 19-year-old you give your card to at a restaurant who disappears with it for a couple minutes.
My family and I have had credit card info stolen and abused several times in the last decade and not once was the Internet involved, let alone hackers sitting outside our house at night doing MITM attacks.
I'm more worried about an ACTUAL break-in (which I've also experienced) than a cyber one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694554</id>
	<title>Public wireless might as well be open</title>
	<author>bkeahl</author>
	<datestamp>1262966880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If a network is "public" then it may as well be open.  If you're going to make it available for public use, why bother with WEP or anything else?  If you're going to give the key to guests who ask for it then it's like locking your front door and standing out at the sidewalk and giving out keys to strangers who walk by.

Private wireless is a whole different ball of wax, but I'm very surprised anyone is concerned that a PUBLIC hotspot is unsecured.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a network is " public " then it may as well be open .
If you 're going to make it available for public use , why bother with WEP or anything else ?
If you 're going to give the key to guests who ask for it then it 's like locking your front door and standing out at the sidewalk and giving out keys to strangers who walk by .
Private wireless is a whole different ball of wax , but I 'm very surprised anyone is concerned that a PUBLIC hotspot is unsecured .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a network is "public" then it may as well be open.
If you're going to make it available for public use, why bother with WEP or anything else?
If you're going to give the key to guests who ask for it then it's like locking your front door and standing out at the sidewalk and giving out keys to strangers who walk by.
Private wireless is a whole different ball of wax, but I'm very surprised anyone is concerned that a PUBLIC hotspot is unsecured.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694336</id>
	<title>Re:Truly Open?</title>
	<author>hoggoth</author>
	<datestamp>1262965860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's trivial to spoof a MAC address. Those networks are "truly open".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's trivial to spoof a MAC address .
Those networks are " truly open " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's trivial to spoof a MAC address.
Those networks are "truly open".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695732</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason is simple, and of course Financ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262970960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>in the UK you pay for a certain amount of data transfer, and from what I understand can be charged for overages or cut off.</i></p><p>In the UK it depends entirely on your ISP and contract. For example, my ISP is Virgin Media, which essentially owns the entire UK cable network. They have no limit on data transfers or extra charges or being cut off. What they do have is 75\% speed throttling at certain times of day after a given amount of data is transferred.<br><a href="http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/internet/traffic.html" title="virginmedia.com" rel="nofollow">http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/internet/traffic.html</a> [virginmedia.com]</p><p>BT (British Telecom) has various options, some of which have extra charges per GB over a set limit and some don't. No cut off though.<br><a href="http://bt.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/bt.cfg/php/enduser/cci/bt\_adp.php?p\_faqid=10495&amp;cat\_lvl1=346&amp;p\_cv=1.346&amp;p\_cats=346&amp;s\_cid=con\_FURL\_broadbandusagepolicy" title="custhelp.com" rel="nofollow">http://bt.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/bt.cfg/php/enduser/cci/bt\_adp.php?p\_faqid=10495&amp;cat\_lvl1=346&amp;p\_cv=1.346&amp;p\_cats=346&amp;s\_cid=con\_FURL\_broadbandusagepolicy</a> [custhelp.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in the UK you pay for a certain amount of data transfer , and from what I understand can be charged for overages or cut off.In the UK it depends entirely on your ISP and contract .
For example , my ISP is Virgin Media , which essentially owns the entire UK cable network .
They have no limit on data transfers or extra charges or being cut off .
What they do have is 75 \ % speed throttling at certain times of day after a given amount of data is transferred.http : //allyours.virginmedia.com/html/internet/traffic.html [ virginmedia.com ] BT ( British Telecom ) has various options , some of which have extra charges per GB over a set limit and some do n't .
No cut off though.http : //bt.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/bt.cfg/php/enduser/cci/bt \ _adp.php ? p \ _faqid = 10495&amp;cat \ _lvl1 = 346&amp;p \ _cv = 1.346&amp;p \ _cats = 346&amp;s \ _cid = con \ _FURL \ _broadbandusagepolicy [ custhelp.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in the UK you pay for a certain amount of data transfer, and from what I understand can be charged for overages or cut off.In the UK it depends entirely on your ISP and contract.
For example, my ISP is Virgin Media, which essentially owns the entire UK cable network.
They have no limit on data transfers or extra charges or being cut off.
What they do have is 75\% speed throttling at certain times of day after a given amount of data is transferred.http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/internet/traffic.html [virginmedia.com]BT (British Telecom) has various options, some of which have extra charges per GB over a set limit and some don't.
No cut off though.http://bt.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/bt.cfg/php/enduser/cci/bt\_adp.php?p\_faqid=10495&amp;cat\_lvl1=346&amp;p\_cv=1.346&amp;p\_cats=346&amp;s\_cid=con\_FURL\_broadbandusagepolicy [custhelp.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698384</id>
	<title>Re:Truly Open?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262981580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because of the large number of wireless devices in my house, this is exactly what I have done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because of the large number of wireless devices in my house , this is exactly what I have done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because of the large number of wireless devices in my house, this is exactly what I have done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696446</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a bad thing.</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1262973720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"By "properly" I mean segregation between the internal LAN, on a secured wireless link, and the open guest wireless; along with QoS prioritization of all internet traffic from the internal LAN above all internet traffic from the open wireless."</p><p>If you are interested in security, why do you have your internal lan on the wireless in the first place?</p><p>"This is not a hard problem, technologically; but it isn't something that Joe User could set up without it being largely out-of-box default."</p><p>Agreed. Most of the open hotspots aren't from generous souls. They are ignorant souls who plug in the router and use the defaults. There are quite a few networks around named "linksys".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" By " properly " I mean segregation between the internal LAN , on a secured wireless link , and the open guest wireless ; along with QoS prioritization of all internet traffic from the internal LAN above all internet traffic from the open wireless .
" If you are interested in security , why do you have your internal lan on the wireless in the first place ?
" This is not a hard problem , technologically ; but it is n't something that Joe User could set up without it being largely out-of-box default. " Agreed .
Most of the open hotspots are n't from generous souls .
They are ignorant souls who plug in the router and use the defaults .
There are quite a few networks around named " linksys " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"By "properly" I mean segregation between the internal LAN, on a secured wireless link, and the open guest wireless; along with QoS prioritization of all internet traffic from the internal LAN above all internet traffic from the open wireless.
"If you are interested in security, why do you have your internal lan on the wireless in the first place?
"This is not a hard problem, technologically; but it isn't something that Joe User could set up without it being largely out-of-box default."Agreed.
Most of the open hotspots aren't from generous souls.
They are ignorant souls who plug in the router and use the defaults.
There are quite a few networks around named "linksys".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696094</id>
	<title>WEP is a "Private Property" sign</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262972220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WEP is a "Private Property" sign. WPA doesn't stop crackers getting in, so why bother with anything more than "Private: Keep out" like other unused personal properties (like scrap land owned by someone).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WEP is a " Private Property " sign .
WPA does n't stop crackers getting in , so why bother with anything more than " Private : Keep out " like other unused personal properties ( like scrap land owned by someone ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WEP is a "Private Property" sign.
WPA doesn't stop crackers getting in, so why bother with anything more than "Private: Keep out" like other unused personal properties (like scrap land owned by someone).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695250</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a bad thing.</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1262969400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I didn't have a bandwidth cap I would leave mine open.</p><p>I blame the greedy telcos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I did n't have a bandwidth cap I would leave mine open.I blame the greedy telcos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I didn't have a bandwidth cap I would leave mine open.I blame the greedy telcos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30700706</id>
	<title>Re:Law of reverse service</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1262948220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The economic background is interesting. [...] But the expenses of putting up a payment solution and handling support is high.</p></div><p>Actually this is not really uncommon. In industries like telecom, the transaction costs have been higher than the product costs for a very long time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The economic background is interesting .
[ ... ] But the expenses of putting up a payment solution and handling support is high.Actually this is not really uncommon .
In industries like telecom , the transaction costs have been higher than the product costs for a very long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The economic background is interesting.
[...] But the expenses of putting up a payment solution and handling support is high.Actually this is not really uncommon.
In industries like telecom, the transaction costs have been higher than the product costs for a very long time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698456</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a bad thing.</title>
	<author>???</author>
	<datestamp>1262981940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Until such time as ISP's are able to uniquely identify WHO did it and not just "well this guy owns the house where the service is terminated", the other folks in the area can get their own internet access.</p></div><p>Until such time as ISP's are able to uniquely identify WHO did it and not just "well this guy owns the house where the service is terminated", prosecutors and plaintiffs should not be able to meet their burden of proof on such offences.</p><p>There.  FYP.</p><p>Obligatory IANAL</p><p>Now, hmmm.  Consider 2 situations:</p><p>Situation A<br>- Bad guy cracks your WPA / WEP key and uses your network to download copyrighted material.<br>- You are sued (civil case), and the burden of proof required is preponderence of the evidence / balance of probabilities.<br>- You live in a densely populated area where there are a large number of computer-unsophisticated users who regularly use somebody else's network because they left it open<br>- It is introduced into evidence that you secured your network to try to ensure that only you could use your network<br>- The only question of fact at trial is the identity of the infringer - your defense is that somebody else may have used your network to commit the act in question</p><p>Situation B<br>- Bad guy uses your open wireless network to download copyrighted material.<br>- You are sued (civil case), and the burden of proof required is preponderence of the evidence / balance of probabilities.<br>- You live in a densely populated area where there are a large number of computer-unsophisticated users who regularly use your network because you left it open<br>- The only question of fact at trial is the identity of the infringer - your defense is that somebody else may have used your network to commit the act in question</p><p>Do you feel that it is more likely that your defense (somebody else did it) is correct under Situation A or Situation B?<br>In a civil case, where allegations do not have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, how do you feel this impacts a balance of probabilities test?</p><p>"Securing" your network could put you in a worse situation.  DUCY?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until such time as ISP 's are able to uniquely identify WHO did it and not just " well this guy owns the house where the service is terminated " , the other folks in the area can get their own internet access.Until such time as ISP 's are able to uniquely identify WHO did it and not just " well this guy owns the house where the service is terminated " , prosecutors and plaintiffs should not be able to meet their burden of proof on such offences.There .
FYP.Obligatory IANALNow , hmmm .
Consider 2 situations : Situation A- Bad guy cracks your WPA / WEP key and uses your network to download copyrighted material.- You are sued ( civil case ) , and the burden of proof required is preponderence of the evidence / balance of probabilities.- You live in a densely populated area where there are a large number of computer-unsophisticated users who regularly use somebody else 's network because they left it open- It is introduced into evidence that you secured your network to try to ensure that only you could use your network- The only question of fact at trial is the identity of the infringer - your defense is that somebody else may have used your network to commit the act in questionSituation B- Bad guy uses your open wireless network to download copyrighted material.- You are sued ( civil case ) , and the burden of proof required is preponderence of the evidence / balance of probabilities.- You live in a densely populated area where there are a large number of computer-unsophisticated users who regularly use your network because you left it open- The only question of fact at trial is the identity of the infringer - your defense is that somebody else may have used your network to commit the act in questionDo you feel that it is more likely that your defense ( somebody else did it ) is correct under Situation A or Situation B ? In a civil case , where allegations do not have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt , how do you feel this impacts a balance of probabilities test ?
" Securing " your network could put you in a worse situation .
DUCY ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until such time as ISP's are able to uniquely identify WHO did it and not just "well this guy owns the house where the service is terminated", the other folks in the area can get their own internet access.Until such time as ISP's are able to uniquely identify WHO did it and not just "well this guy owns the house where the service is terminated", prosecutors and plaintiffs should not be able to meet their burden of proof on such offences.There.
FYP.Obligatory IANALNow, hmmm.
Consider 2 situations:Situation A- Bad guy cracks your WPA / WEP key and uses your network to download copyrighted material.- You are sued (civil case), and the burden of proof required is preponderence of the evidence / balance of probabilities.- You live in a densely populated area where there are a large number of computer-unsophisticated users who regularly use somebody else's network because they left it open- It is introduced into evidence that you secured your network to try to ensure that only you could use your network- The only question of fact at trial is the identity of the infringer - your defense is that somebody else may have used your network to commit the act in questionSituation B- Bad guy uses your open wireless network to download copyrighted material.- You are sued (civil case), and the burden of proof required is preponderence of the evidence / balance of probabilities.- You live in a densely populated area where there are a large number of computer-unsophisticated users who regularly use your network because you left it open- The only question of fact at trial is the identity of the infringer - your defense is that somebody else may have used your network to commit the act in questionDo you feel that it is more likely that your defense (somebody else did it) is correct under Situation A or Situation B?In a civil case, where allegations do not have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, how do you feel this impacts a balance of probabilities test?
"Securing" your network could put you in a worse situation.
DUCY?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698292</id>
	<title>Re:I'm doing my part for freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262981220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, and I did come home one day to see a friend sitting on the front porch, using the wifi, and a neighbor used ours. Freedom of speech needs outlets and inlets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , and I did come home one day to see a friend sitting on the front porch , using the wifi , and a neighbor used ours .
Freedom of speech needs outlets and inlets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, and I did come home one day to see a friend sitting on the front porch, using the wifi, and a neighbor used ours.
Freedom of speech needs outlets and inlets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694242</id>
	<title>Population density is a plausible cause.</title>
	<author>Ferzerp</author>
	<datestamp>1262965560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More people who may hop on your network and negatively impact your performance would likely cause you to learn to secure things.  We have a much lower average population density, so you are more likely to be able to remain ignorant (or just not care) and leave your AP open.  If I have 4 people who can see my AP, they are much less likely to wreak havok on my quality of service than if I have 50.  I would like to see stats on open AP\% vs population density.  Of course, the article may have this info.  I didn't rtfa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More people who may hop on your network and negatively impact your performance would likely cause you to learn to secure things .
We have a much lower average population density , so you are more likely to be able to remain ignorant ( or just not care ) and leave your AP open .
If I have 4 people who can see my AP , they are much less likely to wreak havok on my quality of service than if I have 50 .
I would like to see stats on open AP \ % vs population density .
Of course , the article may have this info .
I did n't rtfa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More people who may hop on your network and negatively impact your performance would likely cause you to learn to secure things.
We have a much lower average population density, so you are more likely to be able to remain ignorant (or just not care) and leave your AP open.
If I have 4 people who can see my AP, they are much less likely to wreak havok on my quality of service than if I have 50.
I would like to see stats on open AP\% vs population density.
Of course, the article may have this info.
I didn't rtfa.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694648</id>
	<title>Re:How secure is secured?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262967300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite true! I know in my neighborhood nearly all of the "secured" access points are using WEP. Which as well all know isn't secure at all. I've only seen two people using WPA, and I'm the loner here using WPA2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite true !
I know in my neighborhood nearly all of the " secured " access points are using WEP .
Which as well all know is n't secure at all .
I 've only seen two people using WPA , and I 'm the loner here using WPA2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite true!
I know in my neighborhood nearly all of the "secured" access points are using WEP.
Which as well all know isn't secure at all.
