<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_11_1950206</id>
	<title>Airport Scanners Can Store and Transmit Images</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263212100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CNN is reporting on findings from a Freedom of Information request initiated by the Electronic Privacy Information Center that has revealed that, contrary to public statements by the Transportation Security Agency, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/">full-body scanners can store and transmit images</a>. <i>"In the [FOIA] documents, obtained by the privacy group and provided to CNN, the TSA specifies that the body scanners it purchases must have the ability to store and send images when in 'test mode.' ... 'There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode,' [an anonymous] official said, adding that test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities. But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CNN is reporting on findings from a Freedom of Information request initiated by the Electronic Privacy Information Center that has revealed that , contrary to public statements by the Transportation Security Agency , full-body scanners can store and transmit images .
" In the [ FOIA ] documents , obtained by the privacy group and provided to CNN , the TSA specifies that the body scanners it purchases must have the ability to store and send images when in 'test mode .
' ... 'There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode, ' [ an anonymous ] official said , adding that test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities .
But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware , software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNN is reporting on findings from a Freedom of Information request initiated by the Electronic Privacy Information Center that has revealed that, contrary to public statements by the Transportation Security Agency, full-body scanners can store and transmit images.
"In the [FOIA] documents, obtained by the privacy group and provided to CNN, the TSA specifies that the body scanners it purchases must have the ability to store and send images when in 'test mode.
' ... 'There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode,' [an anonymous] official said, adding that test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities.
But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30737016</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1263311460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If a police officer stopped me randomly on the street and asked to look in my bag, I'd say no. If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I'm going through security at an airport, I'll agree. When I showed up to the airport that day, I knew ahead of time that I'd have to allow my bags to be searched (or at least viewed through an xray machine).</p></div><p>In the US, isn't the situation with your bags the same on the street as in the airport since the PATRIOT act? If so that would mean you should consent to searches on the street too (also assuming you live in the US).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a police officer stopped me randomly on the street and asked to look in my bag , I 'd say no .
If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I 'm going through security at an airport , I 'll agree .
When I showed up to the airport that day , I knew ahead of time that I 'd have to allow my bags to be searched ( or at least viewed through an xray machine ) .In the US , is n't the situation with your bags the same on the street as in the airport since the PATRIOT act ?
If so that would mean you should consent to searches on the street too ( also assuming you live in the US ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a police officer stopped me randomly on the street and asked to look in my bag, I'd say no.
If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I'm going through security at an airport, I'll agree.
When I showed up to the airport that day, I knew ahead of time that I'd have to allow my bags to be searched (or at least viewed through an xray machine).In the US, isn't the situation with your bags the same on the street as in the airport since the PATRIOT act?
If so that would mean you should consent to searches on the street too (also assuming you live in the US).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731530</id>
	<title>We *should* Store Images</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263217380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For actual security purposes it would make sense to store images and network the machines.  That way after the fact if there is a security lapse they can review someone's scan to see what was missed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For actual security purposes it would make sense to store images and network the machines .
That way after the fact if there is a security lapse they can review someone 's scan to see what was missed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For actual security purposes it would make sense to store images and network the machines.
That way after the fact if there is a security lapse they can review someone's scan to see what was missed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731808</id>
	<title>Problem Solved</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263219120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just fly naked. If they don't like it, you can claim it's a security related measure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just fly naked .
If they do n't like it , you can claim it 's a security related measure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just fly naked.
If they don't like it, you can claim it's a security related measure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732292</id>
	<title>Re:Good enough for government work</title>
	<author>TubeReceiver</author>
	<datestamp>1263222540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, the thing has to be network connected so that software updates can be pushed out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  TSA or their contractor certainly are not going to fly from airport to airport to shove a floppy into these things when they need upgrading, and you're not going to trust the local yokels in MiddleofKnowhere USA to do the upgrade...  so of course they can be hacked, and of course the data can be uploaded to TSA central  ( or that DHS facility that helped out so much during Katrina ! ).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the thing has to be network connected so that software updates can be pushed out ... TSA or their contractor certainly are not going to fly from airport to airport to shove a floppy into these things when they need upgrading , and you 're not going to trust the local yokels in MiddleofKnowhere USA to do the upgrade... so of course they can be hacked , and of course the data can be uploaded to TSA central ( or that DHS facility that helped out so much during Katrina !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the thing has to be network connected so that software updates can be pushed out ...  TSA or their contractor certainly are not going to fly from airport to airport to shove a floppy into these things when they need upgrading, and you're not going to trust the local yokels in MiddleofKnowhere USA to do the upgrade...  so of course they can be hacked, and of course the data can be uploaded to TSA central  ( or that DHS facility that helped out so much during Katrina !
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731554</id>
	<title>Anyone wonder...</title>
	<author>lattyware</author>
	<datestamp>1263217500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just get a really, really ugly person to do it. They are not going to be looking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just get a really , really ugly person to do it .
They are not going to be looking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just get a really, really ugly person to do it.
They are not going to be looking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30737026</id>
	<title>Re:Like BIG celebrities are going to use this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263311520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>These images are not sexually explicit.</i></p><p><a href="http://www.drudgereport.com/sscan.jpg" title="drudgereport.com">Oh, really?</a> [drudgereport.com]</p><p>Or do you mean the PR images over overweight middle-aged people with the private parts obscured by overexposure blooms?  Clearly those must be representative and average, the government used them in press releases!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These images are not sexually explicit.Oh , really ?
[ drudgereport.com ] Or do you mean the PR images over overweight middle-aged people with the private parts obscured by overexposure blooms ?
Clearly those must be representative and average , the government used them in press releases !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These images are not sexually explicit.Oh, really?
[drudgereport.com]Or do you mean the PR images over overweight middle-aged people with the private parts obscured by overexposure blooms?
Clearly those must be representative and average, the government used them in press releases!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733918</id>
	<title>Re:Duh.</title>
	<author>cyberworm</author>
	<datestamp>1263237720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was just thinking the exact same thing.  What happens when they do find something?  Wouldn't they want to use the image as part of their evidence for probable cause (not that they apparently need probable cause, but...).  Certainly they aren't going to stop the machine and the security line while they pursue and investigation into something suspicious are they?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was just thinking the exact same thing .
What happens when they do find something ?
Would n't they want to use the image as part of their evidence for probable cause ( not that they apparently need probable cause , but... ) .
Certainly they are n't going to stop the machine and the security line while they pursue and investigation into something suspicious are they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was just thinking the exact same thing.
What happens when they do find something?
Wouldn't they want to use the image as part of their evidence for probable cause (not that they apparently need probable cause, but...).
Certainly they aren't going to stop the machine and the security line while they pursue and investigation into something suspicious are they?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734882</id>
	<title>Re:No crap!</title>
	<author>henrik.falk</author>
	<datestamp>1263294480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That something they catch said guy with, that would be the evidence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That something they catch said guy with , that would be the evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That something they catch said guy with, that would be the evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735762</id>
	<title>Re:No duh,NIKE JORDAN SHOES,COACH,GUCCI,HANDBAGS,</title>
	<author>COBB1986</author>
	<datestamp>1263304200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.allbyer.com/" title="allbyer.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.allbyer.com/</a> [allbyer.com]
Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,Here are the most popular, most stylish and avant-garde shoes,handbags,Tshirts, jacket,Tracksuit w ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3) $35HANDBGAS(COACH,L V, DG, ED HARDY) $35TSHIRTS (POLO<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ED HARDY, LACOSTE) $16
thanks... For details, please consult <a href="http://www.allbyer.com/" title="allbyer.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.allbyer.com/</a> [allbyer.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.allbyer.com/ [ allbyer.com ] Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,Here are the most popular , most stylish and avant-garde shoes,handbags,Tshirts , jacket,Tracksuit w ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA ,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3 ) $ 35HANDBGAS ( COACH,L V , DG , ED HARDY ) $ 35TSHIRTS ( POLO ,ED HARDY , LACOSTE ) $ 16 thanks... For details , please consult http : //www.allbyer.com/ [ allbyer.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.allbyer.com/ [allbyer.com]
Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,Here are the most popular, most stylish and avant-garde shoes,handbags,Tshirts, jacket,Tracksuit w ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA ,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3) $35HANDBGAS(COACH,L V, DG, ED HARDY) $35TSHIRTS (POLO ,ED HARDY, LACOSTE) $16
thanks... For details, please consult http://www.allbyer.com/ [allbyer.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731450</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263216840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not the fact that someone sees me naked, it's about the fact that I want my damn privacy.

I have yet to see the first terrorist ask me to strip naked. Yet apparently when the first goverment-official tells me he wants to have a look at my dick that I have to comply!