I've only seen two people using WPA, and I'm the loner here using WPA2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695420</id>
	<title>Re:Population density is a plausible cause.</title>
	<author>cptdondo</author>
	<datestamp>1262969940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then again there is ignorance.  The elementary school across the street from me runs an unsecured network.  They also use channel-hopping APs, with the result that WiFi is utterly unusable in my neighborhood between 7 AM and 2 PM.</p><p>I tried dealing with their IT guys; basically I surmised that this is how Cisco provisioned the APs (in other works, how they came out of the box) and that they have security on their network.</p><p>True, to acutally use the network you have to log in, but without WPA or even WEP, anyone can snoop on the network.  You use https to log in, but once logged in you are on a totally unsecured network with everything transmitted in the clear.</p><p>I've thought about snooping on their network and presenting it to the board, but they'd probably try to bust me rather than fix the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then again there is ignorance .
The elementary school across the street from me runs an unsecured network .
They also use channel-hopping APs , with the result that WiFi is utterly unusable in my neighborhood between 7 AM and 2 PM.I tried dealing with their IT guys ; basically I surmised that this is how Cisco provisioned the APs ( in other works , how they came out of the box ) and that they have security on their network.True , to acutally use the network you have to log in , but without WPA or even WEP , anyone can snoop on the network .
You use https to log in , but once logged in you are on a totally unsecured network with everything transmitted in the clear.I 've thought about snooping on their network and presenting it to the board , but they 'd probably try to bust me rather than fix the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then again there is ignorance.
The elementary school across the street from me runs an unsecured network.
They also use channel-hopping APs, with the result that WiFi is utterly unusable in my neighborhood between 7 AM and 2 PM.I tried dealing with their IT guys; basically I surmised that this is how Cisco provisioned the APs (in other works, how they came out of the box) and that they have security on their network.True, to acutally use the network you have to log in, but without WPA or even WEP, anyone can snoop on the network.
You use https to log in, but once logged in you are on a totally unsecured network with everything transmitted in the clear.I've thought about snooping on their network and presenting it to the board, but they'd probably try to bust me rather than fix the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698374</id>
	<title>Cultural?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262981580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aside from Americans being morons who can't secure WAPs, there could be a cultural difference.</p><p>The typical American residential entrance door is a thin steel door in a flimsy wood frame, a pretty weedy deadbolt--and any glass panes are easily breakable. From what I've seen, Americans have a thing for never locking their doors.</p><p>OTOH, I've seen European residential entrance doors with multi-point locks and high-security glass.</p><p>Hmmm...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from Americans being morons who ca n't secure WAPs , there could be a cultural difference.The typical American residential entrance door is a thin steel door in a flimsy wood frame , a pretty weedy deadbolt--and any glass panes are easily breakable .
From what I 've seen , Americans have a thing for never locking their doors.OTOH , I 've seen European residential entrance doors with multi-point locks and high-security glass.Hmmm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from Americans being morons who can't secure WAPs, there could be a cultural difference.The typical American residential entrance door is a thin steel door in a flimsy wood frame, a pretty weedy deadbolt--and any glass panes are easily breakable.
From what I've seen, Americans have a thing for never locking their doors.OTOH, I've seen European residential entrance doors with multi-point locks and high-security glass.Hmmm...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695862</id>
	<title>Sanctimonious?</title>
	<author>Fringe</author>
	<datestamp>1262971440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree with the apparent editorial tone of the post, where he says:<p><div class="quote"><p> It should be perfectly possible to "share" Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time."</p></div><p>I and many of my friends have <i>two</i> access points - a secured one with MAC filtering that provides access to the LAN and data, and an open one for the internet.  At least where most of us are at, houses are far enough apart and far enough away from the street that this does not pose any real risk, and adds a lot of convenience.

Everything has a cost. More security is not always a good thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree with the apparent editorial tone of the post , where he says : It should be perfectly possible to " share " Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time .
" I and many of my friends have two access points - a secured one with MAC filtering that provides access to the LAN and data , and an open one for the internet .
At least where most of us are at , houses are far enough apart and far enough away from the street that this does not pose any real risk , and adds a lot of convenience .
Everything has a cost .
More security is not always a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree with the apparent editorial tone of the post, where he says: It should be perfectly possible to "share" Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time.
"I and many of my friends have two access points - a secured one with MAC filtering that provides access to the LAN and data, and an open one for the internet.
At least where most of us are at, houses are far enough apart and far enough away from the street that this does not pose any real risk, and adds a lot of convenience.
Everything has a cost.
More security is not always a good thing.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30705082</id>
	<title>Re:Truly Open?</title>
	<author>vaporland</author>
	<datestamp>1262977260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>sniffing and spoofing MAC addresses is even easier than cracking WEP</htmltext>
<tokenext>sniffing and spoofing MAC addresses is even easier than cracking WEP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sniffing and spoofing MAC addresses is even easier than cracking WEP</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696104</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a bad thing.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262972280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL. The Internet was founded as a secure military network. The free and open access was the puberty. Now we&rsquo;re kinda in the Married With Children phase.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL .
The Internet was founded as a secure military network .
The free and open access was the puberty .
Now we    re kinda in the Married With Children phase .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL.
The Internet was founded as a secure military network.
The free and open access was the puberty.
Now we’re kinda in the Married With Children phase.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694120</id>
	<title>Wigle.net map o' the world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262965080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://wigle.net/images/rigled-images/world.png" title="wigle.net" rel="nofollow">http://wigle.net/images/rigled-images/world.png</a> [wigle.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //wigle.net/images/rigled-images/world.png [ wigle.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://wigle.net/images/rigled-images/world.png [wigle.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694708</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a bad thing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262967420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All good points, but I assume the original poster is referring to Hotspots that you would find in public areas and cafes, not home systems.
</p><p>For public area systems, I don't see the value in having free public access and security. If it's free and open, then it shouldn't be encrypted.  I like the convenience of just opening my laptop and getting a connection without having to go through any config nonsense.
</p><p>Of course my home system is completely secure as I want to protect my data, but a cafe owner wants to make connections as easy as possible, and have minimal costs in term of labour to maintain.  This means free, open and unencrypted.
</p><p>For public assess points, I'd like this to be close to 100\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All good points , but I assume the original poster is referring to Hotspots that you would find in public areas and cafes , not home systems .
For public area systems , I do n't see the value in having free public access and security .
If it 's free and open , then it should n't be encrypted .
I like the convenience of just opening my laptop and getting a connection without having to go through any config nonsense .
Of course my home system is completely secure as I want to protect my data , but a cafe owner wants to make connections as easy as possible , and have minimal costs in term of labour to maintain .
This means free , open and unencrypted .
For public assess points , I 'd like this to be close to 100 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All good points, but I assume the original poster is referring to Hotspots that you would find in public areas and cafes, not home systems.
For public area systems, I don't see the value in having free public access and security.
If it's free and open, then it shouldn't be encrypted.
I like the convenience of just opening my laptop and getting a connection without having to go through any config nonsense.
Of course my home system is completely secure as I want to protect my data, but a cafe owner wants to make connections as easy as possible, and have minimal costs in term of labour to maintain.
This means free, open and unencrypted.
For public assess points, I'd like this to be close to 100\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694990</id>
	<title>I'm Confused</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1262968380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously then. It should be perfectly possible to "share" Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time.</i></p><p>I take security very seriously, so my machines are properly secured for direct access to the Internet, and my important machines are behind their own firewall.</p><p>I must be missing something about WPA or WPA2 -- how can you make your network show up without the little lock icon when a stranger passes by, so they know they can log in?</p><p>Why would I want to encrypt the channel, anyway? As soon as the comm hits the Internet it hops nodes I don't control. If I want it secure, I had better be using an encrypted channel at a higher layer. Admittedly, I could transfer sensitive files in the clear on my own network, but why? I use SCP for everything, which is easy (easier, IMO, than GUI) and it is a good habit to get into.</p><p>Which all is to say: I think the "WPA/WPA2 == security" thing is a bad meme. Good security starts above the network layer, and generally can end there. Meanwhile, securing all our Wi-Fi nodes kinda sucks in terms of making the network universally pervasive.</p><p>Free the APs, secure the machines and processes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously then .
It should be perfectly possible to " share " Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time.I take security very seriously , so my machines are properly secured for direct access to the Internet , and my important machines are behind their own firewall.I must be missing something about WPA or WPA2 -- how can you make your network show up without the little lock icon when a stranger passes by , so they know they can log in ? Why would I want to encrypt the channel , anyway ?
As soon as the comm hits the Internet it hops nodes I do n't control .
If I want it secure , I had better be using an encrypted channel at a higher layer .
Admittedly , I could transfer sensitive files in the clear on my own network , but why ?
I use SCP for everything , which is easy ( easier , IMO , than GUI ) and it is a good habit to get into.Which all is to say : I think the " WPA/WPA2 = = security " thing is a bad meme .
Good security starts above the network layer , and generally can end there .
Meanwhile , securing all our Wi-Fi nodes kinda sucks in terms of making the network universally pervasive.Free the APs , secure the machines and processes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously then.
It should be perfectly possible to "share" Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time.I take security very seriously, so my machines are properly secured for direct access to the Internet, and my important machines are behind their own firewall.I must be missing something about WPA or WPA2 -- how can you make your network show up without the little lock icon when a stranger passes by, so they know they can log in?Why would I want to encrypt the channel, anyway?
As soon as the comm hits the Internet it hops nodes I don't control.
If I want it secure, I had better be using an encrypted channel at a higher layer.
Admittedly, I could transfer sensitive files in the clear on my own network, but why?
I use SCP for everything, which is easy (easier, IMO, than GUI) and it is a good habit to get into.Which all is to say: I think the "WPA/WPA2 == security" thing is a bad meme.
Good security starts above the network layer, and generally can end there.
Meanwhile, securing all our Wi-Fi nodes kinda sucks in terms of making the network universally pervasive.Free the APs, secure the machines and processes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694250</id>
	<title>Re:No wonder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262965620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, Europeans tend (on average, not in every case) to have a higher degree of technical know-how than Americans, so on average more of them know \_how\_ to secure their access points.  That's bound to skew the numbers: many people in the USA don't even know that it's possible to do this, and the WAP's ship by default unsecured.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , Europeans tend ( on average , not in every case ) to have a higher degree of technical know-how than Americans , so on average more of them know \ _how \ _ to secure their access points .
That 's bound to skew the numbers : many people in the USA do n't even know that it 's possible to do this , and the WAP 's ship by default unsecured .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, Europeans tend (on average, not in every case) to have a higher degree of technical know-how than Americans, so on average more of them know \_how\_ to secure their access points.
That's bound to skew the numbers: many people in the USA don't even know that it's possible to do this, and the WAP's ship by default unsecured.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698382</id>
	<title>Re:Law of reverse service</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1262981580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You leave a couple things out of your analysis that might be important.<p>
1.  You can only charge what the market will bear.  People who go to expensive hotels will pay for internet.  People who go to hostels are much less likely to be willing to pay, so if you offer it for pay, you're unlikely to get any takers when everyone can go down the road to a cafe, buy tea, and get free internet.</p><p>
2.  For a hostel, "free wi-fi" is a strong advertisement, that attracts customers to pay for lodging.  For an expensive hotel, it is much weaker.</p><p>
I agree that the cost to the establishment of setting up an infrastructure for payment is expensive and factors into the overall picture, but I think the willingness of customers to pay is driving this more than anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You leave a couple things out of your analysis that might be important .
1. You can only charge what the market will bear .
People who go to expensive hotels will pay for internet .
People who go to hostels are much less likely to be willing to pay , so if you offer it for pay , you 're unlikely to get any takers when everyone can go down the road to a cafe , buy tea , and get free internet .
2. For a hostel , " free wi-fi " is a strong advertisement , that attracts customers to pay for lodging .
For an expensive hotel , it is much weaker .
I agree that the cost to the establishment of setting up an infrastructure for payment is expensive and factors into the overall picture , but I think the willingness of customers to pay is driving this more than anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You leave a couple things out of your analysis that might be important.
1.  You can only charge what the market will bear.
People who go to expensive hotels will pay for internet.
People who go to hostels are much less likely to be willing to pay, so if you offer it for pay, you're unlikely to get any takers when everyone can go down the road to a cafe, buy tea, and get free internet.
2.  For a hostel, "free wi-fi" is a strong advertisement, that attracts customers to pay for lodging.
For an expensive hotel, it is much weaker.
I agree that the cost to the establishment of setting up an infrastructure for payment is expensive and factors into the overall picture, but I think the willingness of customers to pay is driving this more than anything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695072</id>
	<title>WeFi...</title>
	<author>EricX2</author>
	<datestamp>1262968680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I the only person who questions whether or not WeFi actually has data for all Wireless Access Points? I'm  not sure where they get their data from, but if nobody in my area has scanned with their software do they show up in their system? Does their system take in account non broadcasting ap's? What about ad-hoc? Where I work I see laptops all the time set to broadcast as an ad-hoc connection... often named 'Free Public Wifi' or 'Free Internet Access' or 'HPsetup'. In the office I work in there is a coffee shop on the first floor and I literally see 15+ laptops generate alerts for being open AP's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only person who questions whether or not WeFi actually has data for all Wireless Access Points ?
I 'm not sure where they get their data from , but if nobody in my area has scanned with their software do they show up in their system ?
Does their system take in account non broadcasting ap 's ?
What about ad-hoc ?
Where I work I see laptops all the time set to broadcast as an ad-hoc connection... often named 'Free Public Wifi ' or 'Free Internet Access ' or 'HPsetup' .
In the office I work in there is a coffee shop on the first floor and I literally see 15 + laptops generate alerts for being open AP 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only person who questions whether or not WeFi actually has data for all Wireless Access Points?
I'm  not sure where they get their data from, but if nobody in my area has scanned with their software do they show up in their system?
Does their system take in account non broadcasting ap's?
What about ad-hoc?
Where I work I see laptops all the time set to broadcast as an ad-hoc connection... often named 'Free Public Wifi' or 'Free Internet Access' or 'HPsetup'.
In the office I work in there is a coffee shop on the first floor and I literally see 15+ laptops generate alerts for being open AP's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695510</id>
	<title>Shit runs downhill</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1262970240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is stupid if you think about it.</p><p>If that model makes sense, then ultimately the ISP is liable for whatever you access, or let other people access. If the ISP isn't the actual communication company, then it would figure that the phone/cable/sat company that gave access to the ISP, who gave access to you, who gave access to anybody, is also liable.</p><p>Personally I think it makes a better defense than anything else, as how can they prove it was you, when it could have been anyone that accessed your network?</p><p>To use a car analogy (because I can!), if I leave the keys to my car in the ignition and it is sitting on my driveway, and some idiot decides to take it for a joy ride while I am at work, and runs over someone, does that make ME liable/responsible for that death? No it doesn't not in any court in the world, which is why someone should challenge this silliness. That is to say, I didn't give someone permission to take my car, they just did, and it wasn't me running people down, that was, you know, a criminal...</p><p>I did not give you permission to use my network, I simply do not have it secure. The only analogy I can think of that makes sense in this was is if you treat the internet like a Gun. If I don't secure my gun, which I am LEGALLY OBLIGATED to (like in there is a LAW that says I actually have to, specifically), and someone gets that gun and kills someone, then yes, likely some liability and responsibility is there. However there is nothing like this for networks. There might be a EULA, that says something, but no one reads those, most wouldn't really hold up in court anyway, and they are not law in any sense of the word.</p><p>Anyway this interpretation that you are totally responsible for anything that happens on your private network ticks me off. Not to mention as previously pointed out, anyone with an ounce of knowlege can get around the usual methods to "secure" your network in about 2min if someone really wanted to (which mostly no one does). The whole situation is silly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is stupid if you think about it.If that model makes sense , then ultimately the ISP is liable for whatever you access , or let other people access .
If the ISP is n't the actual communication company , then it would figure that the phone/cable/sat company that gave access to the ISP , who gave access to you , who gave access to anybody , is also liable.Personally I think it makes a better defense than anything else , as how can they prove it was you , when it could have been anyone that accessed your network ? To use a car analogy ( because I can !
) , if I leave the keys to my car in the ignition and it is sitting on my driveway , and some idiot decides to take it for a joy ride while I am at work , and runs over someone , does that make ME liable/responsible for that death ?
No it does n't not in any court in the world , which is why someone should challenge this silliness .
That is to say , I did n't give someone permission to take my car , they just did , and it was n't me running people down , that was , you know , a criminal...I did not give you permission to use my network , I simply do not have it secure .
The only analogy I can think of that makes sense in this was is if you treat the internet like a Gun .
If I do n't secure my gun , which I am LEGALLY OBLIGATED to ( like in there is a LAW that says I actually have to , specifically ) , and someone gets that gun and kills someone , then yes , likely some liability and responsibility is there .
However there is nothing like this for networks .
There might be a EULA , that says something , but no one reads those , most would n't really hold up in court anyway , and they are not law in any sense of the word.Anyway this interpretation that you are totally responsible for anything that happens on your private network ticks me off .
Not to mention as previously pointed out , anyone with an ounce of knowlege can get around the usual methods to " secure " your network in about 2min if someone really wanted to ( which mostly no one does ) .
The whole situation is silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is stupid if you think about it.If that model makes sense, then ultimately the ISP is liable for whatever you access, or let other people access.
If the ISP isn't the actual communication company, then it would figure that the phone/cable/sat company that gave access to the ISP, who gave access to you, who gave access to anybody, is also liable.Personally I think it makes a better defense than anything else, as how can they prove it was you, when it could have been anyone that accessed your network?To use a car analogy (because I can!
), if I leave the keys to my car in the ignition and it is sitting on my driveway, and some idiot decides to take it for a joy ride while I am at work, and runs over someone, does that make ME liable/responsible for that death?
No it doesn't not in any court in the world, which is why someone should challenge this silliness.
That is to say, I didn't give someone permission to take my car, they just did, and it wasn't me running people down, that was, you know, a criminal...I did not give you permission to use my network, I simply do not have it secure.
The only analogy I can think of that makes sense in this was is if you treat the internet like a Gun.
If I don't secure my gun, which I am LEGALLY OBLIGATED to (like in there is a LAW that says I actually have to, specifically), and someone gets that gun and kills someone, then yes, likely some liability and responsibility is there.
However there is nothing like this for networks.
There might be a EULA, that says something, but no one reads those, most wouldn't really hold up in court anyway, and they are not law in any sense of the word.Anyway this interpretation that you are totally responsible for anything that happens on your private network ticks me off.
Not to mention as previously pointed out, anyone with an ounce of knowlege can get around the usual methods to "secure" your network in about 2min if someone really wanted to (which mostly no one does).
The whole situation is silly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695628</id>
	<title>Re:No wonder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262970660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We aren't all inbred hicks like our former president would lead you to believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are n't all inbred hicks like our former president would lead you to believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We aren't all inbred hicks like our former president would lead you to believe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695016</id>
	<title>Re:Intensive and extensive properties</title>
	<author>pnewhook</author>
	<datestamp>1262968500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For all intensive purposes [sic], only percentage matters.</p></div><p>I think you meant 'for all intents and purposes'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For all intensive purposes [ sic ] , only percentage matters.I think you meant 'for all intents and purposes' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all intensive purposes [sic], only percentage matters.I think you meant 'for all intents and purposes'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694814</id>
	<title>Re:No wonder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262967780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. Laws here are very undemocratic. Can't have open anonymous Internet access. That's not compatible with our government's fear of free speech. Lobbyism of the music industry and sheer incompetence of our judges top it off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Laws here are very undemocratic .
Ca n't have open anonymous Internet access .
That 's not compatible with our government 's fear of free speech .
Lobbyism of the music industry and sheer incompetence of our judges top it off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Laws here are very undemocratic.
Can't have open anonymous Internet access.
That's not compatible with our government's fear of free speech.
Lobbyism of the music industry and sheer incompetence of our judges top it off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30697976</id>
	<title>Re:I'm doing my part!</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1262979840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>First of all, it doesn't cost anything to share a bit of WiFi</p></div></blockquote><p>I have an unlimited account and am one of the few in my country (Belgium). The majority has something like 25GB or less and will need to pay extra.</p><p>There are months that I have 500GB of traffic. At 1EUR per GB that will cost you some 475EUR. OK, most moths I have something around 200GB. Still a lot of money you are willing to pay for me.<br>Now if you would have unlimited as well, I most likely would sometimes will cause a slowdown of your network.</p><p>Sure, you can then start limiting how much I could use.</p><p>And that neighbor you are willing to help? I had that happen as well. Guy came up to me and asked me if he could get access. No problems there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , it does n't cost anything to share a bit of WiFiI have an unlimited account and am one of the few in my country ( Belgium ) .
The majority has something like 25GB or less and will need to pay extra.There are months that I have 500GB of traffic .
At 1EUR per GB that will cost you some 475EUR .
OK , most moths I have something around 200GB .
Still a lot of money you are willing to pay for me.Now if you would have unlimited as well , I most likely would sometimes will cause a slowdown of your network.Sure , you can then start limiting how much I could use.And that neighbor you are willing to help ?
I had that happen as well .
Guy came up to me and asked me if he could get access .
No problems there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, it doesn't cost anything to share a bit of WiFiI have an unlimited account and am one of the few in my country (Belgium).
The majority has something like 25GB or less and will need to pay extra.There are months that I have 500GB of traffic.
At 1EUR per GB that will cost you some 475EUR.
OK, most moths I have something around 200GB.
Still a lot of money you are willing to pay for me.Now if you would have unlimited as well, I most likely would sometimes will cause a slowdown of your network.Sure, you can then start limiting how much I could use.And that neighbor you are willing to help?
I had that happen as well.
Guy came up to me and asked me if he could get access.
No problems there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696322</id>
	<title>Re:USA! USA! USA!</title>
	<author>SebaSOFT</author>
	<datestamp>1262973180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[sarcasm]<br>Yeah yeah who has it longer? uh? Eat that Europe<br>[/sarcasm]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ sarcasm ] Yeah yeah who has it longer ?
uh ? Eat that Europe [ /sarcasm ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[sarcasm]Yeah yeah who has it longer?
uh? Eat that Europe[/sarcasm]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695604</id>
	<title>Yes, it is a bad thing. On several levels.</title>
	<author>fyngyrz</author>
	<datestamp>1262970600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>
Good! The Internet was founded on free and open access.
</i></p></div>
</blockquote><p>
The problem with "free and open access", at least here in the USA, is you can be accused of being responsible if someone downloads something unsavory (in the legal sense) over your connection. Even if you win in court, the costs (time, money, reputation, loss of computing equipment, loss of ability to use the Internet, etc) of defending such an accusation are enormous; that's why I no longer leave a connection open for the public. "Free and open" is no longer something I associate with US law. We're far down the road of repression and censorship, sad to say.
</p><p>
Worse, the situation is continually degrading, and the consequences of something that is minor now could become considerably worse in the future. Congress and the states have shown absolutely no reluctance to enact and enforce ex post facto laws, which are (among other things) laws that make consequences worse after the fact.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good !
The Internet was founded on free and open access .
The problem with " free and open access " , at least here in the USA , is you can be accused of being responsible if someone downloads something unsavory ( in the legal sense ) over your connection .
Even if you win in court , the costs ( time , money , reputation , loss of computing equipment , loss of ability to use the Internet , etc ) of defending such an accusation are enormous ; that 's why I no longer leave a connection open for the public .
" Free and open " is no longer something I associate with US law .
We 're far down the road of repression and censorship , sad to say .
Worse , the situation is continually degrading , and the consequences of something that is minor now could become considerably worse in the future .
Congress and the states have shown absolutely no reluctance to enact and enforce ex post facto laws , which are ( among other things ) laws that make consequences worse after the fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
Good!
The Internet was founded on free and open access.
The problem with "free and open access", at least here in the USA, is you can be accused of being responsible if someone downloads something unsavory (in the legal sense) over your connection.
Even if you win in court, the costs (time, money, reputation, loss of computing equipment, loss of ability to use the Internet, etc) of defending such an accusation are enormous; that's why I no longer leave a connection open for the public.
"Free and open" is no longer something I associate with US law.
We're far down the road of repression and censorship, sad to say.
Worse, the situation is continually degrading, and the consequences of something that is minor now could become considerably worse in the future.
Congress and the states have shown absolutely no reluctance to enact and enforce ex post facto laws, which are (among other things) laws that make consequences worse after the fact.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696172</id>
	<title>Linksys</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1262972580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just plug a linksysy router into the power but no network to act as honeypot to keep people away from my network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just plug a linksysy router into the power but no network to act as honeypot to keep people away from my network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just plug a linksysy router into the power but no network to act as honeypot to keep people away from my network.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695150</id>
	<title>Stop with the OMG NOT SECURE WIFI crap, please.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262969040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must rant<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>I'm rather sick of hearing 'OMG NOT ENCRYPTED' or 'OMG USES WEP INSTEAD OF WPA' when talking about WiFi.</p><p>If you're talking about it while using a wifi hotspot, then you're just a fucking moron without even the slightest clue.</p><p>No one gives a fuck about your data.  They aren't sitting at an airport trying to gather sensitive information.  You know why? BECAUSE ANYONE WHO HAS SENSITIVE INFORMATION IS USING ENCRYPTION FOR ALL THEIR CONNECTIONS NOT JUST WIFI.  It doesn't freaking matter if the wifi is sent in the clear, their actual session to their file server, mail server or web server is going to be encrypted via SSL or over a VPN.</p><p>Any half way competent admin treats wifi as an external network, regardless of encryption used on it, even their own internal wifi networks.</p><p>So fucking WHAT if your Starbucks wifi is clear text?  You're upset because you're sending it over the air without encryption, but you're fine with the fact that it travels all over the Internet with no encryption?  You're afraid someone at the airport may snoop you via wifi, but you don't care if they snoop you via the lan the wifi connects to?  You somehow think that because it requires a password, that all the other people that have the password somehow can't see what your sending?</p><p>If its public, you're retarded for encrypting it or worrying about the encryption.  Everything you're going to do that needs security has a different, BETTER way of handling security and encryption than ANYTHING wifi has to offer.</p><p>You don't need to 'share' wifi and use 'wpa or wpa2' at the same time, just fucking make it clear text and stop acting like its 'super secure' when its not.  If anyone can buy in or someone easily get your wifi key than your encryption is 100\% pointless.  Wifi passwords are only useful as a limited effectiveness way of preventing people from using your bandwidth, thats it, nothing more.</p><p>Anyone who thinks they are 'secure' because of wifi encryption is just ignorant.  Theres no reason for a hotspot to be encrypted, its there to be shared.</p><p>And for fucking reference, a hotspot is a place that allows random people to connect.  Your WAP at home isn't a freaking hotspot, its just a wireless router.   You don't have a hotspot in your home, Starbucks has one, McDonalds has one, the Airport has one.  You have a WAP.</p><p>So you know why there are a lot of unencrypted hotspots?  BECAUSE ITS RETARDED TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY, the only reason it gets done other ways is shear ignorance and paranoia because of other twits on the Internet that scream OMG ENCRYPTION ENCRYPTION ENCRYPTION!@$!@\%$!@\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must rant ...I 'm rather sick of hearing 'OMG NOT ENCRYPTED ' or 'OMG USES WEP INSTEAD OF WPA ' when talking about WiFi.If you 're talking about it while using a wifi hotspot , then you 're just a fucking moron without even the slightest clue.No one gives a fuck about your data .
They are n't sitting at an airport trying to gather sensitive information .
You know why ?
BECAUSE ANYONE WHO HAS SENSITIVE INFORMATION IS USING ENCRYPTION FOR ALL THEIR CONNECTIONS NOT JUST WIFI .
It does n't freaking matter if the wifi is sent in the clear , their actual session to their file server , mail server or web server is going to be encrypted via SSL or over a VPN.Any half way competent admin treats wifi as an external network , regardless of encryption used on it , even their own internal wifi networks.So fucking WHAT if your Starbucks wifi is clear text ?
You 're upset because you 're sending it over the air without encryption , but you 're fine with the fact that it travels all over the Internet with no encryption ?
You 're afraid someone at the airport may snoop you via wifi , but you do n't care if they snoop you via the lan the wifi connects to ?
You somehow think that because it requires a password , that all the other people that have the password somehow ca n't see what your sending ? If its public , you 're retarded for encrypting it or worrying about the encryption .
Everything you 're going to do that needs security has a different , BETTER way of handling security and encryption than ANYTHING wifi has to offer.You do n't need to 'share ' wifi and use 'wpa or wpa2 ' at the same time , just fucking make it clear text and stop acting like its 'super secure ' when its not .
If anyone can buy in or someone easily get your wifi key than your encryption is 100 \ % pointless .
Wifi passwords are only useful as a limited effectiveness way of preventing people from using your bandwidth , thats it , nothing more.Anyone who thinks they are 'secure ' because of wifi encryption is just ignorant .
Theres no reason for a hotspot to be encrypted , its there to be shared.And for fucking reference , a hotspot is a place that allows random people to connect .
Your WAP at home is n't a freaking hotspot , its just a wireless router .
You do n't have a hotspot in your home , Starbucks has one , McDonalds has one , the Airport has one .
You have a WAP.So you know why there are a lot of unencrypted hotspots ?
BECAUSE ITS RETARDED TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY , the only reason it gets done other ways is shear ignorance and paranoia because of other twits on the Internet that scream OMG ENCRYPTION ENCRYPTION ENCRYPTION ! @ $ ! @ \ % $ !
@ \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must rant ...I'm rather sick of hearing 'OMG NOT ENCRYPTED' or 'OMG USES WEP INSTEAD OF WPA' when talking about WiFi.If you're talking about it while using a wifi hotspot, then you're just a fucking moron without even the slightest clue.No one gives a fuck about your data.
They aren't sitting at an airport trying to gather sensitive information.
You know why?
BECAUSE ANYONE WHO HAS SENSITIVE INFORMATION IS USING ENCRYPTION FOR ALL THEIR CONNECTIONS NOT JUST WIFI.
It doesn't freaking matter if the wifi is sent in the clear, their actual session to their file server, mail server or web server is going to be encrypted via SSL or over a VPN.Any half way competent admin treats wifi as an external network, regardless of encryption used on it, even their own internal wifi networks.So fucking WHAT if your Starbucks wifi is clear text?