One thing is sure. I have lost 0\% safety and privacy to terrorist. But I lost 100\% safety and privacy to goverments the last 20 years. And I bet this goes for 99.9\% of the people in the western world.

It has to stop you know...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the fact that someone sees me naked , it 's about the fact that I want my damn privacy .
I have yet to see the first terrorist ask me to strip naked .
Yet apparently when the first goverment-official tells me he wants to have a look at my dick that I have to comply !
One thing is sure .
I have lost 0 \ % safety and privacy to terrorist .
But I lost 100 \ % safety and privacy to goverments the last 20 years .
And I bet this goes for 99.9 \ % of the people in the western world .
It has to stop you know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the fact that someone sees me naked, it's about the fact that I want my damn privacy.
I have yet to see the first terrorist ask me to strip naked.
Yet apparently when the first goverment-official tells me he wants to have a look at my dick that I have to comply!
One thing is sure.
I have lost 0\% safety and privacy to terrorist.
But I lost 100\% safety and privacy to goverments the last 20 years.
And I bet this goes for 99.9\% of the people in the western world.
It has to stop you know...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732414</id>
	<title>I could fly naked but I prefer my DNA zipped</title>
	<author>matrixskp</author>
	<datestamp>1263223500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real issue for me is not that these scanners are unzipping our clothes, but that they may be unzipping our DNA. A study conducted by Boian S. Alexandrov (and colleagues) at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico shows that terahertz waves could <br> <br>

"...unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication."
<br> <br>

Genes not properly expressed during replication can lead to lots of terrible diseases like Autism and Alzheimer's. Can we refuse the radiation and ask for a strip search instead?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real issue for me is not that these scanners are unzipping our clothes , but that they may be unzipping our DNA .
A study conducted by Boian S. Alexandrov ( and colleagues ) at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico shows that terahertz waves could " ...unzip double-stranded DNA , creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication .
" Genes not properly expressed during replication can lead to lots of terrible diseases like Autism and Alzheimer 's .
Can we refuse the radiation and ask for a strip search instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real issue for me is not that these scanners are unzipping our clothes, but that they may be unzipping our DNA.
A study conducted by Boian S. Alexandrov (and colleagues) at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico shows that terahertz waves could  

"...unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication.
"
 

Genes not properly expressed during replication can lead to lots of terrible diseases like Autism and Alzheimer's.
Can we refuse the radiation and ask for a strip search instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732322</id>
	<title>And yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263222720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This still won't stop those terrorists who skip the security line and put a little thought into their actions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This still wo n't stop those terrorists who skip the security line and put a little thought into their actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This still won't stop those terrorists who skip the security line and put a little thought into their actions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30747384</id>
	<title>Re:No duh</title>
	<author>Meski</author>
	<datestamp>1263320520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> full-body scanners can store and transmit images.</p></div><p>I'm waiting for them to store and transmit hardcopy versions of us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>full-body scanners can store and transmit images.I 'm waiting for them to store and transmit hardcopy versions of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> full-body scanners can store and transmit images.I'm waiting for them to store and transmit hardcopy versions of us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312</id>
	<title>amusing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263215940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US. You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US .
You 'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives , but no .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US.
You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733562</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263233400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So given this issue of context, I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere. I don't know if that's a legally appropriate way of saying it, but what I mean is, we already essentially allow our bags to be searched at airports. If a police officer stopped me randomly on the street and asked to look in my bag, I'd say no. If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I'm going through security at an airport, I'll agree. When I showed up to the airport that day, I knew ahead of time that I'd have to allow my bags to be searched (or at least viewed through an xray machine). Likewise when I pass over the border from another country, I know that I'll be expected to have a passport. If a police officer asked me for my papers while I was just walking down the street, that would seem far more sinister to me. I've also emptied my pockets, walked through a metal detector, and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport. I wouldn't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets.</p></div><p>I'd agree with you, except for the fact that what is being asked of citizens has FAR surpassed reasonable measures for security.  Every day people risk their lives far more than they do climbing into an airplane (yes, even before 9/11 and all this "security theater" was in place).  It keeps getting worse, and, the question is, when does it stop?  X-Rays of body parts?  Invasive searches?</p><p>What I also find interesting is how it's slowly breaking down.  First, scanners, bags scanned.  Easy-peasy.  Then, 9/11.  Bottles of a certain size.  Carry-ons hand-inspected.  Belts come off.  Then, shoe bomber.  Now our shoes come off (ARGH! I hate this, BTW).  Then, things seemed to settle down again and a guy goes through with something in his pants.  Now, people have to be screened by full body scanners.  What's next?  This decay is what is scary if you ask me.  And, at the end of the day, how many people are TRULY scared of going down in a plane crash (other than people afraid of heights/flying in general)?!  I would bet very few people even really think about it all that much.  We just get to our destinations and go about life.  If the government *REALLY* wanted to save lives, they would help people eat healthier (which might help some of our health problems), work to improve safety in cars, pull people over for texting and driving...all things that cause many more deaths than plan crashes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So given this issue of context , I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere .
I do n't know if that 's a legally appropriate way of saying it , but what I mean is , we already essentially allow our bags to be searched at airports .
If a police officer stopped me randomly on the street and asked to look in my bag , I 'd say no .
If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I 'm going through security at an airport , I 'll agree .
When I showed up to the airport that day , I knew ahead of time that I 'd have to allow my bags to be searched ( or at least viewed through an xray machine ) .
Likewise when I pass over the border from another country , I know that I 'll be expected to have a passport .
If a police officer asked me for my papers while I was just walking down the street , that would seem far more sinister to me .
I 've also emptied my pockets , walked through a metal detector , and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport .
I would n't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets.I 'd agree with you , except for the fact that what is being asked of citizens has FAR surpassed reasonable measures for security .
Every day people risk their lives far more than they do climbing into an airplane ( yes , even before 9/11 and all this " security theater " was in place ) .
It keeps getting worse , and , the question is , when does it stop ?
X-Rays of body parts ?
Invasive searches ? What I also find interesting is how it 's slowly breaking down .
First , scanners , bags scanned .
Easy-peasy. Then , 9/11 .
Bottles of a certain size .
Carry-ons hand-inspected .
Belts come off .
Then , shoe bomber .
Now our shoes come off ( ARGH !
I hate this , BTW ) .
Then , things seemed to settle down again and a guy goes through with something in his pants .
Now , people have to be screened by full body scanners .
What 's next ?
This decay is what is scary if you ask me .
And , at the end of the day , how many people are TRULY scared of going down in a plane crash ( other than people afraid of heights/flying in general ) ? !
I would bet very few people even really think about it all that much .
We just get to our destinations and go about life .
If the government * REALLY * wanted to save lives , they would help people eat healthier ( which might help some of our health problems ) , work to improve safety in cars , pull people over for texting and driving...all things that cause many more deaths than plan crashes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So given this issue of context, I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere.
I don't know if that's a legally appropriate way of saying it, but what I mean is, we already essentially allow our bags to be searched at airports.
If a police officer stopped me randomly on the street and asked to look in my bag, I'd say no.
If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I'm going through security at an airport, I'll agree.
When I showed up to the airport that day, I knew ahead of time that I'd have to allow my bags to be searched (or at least viewed through an xray machine).
Likewise when I pass over the border from another country, I know that I'll be expected to have a passport.
If a police officer asked me for my papers while I was just walking down the street, that would seem far more sinister to me.
I've also emptied my pockets, walked through a metal detector, and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport.
I wouldn't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets.I'd agree with you, except for the fact that what is being asked of citizens has FAR surpassed reasonable measures for security.
Every day people risk their lives far more than they do climbing into an airplane (yes, even before 9/11 and all this "security theater" was in place).
It keeps getting worse, and, the question is, when does it stop?
X-Rays of body parts?
Invasive searches?What I also find interesting is how it's slowly breaking down.
First, scanners, bags scanned.
Easy-peasy.  Then, 9/11.
Bottles of a certain size.
Carry-ons hand-inspected.
Belts come off.
Then, shoe bomber.
Now our shoes come off (ARGH!
I hate this, BTW).
Then, things seemed to settle down again and a guy goes through with something in his pants.
Now, people have to be screened by full body scanners.
What's next?
This decay is what is scary if you ask me.
And, at the end of the day, how many people are TRULY scared of going down in a plane crash (other than people afraid of heights/flying in general)?!
I would bet very few people even really think about it all that much.
We just get to our destinations and go about life.
If the government *REALLY* wanted to save lives, they would help people eat healthier (which might help some of our health problems), work to improve safety in cars, pull people over for texting and driving...all things that cause many more deaths than plan crashes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731460</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263216840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "fuzzy resemblance" of a body has little to do with anything.  People who would just as soon walk naked on the beach have serious concerns about what amounts to no less than a strip search with not even so much as reasonable suspicion.</p><p>This is the most invasive government search, justified by less than the smallest legally acceptable standard of criminal suspicion.  The reason strip searches are so narrowly confined has less to do with dignity or moral discomfort at being handled by a police officer than with the incredible invasiveness of the procedure.  There's quite a difference between being comfortable with your body and enjoying nude beaches...and the government telling you "strip down, you're not trusted and have no rights."</p><p>The government simply should not be empowered to demand this of its citizens with no basis whatsoever.  Without these protections, what is the point of having gradations in police voluntary contact vs. detention vs. arrest?  Why limit searches based only on reasonable suspicion to immediate surroundings and officer safety searches?</p><p>If some sub-police TSA agent can give you a digital strip search merely for wanting to fly from Chicago to New York, then there's nothing stopping them from rifling through your shopping bags in your locked trunk when you roll through a stop sign; there's nothing to stop them from a "harmless" invasion into your hard drive because there's an infinitesimal possibility there might be some terrorist information in there.</p><p>The line has been crossed with warrantless wiretapping, suspicionless searches, and generally unnecessary, unproductive, and invasive government behavior.  If naked pictures of air travelers is the straw that breaks the camel's back, so be it.  At least they've finally noticed that something's rotten in the state of wherever-you-are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " fuzzy resemblance " of a body has little to do with anything .
People who would just as soon walk naked on the beach have serious concerns about what amounts to no less than a strip search with not even so much as reasonable suspicion.This is the most invasive government search , justified by less than the smallest legally acceptable standard of criminal suspicion .
The reason strip searches are so narrowly confined has less to do with dignity or moral discomfort at being handled by a police officer than with the incredible invasiveness of the procedure .
There 's quite a difference between being comfortable with your body and enjoying nude beaches...and the government telling you " strip down , you 're not trusted and have no rights .
" The government simply should not be empowered to demand this of its citizens with no basis whatsoever .
Without these protections , what is the point of having gradations in police voluntary contact vs. detention vs. arrest ? Why limit searches based only on reasonable suspicion to immediate surroundings and officer safety searches ? If some sub-police TSA agent can give you a digital strip search merely for wanting to fly from Chicago to New York , then there 's nothing stopping them from rifling through your shopping bags in your locked trunk when you roll through a stop sign ; there 's nothing to stop them from a " harmless " invasion into your hard drive because there 's an infinitesimal possibility there might be some terrorist information in there.The line has been crossed with warrantless wiretapping , suspicionless searches , and generally unnecessary , unproductive , and invasive government behavior .
If naked pictures of air travelers is the straw that breaks the camel 's back , so be it .
At least they 've finally noticed that something 's rotten in the state of wherever-you-are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "fuzzy resemblance" of a body has little to do with anything.
People who would just as soon walk naked on the beach have serious concerns about what amounts to no less than a strip search with not even so much as reasonable suspicion.This is the most invasive government search, justified by less than the smallest legally acceptable standard of criminal suspicion.
The reason strip searches are so narrowly confined has less to do with dignity or moral discomfort at being handled by a police officer than with the incredible invasiveness of the procedure.
There's quite a difference between being comfortable with your body and enjoying nude beaches...and the government telling you "strip down, you're not trusted and have no rights.
"The government simply should not be empowered to demand this of its citizens with no basis whatsoever.
Without these protections, what is the point of having gradations in police voluntary contact vs. detention vs. arrest?  Why limit searches based only on reasonable suspicion to immediate surroundings and officer safety searches?If some sub-police TSA agent can give you a digital strip search merely for wanting to fly from Chicago to New York, then there's nothing stopping them from rifling through your shopping bags in your locked trunk when you roll through a stop sign; there's nothing to stop them from a "harmless" invasion into your hard drive because there's an infinitesimal possibility there might be some terrorist information in there.The line has been crossed with warrantless wiretapping, suspicionless searches, and generally unnecessary, unproductive, and invasive government behavior.
If naked pictures of air travelers is the straw that breaks the camel's back, so be it.
At least they've finally noticed that something's rotten in the state of wherever-you-are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731962</id>
	<title>Re:Invisibility Cloak</title>
	<author>cyphercell</author>
	<datestamp>1263220080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lead?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734846</id>
	<title>We Do It Wrong</title>
	<author>Xeleema</author>
	<datestamp>1263294060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rather than strip-search everyone, rifle thru their bags, steal their travel-sized hygiene products and lighters, why don't we just pull a full-stop on all this "Security Theater" B.S. and do a total 180;