You're upset because you're sending it over the air without encryption, but you're fine with the fact that it travels all over the Internet with no encryption?
You're afraid someone at the airport may snoop you via wifi, but you don't care if they snoop you via the lan the wifi connects to?
You somehow think that because it requires a password, that all the other people that have the password somehow can't see what your sending?If its public, you're retarded for encrypting it or worrying about the encryption.
Everything you're going to do that needs security has a different, BETTER way of handling security and encryption than ANYTHING wifi has to offer.You don't need to 'share' wifi and use 'wpa or wpa2' at the same time, just fucking make it clear text and stop acting like its 'super secure' when its not.
If anyone can buy in or someone easily get your wifi key than your encryption is 100\% pointless.
Wifi passwords are only useful as a limited effectiveness way of preventing people from using your bandwidth, thats it, nothing more.Anyone who thinks they are 'secure' because of wifi encryption is just ignorant.
Theres no reason for a hotspot to be encrypted, its there to be shared.And for fucking reference, a hotspot is a place that allows random people to connect.
Your WAP at home isn't a freaking hotspot, its just a wireless router.
You don't have a hotspot in your home, Starbucks has one, McDonalds has one, the Airport has one.
You have a WAP.So you know why there are a lot of unencrypted hotspots?
BECAUSE ITS RETARDED TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY, the only reason it gets done other ways is shear ignorance and paranoia because of other twits on the Internet that scream OMG ENCRYPTION ENCRYPTION ENCRYPTION!@$!@\%$!
@\%.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694142</id>
	<title>Are there really more open hotspots?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262965200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or does the USA just have a higher percentage?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or does the USA just have a higher percentage ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or does the USA just have a higher percentage?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694132</id>
	<title>No wonder</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1262965140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because, at least in Germany, you are then liable for everything that is transfered over that hotspot. If someone downloads CP or warez you are fucked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because , at least in Germany , you are then liable for everything that is transfered over that hotspot .
If someone downloads CP or warez you are fucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because, at least in Germany, you are then liable for everything that is transfered over that hotspot.
If someone downloads CP or warez you are fucked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30697114</id>
	<title>Re:Relevance?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262976420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mine is longer than yours</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mine is longer than yours</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mine is longer than yours</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695212</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a bad thing.</title>
	<author>GIL\_Dude</author>
	<datestamp>1262969220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm glad you have neighbors you can trust vasgzr. I don't even have relatives I can always trust. At one point my wife's cousin's daughter (17) stayed with us for a few days. She brought her notebook. I gave her our WPA2 key and a lecture about "don't use my internet connection to do any copyright violation - no music or movies, etc.". Next morning I come downstairs to find her downloading a bunch of songs on Limewire. WPA2 key changed, no more privileges for her. I can't trust my neighbors (or their guests) either - they may download kiddie porn, warez, music, whatever <i>through MY IP address</i>. Having open WiFi would be very nice to do, but the hassle of possibly getting RIAA notes or even possibly police at my door (for the kiddie porn thing a neighbor's guest could do) is not even worth it. Until such time as ISP's are able to uniquely identify WHO did it and not just "well this guy owns the house where the service is terminated", the other folks in the area can get their own internet access.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad you have neighbors you can trust vasgzr .
I do n't even have relatives I can always trust .
At one point my wife 's cousin 's daughter ( 17 ) stayed with us for a few days .
She brought her notebook .
I gave her our WPA2 key and a lecture about " do n't use my internet connection to do any copyright violation - no music or movies , etc. " .
Next morning I come downstairs to find her downloading a bunch of songs on Limewire .
WPA2 key changed , no more privileges for her .
I ca n't trust my neighbors ( or their guests ) either - they may download kiddie porn , warez , music , whatever through MY IP address .
Having open WiFi would be very nice to do , but the hassle of possibly getting RIAA notes or even possibly police at my door ( for the kiddie porn thing a neighbor 's guest could do ) is not even worth it .
Until such time as ISP 's are able to uniquely identify WHO did it and not just " well this guy owns the house where the service is terminated " , the other folks in the area can get their own internet access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad you have neighbors you can trust vasgzr.
I don't even have relatives I can always trust.
At one point my wife's cousin's daughter (17) stayed with us for a few days.
She brought her notebook.
I gave her our WPA2 key and a lecture about "don't use my internet connection to do any copyright violation - no music or movies, etc.".
Next morning I come downstairs to find her downloading a bunch of songs on Limewire.
WPA2 key changed, no more privileges for her.
I can't trust my neighbors (or their guests) either - they may download kiddie porn, warez, music, whatever through MY IP address.
Having open WiFi would be very nice to do, but the hassle of possibly getting RIAA notes or even possibly police at my door (for the kiddie porn thing a neighbor's guest could do) is not even worth it.
Until such time as ISP's are able to uniquely identify WHO did it and not just "well this guy owns the house where the service is terminated", the other folks in the area can get their own internet access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695752</id>
	<title>Law of reverse service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262971080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>User from Denmark ( EU) here.</p><p>I admire the amout of (deliberately) open wifi hotspots in USA. A couple of friends traveled around the States last year and found free wifi services everywhere - except Las Vegas.</p><p>This seem to be an interesting phenomenon. At first it might seem reasonable: wherever you are expected to pay for services you are also expected to pay for Internet access.</p><p>However, this leads to some curious cases. I have experienced hotels in Denmark, England and Spain that charge for internet access. But on the other hand it is not uncommon for hostels (that are cheaper and where one would expect a lesser degree of service) to have free wifi.</p><p>The economic background is interesting. The cost of putting up a hotspot is pretty low, especially at simple hostels that probably already have internet access and wifi for the employees. But the expenses of putting up a payment solution and handling support is high.</p><p>This leads to an interesting paradox: It is the payment solution that might not be feasible at "cheap" places such as hostels; not the Internet connection by itself. The result is that since it is not worthwhile putting up a payment solution the Internet access is simply free!</p><p>In some places this leads to even more interesting results:</p><p>The suburban railway service in Copenhagen has free wifi on the the trains. These trips are usually short, hence the payment process might itself take too long to be convenient.</p><p>However the inter-city trains where travel times are usually about 1&#189;-4 hours there is a wifi payment solution. At first it might make sense but as it is charged per minute any delays underway would lead to a larger travel time and therefore a higher total cost.</p><p>Free Internet access could partially make up for a bad travel experience with delays (one would be able to still work online, pass time by casual surf, chat and so on or update successive travel arrangements). Instead passengers are simply  punished further economically when the travel is delayed underway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>User from Denmark ( EU ) here.I admire the amout of ( deliberately ) open wifi hotspots in USA .
A couple of friends traveled around the States last year and found free wifi services everywhere - except Las Vegas.This seem to be an interesting phenomenon .
At first it might seem reasonable : wherever you are expected to pay for services you are also expected to pay for Internet access.However , this leads to some curious cases .
I have experienced hotels in Denmark , England and Spain that charge for internet access .
But on the other hand it is not uncommon for hostels ( that are cheaper and where one would expect a lesser degree of service ) to have free wifi.The economic background is interesting .
The cost of putting up a hotspot is pretty low , especially at simple hostels that probably already have internet access and wifi for the employees .
But the expenses of putting up a payment solution and handling support is high.This leads to an interesting paradox : It is the payment solution that might not be feasible at " cheap " places such as hostels ; not the Internet connection by itself .
The result is that since it is not worthwhile putting up a payment solution the Internet access is simply free ! In some places this leads to even more interesting results : The suburban railway service in Copenhagen has free wifi on the the trains .
These trips are usually short , hence the payment process might itself take too long to be convenient.However the inter-city trains where travel times are usually about 1   -4 hours there is a wifi payment solution .
At first it might make sense but as it is charged per minute any delays underway would lead to a larger travel time and therefore a higher total cost.Free Internet access could partially make up for a bad travel experience with delays ( one would be able to still work online , pass time by casual surf , chat and so on or update successive travel arrangements ) .
Instead passengers are simply punished further economically when the travel is delayed underway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>User from Denmark ( EU) here.I admire the amout of (deliberately) open wifi hotspots in USA.
A couple of friends traveled around the States last year and found free wifi services everywhere - except Las Vegas.This seem to be an interesting phenomenon.
At first it might seem reasonable: wherever you are expected to pay for services you are also expected to pay for Internet access.However, this leads to some curious cases.
I have experienced hotels in Denmark, England and Spain that charge for internet access.
But on the other hand it is not uncommon for hostels (that are cheaper and where one would expect a lesser degree of service) to have free wifi.The economic background is interesting.
The cost of putting up a hotspot is pretty low, especially at simple hostels that probably already have internet access and wifi for the employees.
But the expenses of putting up a payment solution and handling support is high.This leads to an interesting paradox: It is the payment solution that might not be feasible at "cheap" places such as hostels; not the Internet connection by itself.
The result is that since it is not worthwhile putting up a payment solution the Internet access is simply free!In some places this leads to even more interesting results:The suburban railway service in Copenhagen has free wifi on the the trains.
These trips are usually short, hence the payment process might itself take too long to be convenient.However the inter-city trains where travel times are usually about 1½-4 hours there is a wifi payment solution.
At first it might make sense but as it is charged per minute any delays underway would lead to a larger travel time and therefore a higher total cost.Free Internet access could partially make up for a bad travel experience with delays (one would be able to still work online, pass time by casual surf, chat and so on or update successive travel arrangements).
Instead passengers are simply  punished further economically when the travel is delayed underway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695766</id>
	<title>It's more the culture, I think</title>
	<author>Xtravar</author>
	<datestamp>1262971140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was difficult finding public restrooms in Spain, much less free ketchup packets at fast-food restaurants.  So it makes sense that free WiFi is more available here as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was difficult finding public restrooms in Spain , much less free ketchup packets at fast-food restaurants .
So it makes sense that free WiFi is more available here as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was difficult finding public restrooms in Spain, much less free ketchup packets at fast-food restaurants.
So it makes sense that free WiFi is more available here as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696046</id>
	<title>Re:Insecure? Who says?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262972100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just wait until someone clicks an <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578\_3-9899151-38.html" title="cnet.com">FBI honeypot</a> [cnet.com] link and see how smart you are.</p><p><i>whom I like and trust not to download kiddie porn</i></p><p>Because pedophiles never lead otherwise normal lives.  They all have no friends and are immediately suspected by everyone. Right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wait until someone clicks an FBI honeypot [ cnet.com ] link and see how smart you are.whom I like and trust not to download kiddie pornBecause pedophiles never lead otherwise normal lives .
They all have no friends and are immediately suspected by everyone .
Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wait until someone clicks an FBI honeypot [cnet.com] link and see how smart you are.whom I like and trust not to download kiddie pornBecause pedophiles never lead otherwise normal lives.
They all have no friends and are immediately suspected by everyone.
Right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694732</id>
	<title>Population density</title>
	<author>evilandi</author>
	<datestamp>1262967540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>USA has a lower population density, so for many USAians, physical distance from any perceived threat may be sufficiently greater than the signal.</p><p>It's definitely that, and absolutely not that Americans don't read the manual or that Europeans think their neighbours are all crooks. Definitely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>USA has a lower population density , so for many USAians , physical distance from any perceived threat may be sufficiently greater than the signal.It 's definitely that , and absolutely not that Americans do n't read the manual or that Europeans think their neighbours are all crooks .
Definitely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>USA has a lower population density, so for many USAians, physical distance from any perceived threat may be sufficiently greater than the signal.It's definitely that, and absolutely not that Americans don't read the manual or that Europeans think their neighbours are all crooks.
Definitely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694622</id>
	<title>Re:Population density is a plausible cause.</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1262967120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"More people who may hop on your network and negatively impact your performance would likely cause you to learn to secure things."<br> <br>

I have yet to meet someone who locks down their wifi network because of concerns about performance.  All of the people I know were concerned about what people will use their connection to do, and of the possibility that they will be accused of having committed some crime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" More people who may hop on your network and negatively impact your performance would likely cause you to learn to secure things .
" I have yet to meet someone who locks down their wifi network because of concerns about performance .
All of the people I know were concerned about what people will use their connection to do , and of the possibility that they will be accused of having committed some crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"More people who may hop on your network and negatively impact your performance would likely cause you to learn to secure things.
" 

I have yet to meet someone who locks down their wifi network because of concerns about performance.
All of the people I know were concerned about what people will use their connection to do, and of the possibility that they will be accused of having committed some crime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30699998</id>
	<title>Re:Relevance?</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1262944980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously interesting enough for you to come down here and comment on it!</p><p>The interest to me is the implications that locking down wifi hotspots has towards a society. I find this interesting. If you don't read the next story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously interesting enough for you to come down here and comment on it ! The interest to me is the implications that locking down wifi hotspots has towards a society .
I find this interesting .
If you do n't read the next story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously interesting enough for you to come down here and comment on it!The interest to me is the implications that locking down wifi hotspots has towards a society.
I find this interesting.
If you don't read the next story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698416</id>
	<title>indeed</title>
	<author>Bender Unit 22</author>
	<datestamp>1262981760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I once before has mentioned, I was surprised to see open/free WiFi in every resturant,cafe etc. when I visited Chicago. I was able to phone home using Skype on my iPhone and save a lot of money(3$ pr minute).<br>Locally I can never find a open/free hotspot.<br>Also I found it amusing that the country that has such a terror scare, has so many businesses offering free WiFi without any registration. We have some stupid anti-terror laws that requires eveyone that offers WiFi to register every user and log what they are doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I once before has mentioned , I was surprised to see open/free WiFi in every resturant,cafe etc .
when I visited Chicago .
I was able to phone home using Skype on my iPhone and save a lot of money ( 3 $ pr minute ) .Locally I can never find a open/free hotspot.Also I found it amusing that the country that has such a terror scare , has so many businesses offering free WiFi without any registration .
We have some stupid anti-terror laws that requires eveyone that offers WiFi to register every user and log what they are doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I once before has mentioned, I was surprised to see open/free WiFi in every resturant,cafe etc.
when I visited Chicago.
I was able to phone home using Skype on my iPhone and save a lot of money(3$ pr minute).Locally I can never find a open/free hotspot.Also I found it amusing that the country that has such a terror scare, has so many businesses offering free WiFi without any registration.
We have some stupid anti-terror laws that requires eveyone that offers WiFi to register every user and log what they are doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694594</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a bad thing.</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1262967060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the first thing I thought too, but there are a majority of people that buy a router off the shelf, plug it in and just start using it.  (...I'm pointing at you Mom and Dad...)  I've secured it in the past, they forgot their password so my Mom went and bought another one.  Granted, they live 3 miles from the closest single traffic light town and anyone willing to drive up the driveway to get in range is willing to get a warning shot... but that's not the point.</p><p>Wifi is a convenience, and having to secure it, remember yet another password or key, and having to plug it in every time you reformat your Windows machine is a nuisance.  Most people don't even use all their broadband and would probably only complain if they started noticing a slowdown anyway.</p><p>Also, the story only graphs out the first 10 countries, but they point out the US numbers... searching for hits?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the first thing I thought too , but there are a majority of people that buy a router off the shelf , plug it in and just start using it .
( ...I 'm pointing at you Mom and Dad... ) I 've secured it in the past , they forgot their password so my Mom went and bought another one .
Granted , they live 3 miles from the closest single traffic light town and anyone willing to drive up the driveway to get in range is willing to get a warning shot... but that 's not the point.Wifi is a convenience , and having to secure it , remember yet another password or key , and having to plug it in every time you reformat your Windows machine is a nuisance .
Most people do n't even use all their broadband and would probably only complain if they started noticing a slowdown anyway.Also , the story only graphs out the first 10 countries , but they point out the US numbers... searching for hits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the first thing I thought too, but there are a majority of people that buy a router off the shelf, plug it in and just start using it.
(...I'm pointing at you Mom and Dad...)  I've secured it in the past, they forgot their password so my Mom went and bought another one.
Granted, they live 3 miles from the closest single traffic light town and anyone willing to drive up the driveway to get in range is willing to get a warning shot... but that's not the point.Wifi is a convenience, and having to secure it, remember yet another password or key, and having to plug it in every time you reformat your Windows machine is a nuisance.
Most people don't even use all their broadband and would probably only complain if they started noticing a slowdown anyway.Also, the story only graphs out the first 10 countries, but they point out the US numbers... searching for hits?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694284</id>
	<title>Re:Truly Open?</title>
	<author>inviolet</author>
	<datestamp>1262965680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I wonder if this accounts for networks locked down to MAC addresses. I've never encountered an "open" wifi that was truly open (in UK), despite a lot of them appearing to be open, I just wonder how thoroughly they checked.</p></div></blockquote><p>Interesting question.  I wonder how difficult it is to sniff the traffic, discover a permitted MAC address, and then simply spoof that MAC address in order to utilize the network.
</p><p>Even if the aforementioned was somehow impossible, I still would use WPA2 simply to prevent sniffing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this accounts for networks locked down to MAC addresses .
I 've never encountered an " open " wifi that was truly open ( in UK ) , despite a lot of them appearing to be open , I just wonder how thoroughly they checked.Interesting question .
I wonder how difficult it is to sniff the traffic , discover a permitted MAC address , and then simply spoof that MAC address in order to utilize the network .
Even if the aforementioned was somehow impossible , I still would use WPA2 simply to prevent sniffing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this accounts for networks locked down to MAC addresses.
I've never encountered an "open" wifi that was truly open (in UK), despite a lot of them appearing to be open, I just wonder how thoroughly they checked.Interesting question.
I wonder how difficult it is to sniff the traffic, discover a permitted MAC address, and then simply spoof that MAC address in order to utilize the network.
Even if the aforementioned was somehow impossible, I still would use WPA2 simply to prevent sniffing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30699482</id>
	<title>Re:Truly Open?</title>
	<author>j\_sp\_r</author>
	<datestamp>1262943000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think most are WEP encrypted but are not advertising that fact. (This is called open authentication and is fact more secure then shared key). For more information see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wired\_Equivalent\_Privacy" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wired\_Equivalent\_Privacy</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think most are WEP encrypted but are not advertising that fact .
( This is called open authentication and is fact more secure then shared key ) .
For more information see http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wired \ _Equivalent \ _Privacy [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think most are WEP encrypted but are not advertising that fact.
(This is called open authentication and is fact more secure then shared key).
For more information see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wired\_Equivalent\_Privacy [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695566</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a bad thing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262970480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great!!

When I travel, I want to be able to go into a coffee shop, get my espresso, and pay for my espresso without subsidizing your desire to sit down and use your laptop on the internet without having to hand out credit card information or any other sort of credentials.  I make a point of only frequenting coffee shops for their coffee, which I pay for.  The expectation of free internet access is about as arbitrary as expecting a free blowjob during my oilchange at Jiffylube.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great ! !
When I travel , I want to be able to go into a coffee shop , get my espresso , and pay for my espresso without subsidizing your desire to sit down and use your laptop on the internet without having to hand out credit card information or any other sort of credentials .
I make a point of only frequenting coffee shops for their coffee , which I pay for .
The expectation of free internet access is about as arbitrary as expecting a free blowjob during my oilchange at Jiffylube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great!!
When I travel, I want to be able to go into a coffee shop, get my espresso, and pay for my espresso without subsidizing your desire to sit down and use your laptop on the internet without having to hand out credit card information or any other sort of credentials.
I make a point of only frequenting coffee shops for their coffee, which I pay for.
The expectation of free internet access is about as arbitrary as expecting a free blowjob during my oilchange at Jiffylube.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30701180</id>
	<title>Where's Australia in here?</title>
	<author>YankDownUnder</author>
	<datestamp>1262950380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NO WHERE. Why? Beause the telco's in Australia want to keep us paying the most (more than nearly everyone else in the free world) and they want to keep control of the hardware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NO WHERE .
Why ? Beause the telco 's in Australia want to keep us paying the most ( more than nearly everyone else in the free world ) and they want to keep control of the hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NO WHERE.
Why? Beause the telco's in Australia want to keep us paying the most (more than nearly everyone else in the free world) and they want to keep control of the hardware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694862</id>
	<title>Re:How secure is secured?</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1262967960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of the old off the shelf Linksys routers shipped without even WEP enabled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of the old off the shelf Linksys routers shipped without even WEP enabled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of the old off the shelf Linksys routers shipped without even WEP enabled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694064</id>
	<title>How secure is secured?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262964780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the guys I work with used to be a "penetration tester" (paid/hired hacker<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) ) and still has an interest in the area. He showed us a map of his route to work after he drove in with an Eee with wifi and GPS attached. With a bit of representation help, Google maps and a bit of colour coding then there was a surprising amount of people using WEP. Technically that's secured, but realistically it is as good as open for anyone with about 2 minutes and the right app (saw it demoed on the same Eee).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the guys I work with used to be a " penetration tester " ( paid/hired hacker ; ) ) and still has an interest in the area .
He showed us a map of his route to work after he drove in with an Eee with wifi and GPS attached .
With a bit of representation help , Google maps and a bit of colour coding then there was a surprising amount of people using WEP .
Technically that 's secured , but realistically it is as good as open for anyone with about 2 minutes and the right app ( saw it demoed on the same Eee ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the guys I work with used to be a "penetration tester" (paid/hired hacker ;) ) and still has an interest in the area.
He showed us a map of his route to work after he drove in with an Eee with wifi and GPS attached.
With a bit of representation help, Google maps and a bit of colour coding then there was a surprising amount of people using WEP.
Technically that's secured, but realistically it is as good as open for anyone with about 2 minutes and the right app (saw it demoed on the same Eee).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694424</id>
	<title>Re:How secure is secured?</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1262966220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Realistically, it depends on traffic. I assure you a WEP network with long key and running a low transmission (for example instant messenger + RSS + WWW surfing, vs video streaming, torrents or online games) can take good many hours to break. Speaking from experience, two lunches, four beers and about 8 episodes of Cowboy BeBop before that nice mexican restaurant became Internet-enabled for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Realistically , it depends on traffic .
I assure you a WEP network with long key and running a low transmission ( for example instant messenger + RSS + WWW surfing , vs video streaming , torrents or online games ) can take good many hours to break .
Speaking from experience , two lunches , four beers and about 8 episodes of Cowboy BeBop before that nice mexican restaurant became Internet-enabled for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Realistically, it depends on traffic.
I assure you a WEP network with long key and running a low transmission (for example instant messenger + RSS + WWW surfing, vs video streaming, torrents or online games) can take good many hours to break.
Speaking from experience, two lunches, four beers and about 8 episodes of Cowboy BeBop before that nice mexican restaurant became Internet-enabled for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694350</id>
	<title>Default Settings</title>
	<author>Hrshgn</author>
	<datestamp>1262965920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This difference might be caused by different default settings. In France for example, all the WiFi routers provided by the ISP I've seen so far have WPA pre-activated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This difference might be caused by different default settings .
In France for example , all the WiFi routers provided by the ISP I 've seen so far have WPA pre-activated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This difference might be caused by different default settings.
In France for example, all the WiFi routers provided by the ISP I've seen so far have WPA pre-activated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694162</id>
	<title>Re:How secure is secured?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262965260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the guys I work with used to be a "penetration tester"</p></div><p>Boy, you set the ball on the tee, now it's time for someone to hit it out of the park!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the guys I work with used to be a " penetration tester " Boy , you set the ball on the tee , now it 's time for someone to hit it out of the park !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the guys I work with used to be a "penetration tester"Boy, you set the ball on the tee, now it's time for someone to hit it out of the park!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694490</id>
	<title>What is meant by unlocked?</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1262966520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some wireless hotspots do not use a WPA2 (or WEP, or whatever) password, but they do require a password to get past the access point's router and onto the Internet.   Does this survey classify those access points as secured or not secured?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some wireless hotspots do not use a WPA2 ( or WEP , or whatever ) password , but they do require a password to get past the access point 's router and onto the Internet .
Does this survey classify those access points as secured or not secured ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some wireless hotspots do not use a WPA2 (or WEP, or whatever) password, but they do require a password to get past the access point's router and onto the Internet.
Does this survey classify those access points as secured or not secured?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694806</id>
	<title>An alternative to completely open.</title>
	<author>Gribflex</author>
	<datestamp>1262967780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I moved to France last year and was pleasantly surprised at the ISPs attitudes towards sharing wifi.</p><p>My provider, Free.fr, by default enables guest access on my router. However, it's not completely open.<br>In order to access the connect, you must enter your account details (login and password), and then you are given access to a limited connection.<br>Should you not want to share your connection with other people, you can easily disable this feature; but doing so also disables your account from being able to access roaming wifi.</p><p>I really love that the community sharing feature is enabled by default.<br>As long as I'm willing to share my connection with other subscribers, then I get access to their bandwidth when I'm away from home. And, as one of the larger providers in the area, this means I have access from just about anywhere I go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I moved to France last year and was pleasantly surprised at the ISPs attitudes towards sharing wifi.My provider , Free.fr , by default enables guest access on my router .
However , it 's not completely open.In order to access the connect , you must enter your account details ( login and password ) , and then you are given access to a limited connection.Should you not want to share your connection with other people , you can easily disable this feature ; but doing so also disables your account from being able to access roaming wifi.I really love that the community sharing feature is enabled by default.As long as I 'm willing to share my connection with other subscribers , then I get access to their bandwidth when I 'm away from home .
And , as one of the larger providers in the area , this means I have access from just about anywhere I go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I moved to France last year and was pleasantly surprised at the ISPs attitudes towards sharing wifi.My provider, Free.fr, by default enables guest access on my router.
However, it's not completely open.In order to access the connect, you must enter your account details (login and password), and then you are given access to a limited connection.Should you not want to share your connection with other people, you can easily disable this feature; but doing so also disables your account from being able to access roaming wifi.I really love that the community sharing feature is enabled by default.As long as I'm willing to share my connection with other subscribers, then I get access to their bandwidth when I'm away from home.
And, as one of the larger providers in the area, this means I have access from just about anywhere I go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694468</id>
	<title>Re:No wonder</title>
	<author>bsane</author>
	<datestamp>1262966400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ROFL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ROFL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ROFL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694904</id>
	<title>Open APs always make me paranoid...</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1262968140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A while back, during my mundane but arguably misspent youth, I set up a "special" open AP.<br> <br>

Bog standard Linksys box, SSID "Linksys", no security(other than a decent password on the http admin panel). The WAN side of the router was connected to the internet; but went through a hub that was shared by a box silently running tcpdump and listening...<br> <br>

I never caught anything all that exciting, and eventually got bored and shut it down; but it wasn't a difficult exercise, nor are thoughtless and ever so vaguely malicious youngsters all that uncommon. Ever since, though, I always experience a twinge of doubt when I see an open AP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A while back , during my mundane but arguably misspent youth , I set up a " special " open AP .
Bog standard Linksys box , SSID " Linksys " , no security ( other than a decent password on the http admin panel ) .
The WAN side of the router was connected to the internet ; but went through a hub that was shared by a box silently running tcpdump and listening.. . I never caught anything all that exciting , and eventually got bored and shut it down ; but it was n't a difficult exercise , nor are thoughtless and ever so vaguely malicious youngsters all that uncommon .
Ever since , though , I always experience a twinge of doubt when I see an open AP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A while back, during my mundane but arguably misspent youth, I set up a "special" open AP.
Bog standard Linksys box, SSID "Linksys", no security(other than a decent password on the http admin panel).
The WAN side of the router was connected to the internet; but went through a hub that was shared by a box silently running tcpdump and listening... 

I never caught anything all that exciting, and eventually got bored and shut it down; but it wasn't a difficult exercise, nor are thoughtless and ever so vaguely malicious youngsters all that uncommon.
Ever since, though, I always experience a twinge of doubt when I see an open AP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694458</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a bad thing.</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1262966400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to see support for doing this <i>properly</i> be more common in consumer level hardware. There are a few commercially available stabs at it(fonera, possibly others) and it isn't rocket surgery to whip something together with OpenWRT and the contents of the average geek's junk collection; but it isn't something you'll just get off the shelf at best buy.<br> <br>

By "properly" I mean segregation between the internal LAN, on a secured wireless link, and the open guest wireless; along with QoS prioritization of all internet traffic from the internal LAN above all internet traffic from the open wireless. I have no problem with offering my unused bandwidth in a neighborly spirit; but I don't want my wireless traffic to be unencrypted, I don't want to deal with malicious agents on my LAN, and, when I go to use my bandwidth, I want to have priority over any guest users. This is not a hard problem, technologically; but it isn't something that Joe User could set up without it being largely out-of-box default.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see support for doing this properly be more common in consumer level hardware .
There are a few commercially available stabs at it ( fonera , possibly others ) and it is n't rocket surgery to whip something together with OpenWRT and the contents of the average geek 's junk collection ; but it is n't something you 'll just get off the shelf at best buy .
By " properly " I mean segregation between the internal LAN , on a secured wireless link , and the open guest wireless ; along with QoS prioritization of all internet traffic from the internal LAN above all internet traffic from the open wireless .
I have no problem with offering my unused bandwidth in a neighborly spirit ; but I do n't want my wireless traffic to be unencrypted , I do n't want to deal with malicious agents on my LAN , and , when I go to use my bandwidth , I want to have priority over any guest users .
This is not a hard problem , technologically ; but it is n't something that Joe User could set up without it being largely out-of-box default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see support for doing this properly be more common in consumer level hardware.
There are a few commercially available stabs at it(fonera, possibly others) and it isn't rocket surgery to whip something together with OpenWRT and the contents of the average geek's junk collection; but it isn't something you'll just get off the shelf at best buy.
By "properly" I mean segregation between the internal LAN, on a secured wireless link, and the open guest wireless; along with QoS prioritization of all internet traffic from the internal LAN above all internet traffic from the open wireless.
I have no problem with offering my unused bandwidth in a neighborly spirit; but I don't want my wireless traffic to be unencrypted, I don't want to deal with malicious agents on my LAN, and, when I go to use my bandwidth, I want to have priority over any guest users.
This is not a hard problem, technologically; but it isn't something that Joe User could set up without it being largely out-of-box default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694248</id>
	<title>Relevance?</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1262965620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US also has more McDonalds, too.  How is this even interesting?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US also has more McDonalds , too .