Imagine walking into an airport, grabbing your ticket, and being issued a Glock with low-grain, soft-head rounds (I'm thinking about something that can't pass thru a hull).

Heck, it's already been shown that a bullet-sized hole at 30,000 feet <a href="http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2004/01/mythbusters\_explosive\_decompre.html" title="kwc.org" rel="nofollow">doesn't cause explosive decompression</a> [kwc.org].  Let's just throw in a few hollow-points.

I guarantee the next guy that stands up and screams "Dirka, dirka! Muhammad Jihad!" would have a *very* interesting story to tell his lil harem in the after life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than strip-search everyone , rifle thru their bags , steal their travel-sized hygiene products and lighters , why do n't we just pull a full-stop on all this " Security Theater " B.S .
and do a total 180 ; Imagine walking into an airport , grabbing your ticket , and being issued a Glock with low-grain , soft-head rounds ( I 'm thinking about something that ca n't pass thru a hull ) .
Heck , it 's already been shown that a bullet-sized hole at 30,000 feet does n't cause explosive decompression [ kwc.org ] .
Let 's just throw in a few hollow-points .
I guarantee the next guy that stands up and screams " Dirka , dirka !
Muhammad Jihad !
" would have a * very * interesting story to tell his lil harem in the after life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than strip-search everyone, rifle thru their bags, steal their travel-sized hygiene products and lighters, why don't we just pull a full-stop on all this "Security Theater" B.S.
and do a total 180;