How is this even interesting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US also has more McDonalds, too.
How is this even interesting?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30699410</id>
	<title>Re:USA! USA! USA!</title>
	<author>mlheur</author>
	<datestamp>1262942700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the open access points I come across are proxied to some pay per MB or pay per minute credit card log in page.  Not so open but still connected to the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the open access points I come across are proxied to some pay per MB or pay per minute credit card log in page .
Not so open but still connected to the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the open access points I come across are proxied to some pay per MB or pay per minute credit card log in page.
Not so open but still connected to the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694588</id>
	<title>Re:USA! USA! USA!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262967060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, my neighbors have a router at home, and it's on all the time. The SSID is "linksys", but they never appeared to have an internet connection. This has happened in more than one neighborhood I lived in, here in the US. I get to access the router configuration, yet for a long time, the router has been sitting there doing nothing but contaminating the spectrum (I in fact moved them to another frequency, so I guess I did some frequency allocation in my neighborhood). <br> <br>
My point is, yes, there are several open access points... but yes, they are connecting to nowhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , my neighbors have a router at home , and it 's on all the time .
The SSID is " linksys " , but they never appeared to have an internet connection .
This has happened in more than one neighborhood I lived in , here in the US .
I get to access the router configuration , yet for a long time , the router has been sitting there doing nothing but contaminating the spectrum ( I in fact moved them to another frequency , so I guess I did some frequency allocation in my neighborhood ) .
My point is , yes , there are several open access points... but yes , they are connecting to nowhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, my neighbors have a router at home, and it's on all the time.
The SSID is "linksys", but they never appeared to have an internet connection.
This has happened in more than one neighborhood I lived in, here in the US.
I get to access the router configuration, yet for a long time, the router has been sitting there doing nothing but contaminating the spectrum (I in fact moved them to another frequency, so I guess I did some frequency allocation in my neighborhood).
My point is, yes, there are several open access points... but yes, they are connecting to nowhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694880</id>
	<title>The US has lower population density</title>
	<author>Tweezer</author>
	<datestamp>1262968020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many Europeans live in a much more urban setting then we do in the US.  I live in a suburb and therefore I don't bother securing my wireless.  If someone wants to use my bandwidth they'll have to be on my property to do it, because I don't get much range out of my house.  Why should I bother securing it?  It's much more conveniant to leave it open, especially when friends stop over or I'm working on someone's PC.  All of my banking etc is run over SSL so it's encrypted endpoint to endpoint anyway.  If I lived in a urban setting I would probably have to secure it though since many folks could leach if they wanted to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many Europeans live in a much more urban setting then we do in the US .
I live in a suburb and therefore I do n't bother securing my wireless .
If someone wants to use my bandwidth they 'll have to be on my property to do it , because I do n't get much range out of my house .
Why should I bother securing it ?
It 's much more conveniant to leave it open , especially when friends stop over or I 'm working on someone 's PC .
All of my banking etc is run over SSL so it 's encrypted endpoint to endpoint anyway .
If I lived in a urban setting I would probably have to secure it though since many folks could leach if they wanted to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many Europeans live in a much more urban setting then we do in the US.
I live in a suburb and therefore I don't bother securing my wireless.
If someone wants to use my bandwidth they'll have to be on my property to do it, because I don't get much range out of my house.
Why should I bother securing it?
It's much more conveniant to leave it open, especially when friends stop over or I'm working on someone's PC.
All of my banking etc is run over SSL so it's encrypted endpoint to endpoint anyway.
If I lived in a urban setting I would probably have to secure it though since many folks could leach if they wanted to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30697626</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a bad thing.</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1262978400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Good! The Internet was founded on free and open access.</p></div></blockquote><p>As long as you were a University or the military and payed a LOT of money to get that access.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good !
The Internet was founded on free and open access.As long as you were a University or the military and payed a LOT of money to get that access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good!
The Internet was founded on free and open access.As long as you were a University or the military and payed a LOT of money to get that access.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30699168</id>
	<title>Re:No wonder</title>
	<author>hweimer</author>
	<datestamp>1262941740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>because, at least in Germany, you are then liable for everything that is transfered over that hotspot.</p></div><p>Not if done properly. If you really run a deliberately open WiFi network you are legally a telecommunication provider and thus exempt from liability (as it should be the case in any EU member state). However, if you are caught filesharing and whine afterwards that maybe someone broke into your network, then probably not. So far, the courts have only decided on the latter cases.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>because , at least in Germany , you are then liable for everything that is transfered over that hotspot.Not if done properly .
If you really run a deliberately open WiFi network you are legally a telecommunication provider and thus exempt from liability ( as it should be the case in any EU member state ) .
However , if you are caught filesharing and whine afterwards that maybe someone broke into your network , then probably not .
So far , the courts have only decided on the latter cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because, at least in Germany, you are then liable for everything that is transfered over that hotspot.Not if done properly.
If you really run a deliberately open WiFi network you are legally a telecommunication provider and thus exempt from liability (as it should be the case in any EU member state).
However, if you are caught filesharing and whine afterwards that maybe someone broke into your network, then probably not.
So far, the courts have only decided on the latter cases.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694694</id>
	<title>The real reason is simple, and of course Financial</title>
	<author>netsavior</author>
	<datestamp>1262967420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the US you have unlimited bandwidth, choked to a certain speed, in the UK you pay for a certain amount of data transfer, and from what I understand can be charged for overages or cut off.<br>
So there you go, I have no financial incentive to close my wireless access point.  It is firewalled from my real network (I.E. my wired network containing all of my desktops, fileservers, and media boxes), is completely open... the SSID is FREEINTERNET.<br> <br> of course I live in a small neighborhood in the boonies, it would probably not be so easy to siphon bandwidth from me if I lived in apartments or a city.<br>
At one point in time I have a DNS camped EULA page that required you to agree to not engage in illegal activity on my connection before my DNS would work right (like hotels have) but my wife made me turn it off cause every time her netbook went in sleep mode she would have to re-click it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US you have unlimited bandwidth , choked to a certain speed , in the UK you pay for a certain amount of data transfer , and from what I understand can be charged for overages or cut off .
So there you go , I have no financial incentive to close my wireless access point .
It is firewalled from my real network ( I.E .
my wired network containing all of my desktops , fileservers , and media boxes ) , is completely open... the SSID is FREEINTERNET .
of course I live in a small neighborhood in the boonies , it would probably not be so easy to siphon bandwidth from me if I lived in apartments or a city .
At one point in time I have a DNS camped EULA page that required you to agree to not engage in illegal activity on my connection before my DNS would work right ( like hotels have ) but my wife made me turn it off cause every time her netbook went in sleep mode she would have to re-click it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US you have unlimited bandwidth, choked to a certain speed, in the UK you pay for a certain amount of data transfer, and from what I understand can be charged for overages or cut off.
So there you go, I have no financial incentive to close my wireless access point.
It is firewalled from my real network (I.E.
my wired network containing all of my desktops, fileservers, and media boxes), is completely open... the SSID is FREEINTERNET.
of course I live in a small neighborhood in the boonies, it would probably not be so easy to siphon bandwidth from me if I lived in apartments or a city.
At one point in time I have a DNS camped EULA page that required you to agree to not engage in illegal activity on my connection before my DNS would work right (like hotels have) but my wife made me turn it off cause every time her netbook went in sleep mode she would have to re-click it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694062</id>
	<title>Maths Lesson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262964780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"approximately 30\% of recorded Wi-Fi access points are unlocked, while some 70\% are locked" thanks for the maths lesson</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" approximately 30 \ % of recorded Wi-Fi access points are unlocked , while some 70 \ % are locked " thanks for the maths lesson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"approximately 30\% of recorded Wi-Fi access points are unlocked, while some 70\% are locked" thanks for the maths lesson</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696190</id>
	<title>Re:I'm doing my part!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262972640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You're worried about credit card fraud? Worry more about the 19-year-old you give your card to at a restaurant who disappears with it for a couple minutes."</p><p>Exactly.  I used to use separate cards for online and actual interactions.  If I ever used my online card in a real world interaction, I never turned over my card (like swiping the card at a Walmart).  On top of that, I don't have much of a life and don't go out much, so the number of charges on the real life card were maybe a handful a month compared to the card I used for online purchases.</p><p>The 3 times I've had my credit card number used, 1 I'm not sure where they got the number, the other 2 were for $10 and one for $200+, and both on different years in December, after I used the card around Thanksgiving when out of town friend's came in to visit and we ate at a particular restaurant both times just off a college campus and turned the card over.  Either somone's sniffing their network/phone line or there's some crap going on amongst the workers (different waiter both times).  Never been back to that place since.</p><p>I suspect the credit card company knows this with their datamining (plus I mentioned it the 2nd time when they sent me a new card) but I don't know if they do or can do anything about it when a particular establishment seems to be involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You 're worried about credit card fraud ?
Worry more about the 19-year-old you give your card to at a restaurant who disappears with it for a couple minutes. " Exactly .
I used to use separate cards for online and actual interactions .
If I ever used my online card in a real world interaction , I never turned over my card ( like swiping the card at a Walmart ) .
On top of that , I do n't have much of a life and do n't go out much , so the number of charges on the real life card were maybe a handful a month compared to the card I used for online purchases.The 3 times I 've had my credit card number used , 1 I 'm not sure where they got the number , the other 2 were for $ 10 and one for $ 200 + , and both on different years in December , after I used the card around Thanksgiving when out of town friend 's came in to visit and we ate at a particular restaurant both times just off a college campus and turned the card over .
Either somone 's sniffing their network/phone line or there 's some crap going on amongst the workers ( different waiter both times ) .
Never been back to that place since.I suspect the credit card company knows this with their datamining ( plus I mentioned it the 2nd time when they sent me a new card ) but I do n't know if they do or can do anything about it when a particular establishment seems to be involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You're worried about credit card fraud?
Worry more about the 19-year-old you give your card to at a restaurant who disappears with it for a couple minutes."Exactly.
I used to use separate cards for online and actual interactions.
If I ever used my online card in a real world interaction, I never turned over my card (like swiping the card at a Walmart).
On top of that, I don't have much of a life and don't go out much, so the number of charges on the real life card were maybe a handful a month compared to the card I used for online purchases.The 3 times I've had my credit card number used, 1 I'm not sure where they got the number, the other 2 were for $10 and one for $200+, and both on different years in December, after I used the card around Thanksgiving when out of town friend's came in to visit and we ate at a particular restaurant both times just off a college campus and turned the card over.
Either somone's sniffing their network/phone line or there's some crap going on amongst the workers (different waiter both times).
Never been back to that place since.I suspect the credit card company knows this with their datamining (plus I mentioned it the 2nd time when they sent me a new card) but I don't know if they do or can do anything about it when a particular establishment seems to be involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694780</id>
	<title>This is under reported</title>
	<author>kurt555gs</author>
	<datestamp>1262967720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With <a href="http://www.aircrack-ng.org/" title="aircrack-ng.org">http://www.aircrack-ng.org/</a> [aircrack-ng.org] you can have many more available WiFi hotspots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With http : //www.aircrack-ng.org/ [ aircrack-ng.org ] you can have many more available WiFi hotspots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With http://www.aircrack-ng.org/ [aircrack-ng.org] you can have many more available WiFi hotspots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695680</id>
	<title>Well yeah</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1262970840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the MOST unlocked hotspots?  SWEET.</p><p>The fact that most of them connected to the web at something around 48kbps, not so sweet.</p><p>We have the largest tin-can-and-string network IN THE WORLD, BITCHES.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the MOST unlocked hotspots ?
SWEET.The fact that most of them connected to the web at something around 48kbps , not so sweet.We have the largest tin-can-and-string network IN THE WORLD , BITCHES .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the MOST unlocked hotspots?
SWEET.The fact that most of them connected to the web at something around 48kbps, not so sweet.We have the largest tin-can-and-string network IN THE WORLD, BITCHES.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30802160</id>
	<title>Re:Stop with the OMG NOT SECURE WIFI crap, please.</title>
	<author>Gaffod</author>
	<datestamp>1263729480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the hotspots, as in the sense you mentioned, "secure" it so those darn freeloaders won't steal their bandwidth. This is pretty annoying. Yesterday I needed to check Google Maps, so I walked in a coffee shop and to my "delight" found they had a WEP password, which turned out to be their phone number, which the waiter told me when I asked. What the hell? Security my ass, it's like the argument for locking your front door: It won't start (hackers|thieves), but will give the message to people that what's (on the network|inside) is your property. They are quite clearly trying to stop people from using their internet without buying anything, which strikes me as very rude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the hotspots , as in the sense you mentioned , " secure " it so those darn freeloaders wo n't steal their bandwidth .
This is pretty annoying .
Yesterday I needed to check Google Maps , so I walked in a coffee shop and to my " delight " found they had a WEP password , which turned out to be their phone number , which the waiter told me when I asked .
What the hell ?
Security my ass , it 's like the argument for locking your front door : It wo n't start ( hackers | thieves ) , but will give the message to people that what 's ( on the network | inside ) is your property .
They are quite clearly trying to stop people from using their internet without buying anything , which strikes me as very rude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the hotspots, as in the sense you mentioned, "secure" it so those darn freeloaders won't steal their bandwidth.
This is pretty annoying.
Yesterday I needed to check Google Maps, so I walked in a coffee shop and to my "delight" found they had a WEP password, which turned out to be their phone number, which the waiter told me when I asked.
What the hell?
Security my ass, it's like the argument for locking your front door: It won't start (hackers|thieves), but will give the message to people that what's (on the network|inside) is your property.
They are quite clearly trying to stop people from using their internet without buying anything, which strikes me as very rude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695448</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a bad thing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262970000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm confused. Are we cheering for Europe because users understand how to use wireless security protocols or are we cheering the USA because they share their internet access? A wireless hotspot is an intentionally open wireless network for sharing internet access, so upon reading the headline I expected praise for the USA. Then the story makes a u-turn and praises EU users for their security consciousness?</p><p>Anyway, IMHO there should be more open wireless networks, so I'll weigh in with what I think is the main reason why Europe doesn't have more: Operating an open wireless LAN is a huge liability because you'll take the blame for everything your users do. There have been downright campaigns against open WiFi which even used the "what if someone downloads kiddie porn over your WLAN?" scare crow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm confused .
Are we cheering for Europe because users understand how to use wireless security protocols or are we cheering the USA because they share their internet access ?
A wireless hotspot is an intentionally open wireless network for sharing internet access , so upon reading the headline I expected praise for the USA .
Then the story makes a u-turn and praises EU users for their security consciousness ? Anyway , IMHO there should be more open wireless networks , so I 'll weigh in with what I think is the main reason why Europe does n't have more : Operating an open wireless LAN is a huge liability because you 'll take the blame for everything your users do .
There have been downright campaigns against open WiFi which even used the " what if someone downloads kiddie porn over your WLAN ?
" scare crow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm confused.
Are we cheering for Europe because users understand how to use wireless security protocols or are we cheering the USA because they share their internet access?
A wireless hotspot is an intentionally open wireless network for sharing internet access, so upon reading the headline I expected praise for the USA.