Imagine walking into an airport, grabbing your ticket, and being issued a Glock with low-grain, soft-head rounds (I'm thinking about something that can't pass thru a hull).
Heck, it's already been shown that a bullet-sized hole at 30,000 feet doesn't cause explosive decompression [kwc.org].
Let's just throw in a few hollow-points.
I guarantee the next guy that stands up and screams "Dirka, dirka!
Muhammad Jihad!
" would have a *very* interesting story to tell his lil harem in the after life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732024</id>
	<title>Re:Good enough for government work</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1263220380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"cannot be hacked"<br>This should be a massive red flag. The is the same as stating to the world, I'm unqualified and have no idea what I'm talking about.</p></div><p>It does to us, but this is the TSA.  They have a blank check.  The money isn't theirs.  They want to make it look like they're doing a job, one that they've never been capable of doing.  Saying "This can't be hacked" makes them think "Oh good, something else not to worry about, buy it now!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" can not be hacked " This should be a massive red flag .
The is the same as stating to the world , I 'm unqualified and have no idea what I 'm talking about.It does to us , but this is the TSA .
They have a blank check .
The money is n't theirs .
They want to make it look like they 're doing a job , one that they 've never been capable of doing .
Saying " This ca n't be hacked " makes them think " Oh good , something else not to worry about , buy it now !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"cannot be hacked"This should be a massive red flag.
The is the same as stating to the world, I'm unqualified and have no idea what I'm talking about.It does to us, but this is the TSA.
They have a blank check.
The money isn't theirs.
They want to make it look like they're doing a job, one that they've never been capable of doing.
Saying "This can't be hacked" makes them think "Oh good, something else not to worry about, buy it now!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731986</id>
	<title>Test mode additional hardware :)</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1263220200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rumor has it that "test mode" consists of a hard drive and a NIC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rumor has it that " test mode " consists of a hard drive and a NIC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rumor has it that "test mode" consists of a hard drive and a NIC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733358</id>
	<title>Re:Duh.</title>
	<author>imarsman</author>
	<datestamp>1263231240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's my main complaint in all of this - increasingly invasive searches, reduction in privacy, all with no counterbalancing accountability. I want people to go to jail if they abuse the power they so freely take for themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's my main complaint in all of this - increasingly invasive searches , reduction in privacy , all with no counterbalancing accountability .
I want people to go to jail if they abuse the power they so freely take for themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's my main complaint in all of this - increasingly invasive searches, reduction in privacy, all with no counterbalancing accountability.
I want people to go to jail if they abuse the power they so freely take for themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733016</id>
	<title>Re:Test mode additional hardware :)</title>
	<author>tftp</author>
	<datestamp>1263228420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chances are good that the scanner's computer is just a Windows PC. How much money would it take to duplicate PC hardware and Windows, and what would be the purpose of such an expense? Sometimes you must go embedded - for example, when your computer flies to Mars. But when it's sitting in an airport there is no reason to go crazy. Get a PC, install a PCI (or USB nowadays) acquisition card, and get creative with the software. That's how things are done today, that's where the value is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chances are good that the scanner 's computer is just a Windows PC .
How much money would it take to duplicate PC hardware and Windows , and what would be the purpose of such an expense ?
Sometimes you must go embedded - for example , when your computer flies to Mars .
But when it 's sitting in an airport there is no reason to go crazy .
Get a PC , install a PCI ( or USB nowadays ) acquisition card , and get creative with the software .
That 's how things are done today , that 's where the value is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chances are good that the scanner's computer is just a Windows PC.
How much money would it take to duplicate PC hardware and Windows, and what would be the purpose of such an expense?
Sometimes you must go embedded - for example, when your computer flies to Mars.
But when it's sitting in an airport there is no reason to go crazy.
Get a PC, install a PCI (or USB nowadays) acquisition card, and get creative with the software.
That's how things are done today, that's where the value is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30739596</id>
	<title>Re:Dignity is an essential human right.</title>
	<author>$beirdo</author>
	<datestamp>1263320760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a slippery slope, and IMHO a very scary opinion.  You should reconsider it.</p><p>And since this is "security theater", not real security, the only purpose, public or otherwise, here is to subjugate us, humiliate the individual, and make a mockery of our natural, God-given rights - like Dignity, which is one of them.  Ask Amnesty International.  Or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>We have become a nation of cowards, content only to live in abject fear, butchering all of what it has ever meant to be free, and our cowardice will only continue to destroy us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a slippery slope , and IMHO a very scary opinion .
You should reconsider it.And since this is " security theater " , not real security , the only purpose , public or otherwise , here is to subjugate us , humiliate the individual , and make a mockery of our natural , God-given rights - like Dignity , which is one of them .
Ask Amnesty International .
Or Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] .We have become a nation of cowards , content only to live in abject fear , butchering all of what it has ever meant to be free , and our cowardice will only continue to destroy us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a slippery slope, and IMHO a very scary opinion.
You should reconsider it.And since this is "security theater", not real security, the only purpose, public or otherwise, here is to subjugate us, humiliate the individual, and make a mockery of our natural, God-given rights - like Dignity, which is one of them.
Ask Amnesty International.
Or Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].We have become a nation of cowards, content only to live in abject fear, butchering all of what it has ever meant to be free, and our cowardice will only continue to destroy us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30737508</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1263313380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're carrying other people's confidential info, I hope you keep it in an encrypted container and don't give those TSA goons the key. Your laptop could be stolen too you know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're carrying other people 's confidential info , I hope you keep it in an encrypted container and do n't give those TSA goons the key .
Your laptop could be stolen too you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're carrying other people's confidential info, I hope you keep it in an encrypted container and don't give those TSA goons the key.
Your laptop could be stolen too you know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731570</id>
	<title>Guy scanning is the only sane one</title>
	<author>icepick72</author>
	<datestamp>1263217620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you see what some people wear through airports? Really stereotyping their destinations in crazy Hawaiian shirts. At least the guy watching the body scan images sees them as human.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you see what some people wear through airports ?
Really stereotyping their destinations in crazy Hawaiian shirts .
At least the guy watching the body scan images sees them as human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you see what some people wear through airports?
Really stereotyping their destinations in crazy Hawaiian shirts.
At least the guy watching the body scan images sees them as human.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733512</id>
	<title>Re:Dignity is an essential human right.</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1263232860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dignity an essential human right?</p><p>I'm not so sure.  If "Dignity" is defined as anything somebody takes offense at, then we're all offenders.  People who write things about my race that I find offensive offend my dignity.  The proper response to the vast majority of such offenses is to ignore them.</p><p>I'd say that people have a right to self determination, which means at a minimum they must know what they are going to be subjected to and what the consequences of their choices may be.  After that, the consequences they are subjected to ought to be  the minimum  necessary to achieve to achieve some reasonable, well documented public purpose. Finally the net benefit of such purposes for the vast majority of people should exceed the personal cost.</p><p>So in this case I'd ask (1) are people really aware of what these machines can do and *might* do?     (2) Do these machines  serve a legitimate purpose, and do they work? (3) Are they the minimum possible intrusion needed to do the job? (4) Are they a net benefit to most people, and what are the other choices of people who have reason to avoid them?</p><p>That gives me a pretty good sense for whether these machines are good policy.  It seems to me that the biggest questions with them are (1) what exactly *could* they do and (4) are the really a net benefit to most people?  As far as the minimum intrusion standard is concern, I suspect that no equally effective method will be much less intrusive.  The question is whether obtaining that much information is of net use to most people involved.</p><p>That's not such a "clear bright line" standard as "dignity is an essential human right"; it's just more workable.  I don't disagree with your sentiment about dignity, but it's a better guide of private conduct than public policy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dignity an essential human right ? I 'm not so sure .
If " Dignity " is defined as anything somebody takes offense at , then we 're all offenders .
People who write things about my race that I find offensive offend my dignity .
The proper response to the vast majority of such offenses is to ignore them.I 'd say that people have a right to self determination , which means at a minimum they must know what they are going to be subjected to and what the consequences of their choices may be .
After that , the consequences they are subjected to ought to be the minimum necessary to achieve to achieve some reasonable , well documented public purpose .
Finally the net benefit of such purposes for the vast majority of people should exceed the personal cost.So in this case I 'd ask ( 1 ) are people really aware of what these machines can do and * might * do ?
( 2 ) Do these machines serve a legitimate purpose , and do they work ?
( 3 ) Are they the minimum possible intrusion needed to do the job ?
( 4 ) Are they a net benefit to most people , and what are the other choices of people who have reason to avoid them ? That gives me a pretty good sense for whether these machines are good policy .
It seems to me that the biggest questions with them are ( 1 ) what exactly * could * they do and ( 4 ) are the really a net benefit to most people ?
As far as the minimum intrusion standard is concern , I suspect that no equally effective method will be much less intrusive .
The question is whether obtaining that much information is of net use to most people involved.That 's not such a " clear bright line " standard as " dignity is an essential human right " ; it 's just more workable .
I do n't disagree with your sentiment about dignity , but it 's a better guide of private conduct than public policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dignity an essential human right?I'm not so sure.
If "Dignity" is defined as anything somebody takes offense at, then we're all offenders.
People who write things about my race that I find offensive offend my dignity.
The proper response to the vast majority of such offenses is to ignore them.I'd say that people have a right to self determination, which means at a minimum they must know what they are going to be subjected to and what the consequences of their choices may be.
After that, the consequences they are subjected to ought to be  the minimum  necessary to achieve to achieve some reasonable, well documented public purpose.
Finally the net benefit of such purposes for the vast majority of people should exceed the personal cost.So in this case I'd ask (1) are people really aware of what these machines can do and *might* do?
(2) Do these machines  serve a legitimate purpose, and do they work?
(3) Are they the minimum possible intrusion needed to do the job?
(4) Are they a net benefit to most people, and what are the other choices of people who have reason to avoid them?That gives me a pretty good sense for whether these machines are good policy.
It seems to me that the biggest questions with them are (1) what exactly *could* they do and (4) are the really a net benefit to most people?
As far as the minimum intrusion standard is concern, I suspect that no equally effective method will be much less intrusive.
The question is whether obtaining that much information is of net use to most people involved.That's not such a "clear bright line" standard as "dignity is an essential human right"; it's just more workable.
I don't disagree with your sentiment about dignity, but it's a better guide of private conduct than public policy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735658</id>
	<title>Re:No crap!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263303240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would assume that if you "catch a guy with something" then you've got the something - that sounds like pretty good evidence to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would assume that if you " catch a guy with something " then you 've got the something - that sounds like pretty good evidence to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would assume that if you "catch a guy with something" then you've got the something - that sounds like pretty good evidence to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735588</id>
	<title>Re:Good enough for government work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263302340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pop in a linux or forensic boot disk, scour the disk for starlet images, no one will be the wiser.<br>Or use personal mobile phone to snap saleable images.<br>Splice the video cable to a personal recorder.</p><p>Any minimum wage goon can retire on a celebrity is pregnant - or abortion/ breast implant shot.<br>Like voting machines, negligent statements are being made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pop in a linux or forensic boot disk , scour the disk for starlet images , no one will be the wiser.Or use personal mobile phone to snap saleable images.Splice the video cable to a personal recorder.Any minimum wage goon can retire on a celebrity is pregnant - or abortion/ breast implant shot.Like voting machines , negligent statements are being made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pop in a linux or forensic boot disk, scour the disk for starlet images, no one will be the wiser.Or use personal mobile phone to snap saleable images.Splice the video cable to a personal recorder.Any minimum wage goon can retire on a celebrity is pregnant - or abortion/ breast implant shot.Like voting machines, negligent statements are being made.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733420</id>
	<title>Poor Barbie and Ken</title>
	<author>sparky1974</author>
	<datestamp>1263232020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Next they'll require us to produce copies of ourselves without "parts" to prevent our children or the public from being exposed to accidental exposures of our scans on the net. I agree we need to use due-diligence but this seems like overkill for the problem and a stomp in the face. Just wait, next up there will be funding allocated for a scanner upgrade which actually detects morale intent or can read our minds. Where do we draw the line?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Next they 'll require us to produce copies of ourselves without " parts " to prevent our children or the public from being exposed to accidental exposures of our scans on the net .
I agree we need to use due-diligence but this seems like overkill for the problem and a stomp in the face .
Just wait , next up there will be funding allocated for a scanner upgrade which actually detects morale intent or can read our minds .
Where do we draw the line ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next they'll require us to produce copies of ourselves without "parts" to prevent our children or the public from being exposed to accidental exposures of our scans on the net.
I agree we need to use due-diligence but this seems like overkill for the problem and a stomp in the face.
Just wait, next up there will be funding allocated for a scanner upgrade which actually detects morale intent or can read our minds.
Where do we draw the line?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731660</id>
	<title>Test mode is enabled ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1263218100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... automatically when the equipment detects the presence of a particularly well-endowed female.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... automatically when the equipment detects the presence of a particularly well-endowed female .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... automatically when the equipment detects the presence of a particularly well-endowed female.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731766</id>
	<title>Re:Dignity is an essential human right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263218760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Snickering?
</p><p>When my wife goes through there, they'll be dropping to their kness, chanting, "We're not worthy! We're not worthy!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Snickering ?
When my wife goes through there , they 'll be dropping to their kness , chanting , " We 're not worthy !
We 're not worthy !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Snickering?
When my wife goes through there, they'll be dropping to their kness, chanting, "We're not worthy!
We're not worthy!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735528</id>
	<title>Re:No crap!</title>
	<author>Akral</author>
	<datestamp>1263301620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Say you catch a guy with something and they have a trial.  And the judge asks for the evidence to be presented.  Well.  Yeah they need a copy of that in initial scan.</p><p>You don't even have to watch Law and Order to know that shit.</p></div><p>Um, no.<br>After the scanned image shows danger, the operator pushes big red button with huge "ALARM" written on it and the security officers do a complete search of the person in question, having at least two witnesses nearby. They document everything they have found and use THAT as an evidence.<br>A shitty image of shitty quality can not be a serious evidence anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Say you catch a guy with something and they have a trial .
And the judge asks for the evidence to be presented .
Well. Yeah they need a copy of that in initial scan.You do n't even have to watch Law and Order to know that shit.Um , no.After the scanned image shows danger , the operator pushes big red button with huge " ALARM " written on it and the security officers do a complete search of the person in question , having at least two witnesses nearby .
They document everything they have found and use THAT as an evidence.A shitty image of shitty quality can not be a serious evidence anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say you catch a guy with something and they have a trial.
And the judge asks for the evidence to be presented.
Well.  Yeah they need a copy of that in initial scan.You don't even have to watch Law and Order to know that shit.Um, no.After the scanned image shows danger, the operator pushes big red button with huge "ALARM" written on it and the security officers do a complete search of the person in question, having at least two witnesses nearby.
They document everything they have found and use THAT as an evidence.A shitty image of shitty quality can not be a serious evidence anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735982</id>
	<title>Re:Good enough for government work</title>
	<author>FreakyGreenLeaky</author>
	<datestamp>1263305940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I would be temped to get a job with the TSA just to get a chance to hack these things.</i></p><p>Now you've gone and done it, you've just been red-flagged in an anti-terrorism data-mining system somewhere...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be temped to get a job with the TSA just to get a chance to hack these things.Now you 've gone and done it , you 've just been red-flagged in an anti-terrorism data-mining system somewhere.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be temped to get a job with the TSA just to get a chance to hack these things.Now you've gone and done it, you've just been red-flagged in an anti-terrorism data-mining system somewhere...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30739682</id>
	<title>Think of the children!</title>
	<author>BaseSequence</author>
	<datestamp>1263321120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So let me get this straight: the TSA will have a bunch of machines displaying pictures of naked children? Aren't there laws against that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So let me get this straight : the TSA will have a bunch of machines displaying pictures of naked children ?
Are n't there laws against that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let me get this straight: the TSA will have a bunch of machines displaying pictures of naked children?
Aren't there laws against that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734874</id>
	<title>Re:Like BIG celebrities are going to use this.</title>
	<author>angryphase</author>
	<datestamp>1263294360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pubic - Public : Parapraxis</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pubic - Public : Parapraxis</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pubic - Public : Parapraxis</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734828</id>
	<title>Alright.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263293880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, just get hired and wait for the first V.I.P. to pass by and..........</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , just get hired and wait for the first V.I.P .
to pass by and......... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, just get hired and wait for the first V.I.P.
to pass by and..........</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731864</id>
	<title>Re:Dignity is an essential human right.</title>
	<author>BitHive</author>
	<datestamp>1263219480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If dignity were an essential human right, the free market would have already put a price on it.  As this has not happened, we must conclude "dignity" is a liberal myth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If dignity were an essential human right , the free market would have already put a price on it .
As this has not happened , we must conclude " dignity " is a liberal myth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If dignity were an essential human right, the free market would have already put a price on it.
As this has not happened, we must conclude "dignity" is a liberal myth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30742106</id>
	<title>I'm done with it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263287640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't flown in years.  Family of four, and now we have to pay for our BAGS too.  Plus the draconian security measures.  I'll take the train or drive, thank you very much.  I know I can't take the train overseas, but oh well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't flown in years .
Family of four , and now we have to pay for our BAGS too .
Plus the draconian security measures .
I 'll take the train or drive , thank you very much .
I know I ca n't take the train overseas , but oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't flown in years.
Family of four, and now we have to pay for our BAGS too.
Plus the draconian security measures.
I'll take the train or drive, thank you very much.
I know I can't take the train overseas, but oh well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731296</id>
	<title>No duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263215880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The picture they show in every article about the things must have come from <i>somewhere</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The picture they show in every article about the things must have come from somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The picture they show in every article about the things must have come from somewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732684</id>
	<title>Re:Dignity is an essential human right.</title>
	<author>Xyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1263225660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Senator: "We must stop at nothing to prevent terrorist attacks!"<br>TSA1: "I can see your penis."<br>Senator: "Err....well...uhhhh..."<br>TSA2: "Your wife has nice tits, too."<br>Senator: "Now wait a just a minute..."<br>TSA3: "Mmm...barely legal T&amp;A. Are you sure that daughter is yours?"<br>Senator: "May God smite you! I am outraged!"<br>TSA1: "Sir, you are behaving in an odd manner. I'm afraid we'll need to do a full cavity search."<br>TSA2: "The wife's mine."<br>TSA3: "Dibs on the daughter!"<br>Senator: "My God, what have I done?"<br>God: "Fucking idiot."</p><p>~X~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Senator : " We must stop at nothing to prevent terrorist attacks !
" TSA1 : " I can see your penis .
" Senator : " Err....well...uhhhh... " TSA2 : " Your wife has nice tits , too .
" Senator : " Now wait a just a minute... " TSA3 : " Mmm...barely legal T&amp;A .
Are you sure that daughter is yours ?
" Senator : " May God smite you !
I am outraged !
" TSA1 : " Sir , you are behaving in an odd manner .
I 'm afraid we 'll need to do a full cavity search .
" TSA2 : " The wife 's mine .
" TSA3 : " Dibs on the daughter !
" Senator : " My God , what have I done ?
" God : " Fucking idiot .
" ~ X ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Senator: "We must stop at nothing to prevent terrorist attacks!
"TSA1: "I can see your penis.
"Senator: "Err....well...uhhhh..."TSA2: "Your wife has nice tits, too.
"Senator: "Now wait a just a minute..."TSA3: "Mmm...barely legal T&amp;A.
Are you sure that daughter is yours?
"Senator: "May God smite you!
I am outraged!
"TSA1: "Sir, you are behaving in an odd manner.
I'm afraid we'll need to do a full cavity search.
"TSA2: "The wife's mine.
"TSA3: "Dibs on the daughter!
"Senator: "My God, what have I done?
"God: "Fucking idiot.
"~X~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733578</id>
	<title>Re:No duh</title>
	<author>GumphMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1263233520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The machines must be able to produce a hard copy for use in any court action.  Further, they probably have to store the image for a few days in case any aircraft carrying a person that passed through the machine comes to grief (accident or deliberate).   Can you imagine the "scandal" if a plane goes down, it's suspicious,  and the investigating body does not have this imagery?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The machines must be able to produce a hard copy for use in any court action .
Further , they probably have to store the image for a few days in case any aircraft carrying a person that passed through the machine comes to grief ( accident or deliberate ) .
Can you imagine the " scandal " if a plane goes down , it 's suspicious , and the investigating body does not have this imagery ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The machines must be able to produce a hard copy for use in any court action.
Further, they probably have to store the image for a few days in case any aircraft carrying a person that passed through the machine comes to grief (accident or deliberate).
Can you imagine the "scandal" if a plane goes down, it's suspicious,  and the investigating body does not have this imagery?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30738670</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1263317580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dunno, there's some pretty old dirt in my basement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno , there 's some pretty old dirt in my basement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno, there's some pretty old dirt in my basement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732400</id>
	<title>Can...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263223440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/" title="technologyreview.com">destroy your DNA</a> [technologyreview.com], and give you cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention destroy your DNA [ technologyreview.com ] , and give you cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention destroy your DNA [technologyreview.com], and give you cancer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731564</id>
	<title>Hey, can I borrow your cameraphone for a moment?</title>
	<author>chiph</author>
	<datestamp>1263217620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Got a real hot babe going thru the scanner here.<br>- TSA Perv</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Got a real hot babe going thru the scanner here.- TSA Perv</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Got a real hot babe going thru the scanner here.- TSA Perv</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734924</id>
	<title>Is this really important to anyone?</title>
	<author>z\_gringo</author>
	<datestamp>1263295020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I SO don't care about this. I think reporters are just trying to make a story out of this and there is really no story to tell. Is ANYONE out there really worried about what happens to these images? I know that I don't give a crap.
<br> <br>
what I do care about is being able to just walk up to my gate. Why can't the TSA try to do something we do care about? Which is to walk up to the gate without taking off my shoes, belt, suit jacket, removing my laptop from the bag, etc. They can put scanners everywhere if they want to. Put images on the internet, post them on screens as entertainment at the airport just do something that will let me simply walk up to my gate without going through a bunch of pointless security procedures.
<br> <br>
The TSA is more concerned about making themselves look relevant than they are about making travel safe and convenient.  I am sure the technology exists that will allow us to walk right up to the gates and they can know whether someone poses a threat or not, and that it could be done with a lot less TSA agents than we have now.  But we will never hear about that, because the TSA isn't in the business of making the TSA smaller.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I SO do n't care about this .
I think reporters are just trying to make a story out of this and there is really no story to tell .
Is ANYONE out there really worried about what happens to these images ?
I know that I do n't give a crap .
what I do care about is being able to just walk up to my gate .
Why ca n't the TSA try to do something we do care about ?
Which is to walk up to the gate without taking off my shoes , belt , suit jacket , removing my laptop from the bag , etc .
They can put scanners everywhere if they want to .
Put images on the internet , post them on screens as entertainment at the airport just do something that will let me simply walk up to my gate without going through a bunch of pointless security procedures .
The TSA is more concerned about making themselves look relevant than they are about making travel safe and convenient .
I am sure the technology exists that will allow us to walk right up to the gates and they can know whether someone poses a threat or not , and that it could be done with a lot less TSA agents than we have now .
But we will never hear about that , because the TSA is n't in the business of making the TSA smaller .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I SO don't care about this.
I think reporters are just trying to make a story out of this and there is really no story to tell.
Is ANYONE out there really worried about what happens to these images?
I know that I don't give a crap.
what I do care about is being able to just walk up to my gate.
Why can't the TSA try to do something we do care about?
Which is to walk up to the gate without taking off my shoes, belt, suit jacket, removing my laptop from the bag, etc.
They can put scanners everywhere if they want to.
Put images on the internet, post them on screens as entertainment at the airport just do something that will let me simply walk up to my gate without going through a bunch of pointless security procedures.
The TSA is more concerned about making themselves look relevant than they are about making travel safe and convenient.
I am sure the technology exists that will allow us to walk right up to the gates and they can know whether someone poses a threat or not, and that it could be done with a lot less TSA agents than we have now.
But we will never hear about that, because the TSA isn't in the business of making the TSA smaller.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733426</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263232080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Western Australia, particularly at certain times of the year, the police already stop cars and people randomly and submit them to exactly these kinds of violations of their freedom. In the Southwest, in november they even "steal" alchohol from vehicles of people who are legally allowed to drink, just because a bunch of hooligan kids from Perth decide to have their end of year parties in the SW, everyone who lives their is subjected to random (often invasive) searches and police bullying and theft.</p><p>They keep demanding more rights and getting them. These days they are nothing more than thugs and bullies in uniform. They spend most of their time harassing innocent people going about their ordinary lives and often are unavailable to do their "real" job, because they are too busy harassing drivers and kids roaming the streets. Case in point, last november, my 14 year old son went missing overnight and i was told the police were "too Busy" to help me find him, unless I could prove his life was in danger, but the same night I saw 2 police cars cruising around, randomly harassing road users and pedestrians (granted it was during schoolies week, but a missing child to me seems far more of a priority than picking up drunk schoolgirls, who are with friends and not endangering themselves or anyone else)??????</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Western Australia , particularly at certain times of the year , the police already stop cars and people randomly and submit them to exactly these kinds of violations of their freedom .
In the Southwest , in november they even " steal " alchohol from vehicles of people who are legally allowed to drink , just because a bunch of hooligan kids from Perth decide to have their end of year parties in the SW , everyone who lives their is subjected to random ( often invasive ) searches and police bullying and theft.They keep demanding more rights and getting them .
These days they are nothing more than thugs and bullies in uniform .
They spend most of their time harassing innocent people going about their ordinary lives and often are unavailable to do their " real " job , because they are too busy harassing drivers and kids roaming the streets .
Case in point , last november , my 14 year old son went missing overnight and i was told the police were " too Busy " to help me find him , unless I could prove his life was in danger , but the same night I saw 2 police cars cruising around , randomly harassing road users and pedestrians ( granted it was during schoolies week , but a missing child to me seems far more of a priority than picking up drunk schoolgirls , who are with friends and not endangering themselves or anyone else ) ? ? ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Western Australia, particularly at certain times of the year, the police already stop cars and people randomly and submit them to exactly these kinds of violations of their freedom.
In the Southwest, in november they even "steal" alchohol from vehicles of people who are legally allowed to drink, just because a bunch of hooligan kids from Perth decide to have their end of year parties in the SW, everyone who lives their is subjected to random (often invasive) searches and police bullying and theft.They keep demanding more rights and getting them.
These days they are nothing more than thugs and bullies in uniform.
They spend most of their time harassing innocent people going about their ordinary lives and often are unavailable to do their "real" job, because they are too busy harassing drivers and kids roaming the streets.
Case in point, last november, my 14 year old son went missing overnight and i was told the police were "too Busy" to help me find him, unless I could prove his life was in danger, but the same night I saw 2 police cars cruising around, randomly harassing road users and pedestrians (granted it was during schoolies week, but a missing child to me seems far more of a priority than picking up drunk schoolgirls, who are with friends and not endangering themselves or anyone else)?????
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731392</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1263216540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, there is clearly <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">no other country in the world up in arms over these scanners.</a> [guardian.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , there is clearly no other country in the world up in arms over these scanners .
[ guardian.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, there is clearly no other country in the world up in arms over these scanners.
[guardian.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731882</id>
	<title>No crap!</title>
	<author>/dev/trash</author>
	<datestamp>1263219540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say you catch a guy with something and they have a trial.  And the judge asks for the evidence to be presented.  Well.  Yeah they need a copy of that in initial scan.</p><p>You don't even have to watch Law and Order to know that shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say you catch a guy with something and they have a trial .
And the judge asks for the evidence to be presented .
Well. Yeah they need a copy of that in initial scan.You do n't even have to watch Law and Order to know that shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say you catch a guy with something and they have a trial.
And the judge asks for the evidence to be presented.
Well.  Yeah they need a copy of that in initial scan.You don't even have to watch Law and Order to know that shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732722</id>
	<title>Vote with your wallets...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263226080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>never. flying. again.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/fuck them where it hurts, seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>never .
flying. again .
/fuck them where it hurts , seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>never.
flying. again.
/fuck them where it hurts, seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733150</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263229380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Guys, you're missing a fundamental point here- The right to fly on an airplane is not right which was granted by your government. It's not something we all should expect. You have other options- drive where you need to go, take a cruise, or get your own plane...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guys , you 're missing a fundamental point here- The right to fly on an airplane is not right which was granted by your government .
It 's not something we all should expect .
You have other options- drive where you need to go , take a cruise , or get your own plane.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guys, you're missing a fundamental point here- The right to fly on an airplane is not right which was granted by your government.
It's not something we all should expect.
You have other options- drive where you need to go, take a cruise, or get your own plane...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732746</id>
	<title>Re:Like BIG celebrities are going to use this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263226260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of them are only famous because of their sex tapes anyway....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of them are only famous because of their sex tapes anyway... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of them are only famous because of their sex tapes anyway....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732264</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263222300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>a lower expectation of privacy</i> </p><p>You motherfucking sheep's-ass-licker -- I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE a lower expectation of privacy. It's been forcibly been removed from me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a lower expectation of privacy You motherfucking sheep 's-ass-licker -- I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE a lower expectation of privacy .
It 's been forcibly been removed from me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a lower expectation of privacy You motherfucking sheep's-ass-licker -- I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE a lower expectation of privacy.
It's been forcibly been removed from me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733536</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>PachmanP</author>
	<datestamp>1263233100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Guys, you're missing a fundamental point here- The right to fly on an airplane is not right which was granted by your government. It's not something we all should expect. You have other options- drive where you need to go, take a cruise, or get your own plane...</p></div><p>Interestingly enough, the power to anal probe me when I try to fly is not a right granted to the government in the Constitution (speaking as an American).  It would seem that whole little bit about "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." might be relevant. Maybe they granted that power further down past where I had to study in middle school though.
<br> <br> <br>
I know, I know I'm a bad, dirty little karma whore, but the point still stands.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guys , you 're missing a fundamental point here- The right to fly on an airplane is not right which was granted by your government .
It 's not something we all should expect .
You have other options- drive where you need to go , take a cruise , or get your own plane...Interestingly enough , the power to anal probe me when I try to fly is not a right granted to the government in the Constitution ( speaking as an American ) .
It would seem that whole little bit about " powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution , nor prohibited by it to the States , are reserved to the States respectively , or to the people .
" might be relevant .
Maybe they granted that power further down past where I had to study in middle school though .
I know , I know I 'm a bad , dirty little karma whore , but the point still stands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guys, you're missing a fundamental point here- The right to fly on an airplane is not right which was granted by your government.
It's not something we all should expect.
You have other options- drive where you need to go, take a cruise, or get your own plane...Interestingly enough, the power to anal probe me when I try to fly is not a right granted to the government in the Constitution (speaking as an American).
It would seem that whole little bit about "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
" might be relevant.
Maybe they granted that power further down past where I had to study in middle school though.
I know, I know I'm a bad, dirty little karma whore, but the point still stands.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731422</id>
	<title>Good enough for government work</title>
	<author>ebonum</author>
	<datestamp>1263216660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"cannot be hacked"<br>This should be a massive red flag.  The is the same as stating to the world, I'm unqualified and have no idea what I'm talking about.</p><p>"employees who misuse the machines are subject to serious discipline or removal"</p><p>Hmmm.  So when pushed, they admit that security is ensured by the fact that the government employees are going to behave.  Just like those Blackwater guys?</p><p>I would be temped to get a job with the TSA just to get a chance to hack these things.  Plus, working with a partner, you could easily get high value images of celebrities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" can not be hacked " This should be a massive red flag .
The is the same as stating to the world , I 'm unqualified and have no idea what I 'm talking about .
" employees who misuse the machines are subject to serious discipline or removal " Hmmm .
So when pushed , they admit that security is ensured by the fact that the government employees are going to behave .
Just like those Blackwater guys ? I would be temped to get a job with the TSA just to get a chance to hack these things .
Plus , working with a partner , you could easily get high value images of celebrities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"cannot be hacked"This should be a massive red flag.
The is the same as stating to the world, I'm unqualified and have no idea what I'm talking about.
"employees who misuse the machines are subject to serious discipline or removal"Hmmm.
So when pushed, they admit that security is ensured by the fact that the government employees are going to behave.
Just like those Blackwater guys?I would be temped to get a job with the TSA just to get a chance to hack these things.
Plus, working with a partner, you could easily get high value images of celebrities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733592</id>
	<title>Re:Putting scanners in US airports...</title>
	<author>innocent\_white\_lamb</author>
	<datestamp>1263233580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are:</p><p><a href="http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/01/10/12412776-qmi.html" title="canoe.ca" rel="nofollow">http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/01/10/12412776-qmi.html</a> [canoe.ca]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are : http : //cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/01/10/12412776-qmi.html [ canoe.ca ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are:http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/01/10/12412776-qmi.html [canoe.ca]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734852</id>
	<title>Re:No crap!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263294060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No they don't, they have the evidence that they got from you. They don't need a picture of it, what's the use ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No they do n't , they have the evidence that they got from you .
They do n't need a picture of it , what 's the use ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No they don't, they have the evidence that they got from you.
They don't need a picture of it, what's the use ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30747706</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>AthanasiusKircher</author>
	<datestamp>1263324120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the problem here is that you're confusing a heck of a lot of different issues.  This may seem like legalese to you, but when it comes to rights, the distinctions are important.<p><div class="quote"><p>Like yes, I have the freedom of speech, but if someone in the House of Representatives decides to run toward the President during the state of the Union yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!" then you'd better bet he's going to be detained for a little while. There's the issue of context, and these rights are still subject to reason.</p></div><p>Actually, this is not an issue of "freedom of speech" at all.  You were threatening to attack the President of the US.  That is actually a crime in and of itself.  No need to violate freedom of speech.</p><p>