Then the story makes a u-turn and praises EU users for their security consciousness?Anyway, IMHO there should be more open wireless networks, so I'll weigh in with what I think is the main reason why Europe doesn't have more: Operating an open wireless LAN is a huge liability because you'll take the blame for everything your users do.
There have been downright campaigns against open WiFi which even used the "what if someone downloads kiddie porn over your WLAN?
" scare crow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695254</id>
	<title>Because ISPs in EU sell secured router/modems</title>
	<author>slashdotmsiriv</author>
	<datestamp>1262969400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is very simple really. ISPs in the densely populated EU quickly figured out that if they don't restrict internet<br>access to the paying customers, many other users from the nearby apartments/townhouses will free-ride.</p><p>So, they simply sell the model and the wireless router as one package, with  a passcode that is setup by the ISP<br>and printed on the back of the router.</p><p>It is not that European users or ISPs are more aware of security. It is because ISPs want to make sure people<br>do not free-ride on their services, and that the users do not have to set up themselves the security of their wireless router.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is very simple really .
ISPs in the densely populated EU quickly figured out that if they do n't restrict internetaccess to the paying customers , many other users from the nearby apartments/townhouses will free-ride.So , they simply sell the model and the wireless router as one package , with a passcode that is setup by the ISPand printed on the back of the router.It is not that European users or ISPs are more aware of security .
It is because ISPs want to make sure peopledo not free-ride on their services , and that the users do not have to set up themselves the security of their wireless router .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is very simple really.
ISPs in the densely populated EU quickly figured out that if they don't restrict internetaccess to the paying customers, many other users from the nearby apartments/townhouses will free-ride.So, they simply sell the model and the wireless router as one package, with  a passcode that is setup by the ISPand printed on the back of the router.It is not that European users or ISPs are more aware of security.
It is because ISPs want to make sure peopledo not free-ride on their services, and that the users do not have to set up themselves the security of their wireless router.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695090</id>
	<title>security?</title>
	<author>spikenerd</author>
	<datestamp>1262968800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously then</p></div><p>Why must you assume it's a "security" thing? Isn't it possible that some of us *want* to share our Internet access? This is the same attitude that people only use P2P for piracy. It's only mostly true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously thenWhy must you assume it 's a " security " thing ?
Is n't it possible that some of us * want * to share our Internet access ?
This is the same attitude that people only use P2P for piracy .
It 's only mostly true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously thenWhy must you assume it's a "security" thing?
Isn't it possible that some of us *want* to share our Internet access?
This is the same attitude that people only use P2P for piracy.
It's only mostly true.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694300</id>
	<title>Re:Are there really more open hotspots?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262965740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like I've always said that the USA has just as many clever people as the UK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like I 've always said that the USA has just as many clever people as the UK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like I've always said that the USA has just as many clever people as the UK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30697568</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a bad thing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262978280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When we moved in here, our next door neighbors were running unsecured.  We pointed it out, and they didn't seem to care.  So we asked them if we could connect and use their internet, and they said sure, no problem.  Since we're low-income, it works out great for us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When we moved in here , our next door neighbors were running unsecured .
We pointed it out , and they did n't seem to care .
So we asked them if we could connect and use their internet , and they said sure , no problem .
Since we 're low-income , it works out great for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When we moved in here, our next door neighbors were running unsecured.
We pointed it out, and they didn't seem to care.
So we asked them if we could connect and use their internet, and they said sure, no problem.
Since we're low-income, it works out great for us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694314</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a bad thing.</title>
	<author>onionman</author>
	<datestamp>1262965800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great!!</p><p>When I travel, I want to be able to go into a coffee shop, get my espresso, and sit down and use my laptop on the internet without having to hand out credit card information or any other sort of credentials.  I make a point of only frequenting businesses with open access points because I want to reward their community service.  I recommend that others do the same!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great !
! When I travel , I want to be able to go into a coffee shop , get my espresso , and sit down and use my laptop on the internet without having to hand out credit card information or any other sort of credentials .
I make a point of only frequenting businesses with open access points because I want to reward their community service .
I recommend that others do the same !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great!
!When I travel, I want to be able to go into a coffee shop, get my espresso, and sit down and use my laptop on the internet without having to hand out credit card information or any other sort of credentials.
I make a point of only frequenting businesses with open access points because I want to reward their community service.
I recommend that others do the same!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058</id>
	<title>This isn't a bad thing.</title>
	<author>vasqzr</author>
	<datestamp>1262964780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good! The Internet was founded on free and open access.</p><p>For the first year or two I was using a (very limited) free dial-up shell. Otherwise I would have never been able to get online. I live my access point open, I've had hundreds of users over the last few months.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good !
The Internet was founded on free and open access.For the first year or two I was using a ( very limited ) free dial-up shell .
Otherwise I would have never been able to get online .
I live my access point open , I 've had hundreds of users over the last few months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good!
The Internet was founded on free and open access.For the first year or two I was using a (very limited) free dial-up shell.
Otherwise I would have never been able to get online.
I live my access point open, I've had hundreds of users over the last few months.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695978</id>
	<title>It's not technical issue but legal</title>
	<author>xonen</author>
	<datestamp>1262971800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as i'm concerned, it's not a technical issue or even a matter of security. It's a legal issue.</p><p>If someone uses my internet connection and uses it to [insert random illegal action here], i'l be the one that is responsible for that. At least, that's how the current situation here in holland looks like, and i bet it accounts for some other countries as well. Untill that legal issue is solved, by some trial court or whatever, it's seems highly unadvisable to share your internet connection with strangers, unless of course you want to keep your router's log files for years, in case you have to prove your innocence.</p><p>I'd love to share the connection for bypassers or neighbours, but i won't. Cause it's a stupid thing to do, right now, unless you dont mind all kind of charges against you. Has nothing to do with technical limitations, just a bunch of lawmakers who claim whatever public IP address transmits is tracked down to my personal address and my person...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as i 'm concerned , it 's not a technical issue or even a matter of security .
It 's a legal issue.If someone uses my internet connection and uses it to [ insert random illegal action here ] , i'l be the one that is responsible for that .
At least , that 's how the current situation here in holland looks like , and i bet it accounts for some other countries as well .
Untill that legal issue is solved , by some trial court or whatever , it 's seems highly unadvisable to share your internet connection with strangers , unless of course you want to keep your router 's log files for years , in case you have to prove your innocence.I 'd love to share the connection for bypassers or neighbours , but i wo n't .
Cause it 's a stupid thing to do , right now , unless you dont mind all kind of charges against you .
Has nothing to do with technical limitations , just a bunch of lawmakers who claim whatever public IP address transmits is tracked down to my personal address and my person.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as i'm concerned, it's not a technical issue or even a matter of security.
It's a legal issue.If someone uses my internet connection and uses it to [insert random illegal action here], i'l be the one that is responsible for that.
At least, that's how the current situation here in holland looks like, and i bet it accounts for some other countries as well.
Untill that legal issue is solved, by some trial court or whatever, it's seems highly unadvisable to share your internet connection with strangers, unless of course you want to keep your router's log files for years, in case you have to prove your innocence.I'd love to share the connection for bypassers or neighbours, but i won't.
Cause it's a stupid thing to do, right now, unless you dont mind all kind of charges against you.
Has nothing to do with technical limitations, just a bunch of lawmakers who claim whatever public IP address transmits is tracked down to my personal address and my person...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30697484</id>
	<title>This article brought to you by linksys...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262977920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...America's #1 free nationwide wireless ISP!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...America 's # 1 free nationwide wireless ISP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...America's #1 free nationwide wireless ISP!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694070</id>
	<title>Truly Open?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262964780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if this accounts for networks locked down to MAC addresses. I've never encountered an "open" wifi that was truly open (in UK), despite a lot of them appearing to be open, I just wonder how thoroughly they checked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this accounts for networks locked down to MAC addresses .
I 've never encountered an " open " wifi that was truly open ( in UK ) , despite a lot of them appearing to be open , I just wonder how thoroughly they checked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this accounts for networks locked down to MAC addresses.
I've never encountered an "open" wifi that was truly open (in UK), despite a lot of them appearing to be open, I just wonder how thoroughly they checked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694348</id>
	<title>Insecure? Who says?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262965920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dumb people have open hotspots. Smart people have closed hotspots. Very smart people have open, secure hotspots. Since I'm egotistical and put myself in the final category, let me explain:</p><p>My WAP is wide open to anyone who wants to connect to browse the web, check their email, etc. It's an OpenWRT firewall that allows regular, NATted access to the Internet but nothing more than SSH and OpenVPN (with SSL certs) to the LAN. I live on a quiet cul-de-sac, so the only people connecting to it would be my neighbors (whom I like and trust not to download kiddie porn), visitors, or people sitting in my driveway when I'm not home (whom said neighbors would probably take pictures of - yeah, I'm serious).</p><p>So what' s the downside here? I'm doing something nice for neighbors and visitors without any security exposure. Now, maybe I'm a unique supergenius and every other WAP operator in the country is stupidly naive, but I don't think that's the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dumb people have open hotspots .
Smart people have closed hotspots .
Very smart people have open , secure hotspots .
Since I 'm egotistical and put myself in the final category , let me explain : My WAP is wide open to anyone who wants to connect to browse the web , check their email , etc .
It 's an OpenWRT firewall that allows regular , NATted access to the Internet but nothing more than SSH and OpenVPN ( with SSL certs ) to the LAN .
I live on a quiet cul-de-sac , so the only people connecting to it would be my neighbors ( whom I like and trust not to download kiddie porn ) , visitors , or people sitting in my driveway when I 'm not home ( whom said neighbors would probably take pictures of - yeah , I 'm serious ) .So what ' s the downside here ?
I 'm doing something nice for neighbors and visitors without any security exposure .
Now , maybe I 'm a unique supergenius and every other WAP operator in the country is stupidly naive , but I do n't think that 's the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dumb people have open hotspots.
Smart people have closed hotspots.
Very smart people have open, secure hotspots.
Since I'm egotistical and put myself in the final category, let me explain:My WAP is wide open to anyone who wants to connect to browse the web, check their email, etc.
It's an OpenWRT firewall that allows regular, NATted access to the Internet but nothing more than SSH and OpenVPN (with SSL certs) to the LAN.
I live on a quiet cul-de-sac, so the only people connecting to it would be my neighbors (whom I like and trust not to download kiddie porn), visitors, or people sitting in my driveway when I'm not home (whom said neighbors would probably take pictures of - yeah, I'm serious).So what' s the downside here?
I'm doing something nice for neighbors and visitors without any security exposure.
Now, maybe I'm a unique supergenius and every other WAP operator in the country is stupidly naive, but I don't think that's the case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696748</id>
	<title>Re:I'm Confused</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1262974920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Free the APs, secure the machines and processes</i></p><p>Why not do both?  I think the problem is a pervasive attitude among computer security professionals of all or nothing.</p><p>Which is worse - submitting form data over http, or over https with a self-signed certificate?  I'd argue the former is worse, although some elements of risk are the same between them.  If we just had three modes - unsecure, encrypted, and encrypted+ authenticated then we'd be much better off.</p><p>Ditto for WPA.  There is NO reason why something like WPA2 needs to have a shared secret.  Just use D-H to secure the session.  By all means ALLOW for authentication, but there is no reason to prevent encryption when you don't have authentication.</p><p>Sure, there are MITM attacks if you have no authentication, but that's OK - it is no worse than if you have no encryption at all, and you greatly reduce the number of possible attack vendors and increase the detectability of an attacker.  Which is higher-risk for an attacker - sitting a mile away with a passive parabolic antenna sniffing traffic, or actively performing a MITM (which can be detected and even triangulated with the appropriate gear)?</p><p>There is no reason we can't have security at multiple layers of the process.  Why should weatherbug or whatever need to implement SSL just because I don't want anybody with a sniffer to know what my future travel plans are based on my queries?</p><p>If you absolutely MUST have only two levels of protection (padlock and no padlock in the browser lingo), then define no-padlock as encrypted but unauthenticated, padlock as authenticated, and then either share the no-padlock for unencrypted traffic or just block it altogether.  There is almost no reason why IP packets shouldn't be encrypted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free the APs , secure the machines and processesWhy not do both ?
I think the problem is a pervasive attitude among computer security professionals of all or nothing.Which is worse - submitting form data over http , or over https with a self-signed certificate ?
I 'd argue the former is worse , although some elements of risk are the same between them .
If we just had three modes - unsecure , encrypted , and encrypted + authenticated then we 'd be much better off.Ditto for WPA .
There is NO reason why something like WPA2 needs to have a shared secret .
Just use D-H to secure the session .
By all means ALLOW for authentication , but there is no reason to prevent encryption when you do n't have authentication.Sure , there are MITM attacks if you have no authentication , but that 's OK - it is no worse than if you have no encryption at all , and you greatly reduce the number of possible attack vendors and increase the detectability of an attacker .
Which is higher-risk for an attacker - sitting a mile away with a passive parabolic antenna sniffing traffic , or actively performing a MITM ( which can be detected and even triangulated with the appropriate gear ) ? There is no reason we ca n't have security at multiple layers of the process .
Why should weatherbug or whatever need to implement SSL just because I do n't want anybody with a sniffer to know what my future travel plans are based on my queries ? If you absolutely MUST have only two levels of protection ( padlock and no padlock in the browser lingo ) , then define no-padlock as encrypted but unauthenticated , padlock as authenticated , and then either share the no-padlock for unencrypted traffic or just block it altogether .
There is almost no reason why IP packets should n't be encrypted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free the APs, secure the machines and processesWhy not do both?
I think the problem is a pervasive attitude among computer security professionals of all or nothing.Which is worse - submitting form data over http, or over https with a self-signed certificate?
I'd argue the former is worse, although some elements of risk are the same between them.
If we just had three modes - unsecure, encrypted, and encrypted+ authenticated then we'd be much better off.Ditto for WPA.
There is NO reason why something like WPA2 needs to have a shared secret.
Just use D-H to secure the session.
By all means ALLOW for authentication, but there is no reason to prevent encryption when you don't have authentication.Sure, there are MITM attacks if you have no authentication, but that's OK - it is no worse than if you have no encryption at all, and you greatly reduce the number of possible attack vendors and increase the detectability of an attacker.
Which is higher-risk for an attacker - sitting a mile away with a passive parabolic antenna sniffing traffic, or actively performing a MITM (which can be detected and even triangulated with the appropriate gear)?There is no reason we can't have security at multiple layers of the process.
Why should weatherbug or whatever need to implement SSL just because I don't want anybody with a sniffer to know what my future travel plans are based on my queries?If you absolutely MUST have only two levels of protection (padlock and no padlock in the browser lingo), then define no-padlock as encrypted but unauthenticated, padlock as authenticated, and then either share the no-padlock for unencrypted traffic or just block it altogether.