I think the example you may be looking for might be something like falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, which is a classic example used for supposedly restricted speech, for the obvious reason that it can cause panic, injury, etc.  Although this example is often used, the ruling was later limited, so the restriction on speech only occurs when the speech would incite imminent lawless actions, such as rioting.</p><p>

Thus, the reasons for restricting freedom of speech are very, very few.  Your example has nothing to do with that.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Likewise there have been court decisions, I believe, that school administrators can search student lockers without probable cause-- or at least that the standard of probable cause needed is quite a bit lower.</p></div><p>The reason for this has to do with the fact that school administrators are <i>de facto</i> guardians serving <i>in loco parentis</i>, i.e., acting in the place of parents.  They are not acting as police, but rather assume the duties of parents for minors.  This has nothing to do with probable cause, but rather the fact that you're dealing with minors who are in the care of the state.  For a similar reason, prisoners give up their rights against searches, because they are in the care of the state.  This has nothing to do with the general adult population, however, and it's a poor analogy.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So given this issue of context,</p> </div><p>This "context" is irrelevant.  Rights don't disappear depending on "context."  The situations you mention don't deprive anyone of any of their normal rights under the law.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere.</p> </div><p>You could say that, but before 9/11 and the Patriot Act, you'd be on rather shaky ground.  Before 9/11, the scanners were operated by the airlines, even though the process was administered by the FAA; in any case, it wasn't actually law enforcement who were conducting searches.  Basically, in general you consented to search in order to do business with the airlines.  There are actually precious few exceptions to the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches -- under almost all circumstances, a warrant is required.  The only exceptions generally require a high standard of probable cause, and they usually only happen in circumstances where time is critical, such as in airports, where warrants would delay travel.</p><p>

The relevant exceptions to airline security are the <i>administrative exception</i>, the <i>stop-and-frisk exception</i>, and the <i>consent exception</i>.  The last one is obviously what most searches have traditionally fallen under, which is simply that people just consent to them, and therefore they are legal.  That isn't really a "lower expectation of privacy," since you are voluntarily giving it up.  The "stop-and-frisk" exception requires probable cause; it's generally what a police officer would use if he/she thought you were carrying contraband and didn't have time or opportunity to obtain a warrant.  Note that it still does *require* probable cause.  That's the reason police don't just pat down everyone in security; they wait until you show up on the scanner as potentially carrying something of interest.  Then they have the probable cause to search you further.</p><p>

The final "administrative" exception is the one that has a greater potential for abuse, but basically it requires that the law enforcement is conducting searches for a greater societal aim, not as part of an individual investigation against a person.  "Security" could be said to be justification for this last exception, but whether it would stand up to a court challenge really is dependent on the circumstances.  For example, if the police had reason to believe that a threat was to occur at a particular airport or on a particular day, they could legally search you.  If there had been a recent string of hijackings by a particular group, they might institute legal searches for a reasonable period of time.  But, generally speaking, if there is not an elevated threat of terrorism, and if they don't have probable cause, the government really can't force you to consent to a search.  The airline may refuse you passage as part of their own terms, perhaps, but the government has no right to search you.</p><p>