There is almost no reason why IP packets shouldn't be encrypted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30697638</id>
	<title>Tell Nintendo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262978460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... I hate having to choose between wifi DS and wpa2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I hate having to choose between wifi DS and wpa2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I hate having to choose between wifi DS and wpa2.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698800</id>
	<title>Confirms what I've found</title>
	<author>ktappe</author>
	<datestamp>1262983500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I traveled to France and Spain recently, I found lots of WiFi and nearly all of it was secured. I had a devil of a time finding an open spot where I could simply download my e-mail. I did eventually find spots, but it is not an exaggeration to say that perhaps 1 in 50 spots I found were open. I'm rather surprised this study thinks 30\% were open; no way it was that easy to find one where I visited.<p>(France: Champagne region &amp; the Montparnasse arrondissement of Paris.  Spain: Mallorca and Barcelona.  Of all these, Barcelona was the easiest to find open spots, but they were still a small \% of the hotspots my scanner saw.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I traveled to France and Spain recently , I found lots of WiFi and nearly all of it was secured .
I had a devil of a time finding an open spot where I could simply download my e-mail .
I did eventually find spots , but it is not an exaggeration to say that perhaps 1 in 50 spots I found were open .
I 'm rather surprised this study thinks 30 \ % were open ; no way it was that easy to find one where I visited .
( France : Champagne region &amp; the Montparnasse arrondissement of Paris .
Spain : Mallorca and Barcelona .
Of all these , Barcelona was the easiest to find open spots , but they were still a small \ % of the hotspots my scanner saw .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I traveled to France and Spain recently, I found lots of WiFi and nearly all of it was secured.
I had a devil of a time finding an open spot where I could simply download my e-mail.
I did eventually find spots, but it is not an exaggeration to say that perhaps 1 in 50 spots I found were open.
I'm rather surprised this study thinks 30\% were open; no way it was that easy to find one where I visited.
(France: Champagne region &amp; the Montparnasse arrondissement of Paris.
Spain: Mallorca and Barcelona.
Of all these, Barcelona was the easiest to find open spots, but they were still a small \% of the hotspots my scanner saw.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695086</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason is simple, and of course Financ</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1262968740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Europe is UK...since when?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Europe is UK...since when ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Europe is UK...since when?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694278</id>
	<title>Intensive and extensive properties</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1262965680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
For all intensive purposes [sic], only percentage matters.
</p><p>
Scientists distinguish <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive\_and\_extensive\_properties" title="wikipedia.org">"intensive" properties of a population</a> [wikipedia.org], which hold regardless of the size of the population, from "extensive" properties, which are proportional to the size of the population. For example, in physics, density is intensive while mass is extensive. Or in chemistry, concentration is intensive while molar amount is extensive. Intensive properties, such as <em>percentage</em> of open APs, are more important for some surveys than extensive properties, such as <em>raw number</em> of open APs. Otherwise, such as if you try to compare the United States to Ireland, you just get a nearly  meaningless result more or less equivalent to "market 1 has a higher population than market 2".
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For all intensive purposes [ sic ] , only percentage matters .
Scientists distinguish " intensive " properties of a population [ wikipedia.org ] , which hold regardless of the size of the population , from " extensive " properties , which are proportional to the size of the population .
For example , in physics , density is intensive while mass is extensive .
Or in chemistry , concentration is intensive while molar amount is extensive .
Intensive properties , such as percentage of open APs , are more important for some surveys than extensive properties , such as raw number of open APs .
Otherwise , such as if you try to compare the United States to Ireland , you just get a nearly meaningless result more or less equivalent to " market 1 has a higher population than market 2 " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
For all intensive purposes [sic], only percentage matters.
Scientists distinguish "intensive" properties of a population [wikipedia.org], which hold regardless of the size of the population, from "extensive" properties, which are proportional to the size of the population.
For example, in physics, density is intensive while mass is extensive.
Or in chemistry, concentration is intensive while molar amount is extensive.
Intensive properties, such as percentage of open APs, are more important for some surveys than extensive properties, such as raw number of open APs.
Otherwise, such as if you try to compare the United States to Ireland, you just get a nearly  meaningless result more or less equivalent to "market 1 has a higher population than market 2".
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696956</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason is simple, and of course Financ</title>
	<author>mewshi\_nya</author>
	<datestamp>1262975760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you please explain to me how you do that?  I've been considering it, but I am too lazy to google, and, since you're here...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you please explain to me how you do that ?
I 've been considering it , but I am too lazy to google , and , since you 're here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you please explain to me how you do that?
I've been considering it, but I am too lazy to google, and, since you're here...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698264</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a bad thing.</title>
	<author>mr\_lizard13</author>
	<datestamp>1262981100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Genuine question (don't know if a precedent has been set for this?)
<br>
If someone does something illegal while they are connected to your access point, are you liable?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Genuine question ( do n't know if a precedent has been set for this ?
) If someone does something illegal while they are connected to your access point , are you liable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Genuine question (don't know if a precedent has been set for this?
)

If someone does something illegal while they are connected to your access point, are you liable?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696096</id>
	<title>Re:USA! USA! USA!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262972220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Our penis is bigger than theirs'. ENVY OUR PENIS EU.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our penis is bigger than theirs' .
ENVY OUR PENIS EU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our penis is bigger than theirs'.
ENVY OUR PENIS EU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30697552</id>
	<title>Re:USA! USA! USA!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262978160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes but if EU member states like romania and bulgaria have 1 wifi hotspot each and they are both secure, that means 100\% of wifi hotspots in those countries are secure. If you think about it it doesn't make usa look bad anymore</p><p>this article is a biased numerical manipulation to make usa look bad. the fact is usa invented internet altogether, not eu. probably wifi too, but im too lazy too look.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes but if EU member states like romania and bulgaria have 1 wifi hotspot each and they are both secure , that means 100 \ % of wifi hotspots in those countries are secure .
If you think about it it does n't make usa look bad anymorethis article is a biased numerical manipulation to make usa look bad .
the fact is usa invented internet altogether , not eu .
probably wifi too , but im too lazy too look .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes but if EU member states like romania and bulgaria have 1 wifi hotspot each and they are both secure, that means 100\% of wifi hotspots in those countries are secure.
If you think about it it doesn't make usa look bad anymorethis article is a biased numerical manipulation to make usa look bad.
the fact is usa invented internet altogether, not eu.
probably wifi too, but im too lazy too look.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694914</id>
	<title>On purpose?</title>
	<author>smoyer</author>
	<datestamp>1262968140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I take security very seriously but have purposely left my wi-fi accessible to whoever would want to use it.  Instead of password protecting the wireless link, I made sure that the access point was secure and isolated from the rest of my network.  Want some free wi-fi?  Come and use mine for free!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I take security very seriously but have purposely left my wi-fi accessible to whoever would want to use it .
Instead of password protecting the wireless link , I made sure that the access point was secure and isolated from the rest of my network .
Want some free wi-fi ?
Come and use mine for free !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take security very seriously but have purposely left my wi-fi accessible to whoever would want to use it.
Instead of password protecting the wireless link, I made sure that the access point was secure and isolated from the rest of my network.
Want some free wi-fi?
Come and use mine for free!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30699858</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a bad thing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262944500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as the judicial system is concerned, Situation B is worse because you will have acted in negligence by not properly securing your network, thus setting the stage for an untraceable crime, and aiding and abetting criminal misuse of technology.</p><p>All it takes to ruin your life is the insinuation that you downloaded illegal pornography. Do you think your acquaintances would ever forget that charge, even when it's erroneous?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as the judicial system is concerned , Situation B is worse because you will have acted in negligence by not properly securing your network , thus setting the stage for an untraceable crime , and aiding and abetting criminal misuse of technology.All it takes to ruin your life is the insinuation that you downloaded illegal pornography .
Do you think your acquaintances would ever forget that charge , even when it 's erroneous ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as the judicial system is concerned, Situation B is worse because you will have acted in negligence by not properly securing your network, thus setting the stage for an untraceable crime, and aiding and abetting criminal misuse of technology.All it takes to ruin your life is the insinuation that you downloaded illegal pornography.
Do you think your acquaintances would ever forget that charge, even when it's erroneous?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698700</id>
	<title>Re:I'm doing my part!</title>
	<author>ktappe</author>
	<datestamp>1262983080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it doesn't cost anything to share a bit of WiFi. If someone happens to be driving by and needs it, they can park and use it. If a neighbor loses their connectivity for a day and wants to use mine, FINE, GO AHEAD--I won't even notice or care. Nor will my ISP.</p></div><p>I used to think that too, until one of my friends received a letter from Comcast informing him they knew he'd downloaded movies, and they provided him a list of which ones. That was the day I stopped sharing my WiFi. If I do something wrong, OK, bust me. But I don't need the MPAA taking me to court for movies my neighbor or a driveby downloaded.
</p><p>Also, I can only get DSL where I live (4 years waitlisted for FiOS), so I often have my line saturated. I don't need someone else delaying my downloads....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it does n't cost anything to share a bit of WiFi .
If someone happens to be driving by and needs it , they can park and use it .
If a neighbor loses their connectivity for a day and wants to use mine , FINE , GO AHEAD--I wo n't even notice or care .
Nor will my ISP.I used to think that too , until one of my friends received a letter from Comcast informing him they knew he 'd downloaded movies , and they provided him a list of which ones .
That was the day I stopped sharing my WiFi .
If I do something wrong , OK , bust me .
But I do n't need the MPAA taking me to court for movies my neighbor or a driveby downloaded .
Also , I can only get DSL where I live ( 4 years waitlisted for FiOS ) , so I often have my line saturated .
I do n't need someone else delaying my downloads... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it doesn't cost anything to share a bit of WiFi.
If someone happens to be driving by and needs it, they can park and use it.
If a neighbor loses their connectivity for a day and wants to use mine, FINE, GO AHEAD--I won't even notice or care.
Nor will my ISP.I used to think that too, until one of my friends received a letter from Comcast informing him they knew he'd downloaded movies, and they provided him a list of which ones.
That was the day I stopped sharing my WiFi.
If I do something wrong, OK, bust me.
But I don't need the MPAA taking me to court for movies my neighbor or a driveby downloaded.
Also, I can only get DSL where I live (4 years waitlisted for FiOS), so I often have my line saturated.
I don't need someone else delaying my downloads....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694366</id>
	<title>Re:Maths Lesson</title>
	<author>hoggoth</author>
	<datestamp>1262965980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember, mostly locked is a little bit unlocked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , mostly locked is a little bit unlocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember, mostly locked is a little bit unlocked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696712</id>
	<title>Re:I'm doing my part!</title>
	<author>D Ninja</author>
	<datestamp>1262974680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While all your statements are true, what do you do about someone downloading illegal material off your connection?  Sure, you *may* be let off the hook with the "open network" argument, but it's going to be very painful and expensive to get to that point.  In the meantime, your name and your family will be dragged through mud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While all your statements are true , what do you do about someone downloading illegal material off your connection ?
Sure , you * may * be let off the hook with the " open network " argument , but it 's going to be very painful and expensive to get to that point .
In the meantime , your name and your family will be dragged through mud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While all your statements are true, what do you do about someone downloading illegal material off your connection?
Sure, you *may* be let off the hook with the "open network" argument, but it's going to be very painful and expensive to get to that point.
In the meantime, your name and your family will be dragged through mud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695608</id>
	<title>Re:No wonder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262970600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>f-in germans........... not ur fault that someone wants to do illegal things on your "private" connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>f-in germans........... not ur fault that someone wants to do illegal things on your " private " connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>f-in germans........... not ur fault that someone wants to do illegal things on your "private" connection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30699138</id>
	<title>Re:Law of reverse service</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1262941560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have experienced hotels in Denmark, England and Spain that charge for internet access. But on the other hand it is not uncommon for hostels (that are cheaper and where one would expect a lesser degree of service) to have free wifi.</p></div>
</blockquote><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market\_segment#Price\_Discrimination" title="wikipedia.org">Market segmentation</a> [wikipedia.org] perhaps? People with more money stay in hotels, thus hotels know they can afford extra for WiFi. People in hostels probably don't have money to spare for WiFi, yet could benefit from it, and it's cheap to provide for free anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have experienced hotels in Denmark , England and Spain that charge for internet access .
But on the other hand it is not uncommon for hostels ( that are cheaper and where one would expect a lesser degree of service ) to have free wifi .
Market segmentation [ wikipedia.org ] perhaps ?
People with more money stay in hotels , thus hotels know they can afford extra for WiFi .
People in hostels probably do n't have money to spare for WiFi , yet could benefit from it , and it 's cheap to provide for free anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have experienced hotels in Denmark, England and Spain that charge for internet access.
But on the other hand it is not uncommon for hostels (that are cheaper and where one would expect a lesser degree of service) to have free wifi.
Market segmentation [wikipedia.org] perhaps?
People with more money stay in hotels, thus hotels know they can afford extra for WiFi.
People in hostels probably don't have money to spare for WiFi, yet could benefit from it, and it's cheap to provide for free anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696116</id>
	<title>Re:Are there really more open hotspots?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262972340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it just that percentages are bigger in the US, especially in Texas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it just that percentages are bigger in the US , especially in Texas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it just that percentages are bigger in the US, especially in Texas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695130</id>
	<title>Re:Population density is a plausible cause.</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1262968920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll give my stats: I live in a rural/suburban area.  There are two open networks in the area, mine and someone else's, and when I check logs I see one person getting on mine maybe once every two days.  My brother lives in an area that has apartments and condos close together.  He can see about 14 networks, none open, and every time he opens his up just to see what happens, roughly 5 people are using it at any given time.  Based on that, I think it's clearly density-related from my limited data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll give my stats : I live in a rural/suburban area .
There are two open networks in the area , mine and someone else 's , and when I check logs I see one person getting on mine maybe once every two days .
My brother lives in an area that has apartments and condos close together .
He can see about 14 networks , none open , and every time he opens his up just to see what happens , roughly 5 people are using it at any given time .
Based on that , I think it 's clearly density-related from my limited data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll give my stats: I live in a rural/suburban area.
There are two open networks in the area, mine and someone else's, and when I check logs I see one person getting on mine maybe once every two days.
My brother lives in an area that has apartments and condos close together.
He can see about 14 networks, none open, and every time he opens his up just to see what happens, roughly 5 people are using it at any given time.
Based on that, I think it's clearly density-related from my limited data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30701536</id>
	<title>Re:Truly Open?</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1262952120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I assign IPs within a certain range to known MAC addresses. Everyone else gets IPs in a different range, and I use packet shaping to give the latter the lowest priority. So people can use my wireless router if they like, but only extra bandwidth that I'm not using.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I assign IPs within a certain range to known MAC addresses .
Everyone else gets IPs in a different range , and I use packet shaping to give the latter the lowest priority .
So people can use my wireless router if they like , but only extra bandwidth that I 'm not using .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I assign IPs within a certain range to known MAC addresses.
Everyone else gets IPs in a different range, and I use packet shaping to give the latter the lowest priority.
So people can use my wireless router if they like, but only extra bandwidth that I'm not using.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694070</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30705082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30697626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30699998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30701536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30699482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30697114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30699168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30699138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30700706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30697568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30699858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30697552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30802160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30697976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30699410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1341225_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1341225.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30802160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1341225.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1341225.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30697976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1341225.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1341225.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1341225.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1341225.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30699138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30700706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1341225.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1341225.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30697552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30699410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1341225.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1341225.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30697114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30699998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1341225.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1341225.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1341225.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30699482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30705082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30701536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1341225.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30697568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30697626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30698456
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30699858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1341225.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1341225.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30699168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30695628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1341225.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1341225.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30694862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1341225.30696094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