In sum, you're absolutely wrong about the idea that you have a "lower expectation of privacy."  There are <b>very few</b> search exceptions that allow law enforcement to search without specific probable cause against you, and airline searches in general don't fall under them.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know if that's a legally appropriate way of saying it, but what I mean is, we already essentially <b>allow</b> our bags to be searched at airports.</p> </div><p>Exactly.  You figured it out.  We <b>consent</b> to the searches, and therefore they are legal.  If one person doesn't consent, the airline may be able to deny them boarding.  But if a whole bunch of people refused to consent, and there were not exigent circumstances or probable cause, the airlines would have to decide either to let people on or lose a lot of customers.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If a police officer stopped me randomly on the street and asked to look in my bag, I'd say no.</p> </div><p>Good.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I'm going through security at an airport, I'll agree.</p> </div><p>Why?  What's the difference?  If you can give a specific reason for why you should be treated as a criminal at an airport compared to on the street, then you should.  But most of us just submit because it just makes our lives easier.  We consent.  But that's different from determining what our <b>fundamental rights</b> are, and there are very few exceptions to those, even in airports.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When I showed up to the airport that day, I knew ahead of time that I'd have to allow my bags to be searched (or at least viewed through an xray machine). Likewise when I pass over the border from another country, I know that I'll be expected to have a passport.</p> </div><p>Crossing an international border is a completely different circumstance.  They have all sorts of reasons to act in the public interest there, even including such basic things like keeping out diseased animals, meat, plants, etc., so they have plenty of reasons to need to search.  That's a <b>border</b>, which you'll notice is always a separate step from the actual security checkpoints in airports when flying internationally.  Governments often have less power to search you, even at the border, than the searches you're consenting to at airport security.  That is, unless they have a warrant or probable cause.  If they don't have those, they just deny you entry, which is their legal right in most circumstances.  They don't have the right to unnecessarily search you at the border; you consent as a condition of entering the country.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If a police officer asked me for my papers while I was just walking down the street, that would seem far more sinister to me. I've also emptied my pockets, walked through a metal detector, and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport. I wouldn't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets.</p> </div><p>Good that you wouldn't consent to a random search on the street.  Because such searches "on the streets" would be illegal.  If a police officer has probable cause, they can pat you down or look in your bag.  If they don't, they generally don't... whether it's on the street or in an airport.  There are certain specific circumstances where the "administrative" exception would be valid, for example, they can do sweeps for drunk driving.  But that doesn't give them permission to search your car or person -- merely to determine whether you are drunk, again in the "administrative" action of promoting overall safety on the roads, not targeting you, your person, or your belongings specifically.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So looking at it that way, I can't quite decide whether these scanners are going too far. I suppose if the consensus is that you feel like you've been stripped of your dignity by being asked to step into one, then it probably is too far.</p></div><p>But that's a very subjective thing, and that idea of being "stripped of your dignity" is a very personal thing.  Don't you as an individual have a right to decide where that line is <b>for yourself</b>?  Again, the main reason that universal searches work in the US is because everyone consents, not because the government has the right to do it.</p><p>

In any case, that's your line.  For a very modest person or perhaps a person from a culture that places a great premium on modesty, such a search may seem to be a fundamental invasion of privacy to them.  Should you or the government have the right to force your idea of reasonable standards upon that person?</p><p>

The answer is generally no.  The legal exceptions have been laid out through decades of court decisions, and they grant the police the right to search when it's actually necessary.  For example, asking someone to remove their turban for a search is generally a question of probable cause (i.e., the same probable cause that would be required for a pat down) -- the government does have the right to force an indignity upon a person unless they have a reason.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>However, I think I wouldn't really feel worse for being scanned than I feel for being asked to take my shoes off. Maybe that's just a mental defect on my part.</p></div><p>No, it's not a "mental defect" at all.  It's your opinion.  But I don't necessarily think that any one person's opinion should determine policy, nor do I think that how you feel about something is necessarily applicable to how other people might feel.  That's why we have decades of court rulings based on laws to draw the boundaries and suggest good guidelines for all people.</p><p>

I suggest you try reading up on some of these legal guidelines, because it seems you already "feel" like you've given up rights that you actually have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem here is that you 're confusing a heck of a lot of different issues .
This may seem like legalese to you , but when it comes to rights , the distinctions are important.Like yes , I have the freedom of speech , but if someone in the House of Representatives decides to run toward the President during the state of the Union yelling " Sic semper tyrannis !
" then you 'd better bet he 's going to be detained for a little while .
There 's the issue of context , and these rights are still subject to reason.Actually , this is not an issue of " freedom of speech " at all .
You were threatening to attack the President of the US .
That is actually a crime in and of itself .
No need to violate freedom of speech .
I think the example you may be looking for might be something like falsely shouting " fire " in a crowded theatre , which is a classic example used for supposedly restricted speech , for the obvious reason that it can cause panic , injury , etc .
Although this example is often used , the ruling was later limited , so the restriction on speech only occurs when the speech would incite imminent lawless actions , such as rioting .
Thus , the reasons for restricting freedom of speech are very , very few .
Your example has nothing to do with that.Likewise there have been court decisions , I believe , that school administrators can search student lockers without probable cause-- or at least that the standard of probable cause needed is quite a bit lower.The reason for this has to do with the fact that school administrators are de facto guardians serving in loco parentis , i.e. , acting in the place of parents .
They are not acting as police , but rather assume the duties of parents for minors .
This has nothing to do with probable cause , but rather the fact that you 're dealing with minors who are in the care of the state .
For a similar reason , prisoners give up their rights against searches , because they are in the care of the state .
This has nothing to do with the general adult population , however , and it 's a poor analogy.So given this issue of context , This " context " is irrelevant .
Rights do n't disappear depending on " context .
" The situations you mention do n't deprive anyone of any of their normal rights under the law.I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere .
You could say that , but before 9/11 and the Patriot Act , you 'd be on rather shaky ground .
Before 9/11 , the scanners were operated by the airlines , even though the process was administered by the FAA ; in any case , it was n't actually law enforcement who were conducting searches .
Basically , in general you consented to search in order to do business with the airlines .
There are actually precious few exceptions to the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches -- under almost all circumstances , a warrant is required .
The only exceptions generally require a high standard of probable cause , and they usually only happen in circumstances where time is critical , such as in airports , where warrants would delay travel .
The relevant exceptions to airline security are the administrative exception , the stop-and-frisk exception , and the consent exception .
The last one is obviously what most searches have traditionally fallen under , which is simply that people just consent to them , and therefore they are legal .
That is n't really a " lower expectation of privacy , " since you are voluntarily giving it up .
The " stop-and-frisk " exception requires probable cause ; it 's generally what a police officer would use if he/she thought you were carrying contraband and did n't have time or opportunity to obtain a warrant .
Note that it still does * require * probable cause .
That 's the reason police do n't just pat down everyone in security ; they wait until you show up on the scanner as potentially carrying something of interest .
Then they have the probable cause to search you further .
The final " administrative " exception is the one that has a greater potential for abuse , but basically it requires that the law enforcement is conducting searches for a greater societal aim , not as part of an individual investigation against a person .
" Security " could be said to be justification for this last exception , but whether it would stand up to a court challenge really is dependent on the circumstances .
For example , if the police had reason to believe that a threat was to occur at a particular airport or on a particular day , they could legally search you .
If there had been a recent string of hijackings by a particular group , they might institute legal searches for a reasonable period of time .
But , generally speaking , if there is not an elevated threat of terrorism , and if they do n't have probable cause , the government really ca n't force you to consent to a search .
The airline may refuse you passage as part of their own terms , perhaps , but the government has no right to search you .
In sum , you 're absolutely wrong about the idea that you have a " lower expectation of privacy .
" There are very few search exceptions that allow law enforcement to search without specific probable cause against you , and airline searches in general do n't fall under them.I do n't know if that 's a legally appropriate way of saying it , but what I mean is , we already essentially allow our bags to be searched at airports .
Exactly. You figured it out .
We consent to the searches , and therefore they are legal .
If one person does n't consent , the airline may be able to deny them boarding .
But if a whole bunch of people refused to consent , and there were not exigent circumstances or probable cause , the airlines would have to decide either to let people on or lose a lot of customers.If a police officer stopped me randomly on the street and asked to look in my bag , I 'd say no .
Good.If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I 'm going through security at an airport , I 'll agree .
Why ? What 's the difference ?
If you can give a specific reason for why you should be treated as a criminal at an airport compared to on the street , then you should .
But most of us just submit because it just makes our lives easier .
We consent .
But that 's different from determining what our fundamental rights are , and there are very few exceptions to those , even in airports.When I showed up to the airport that day , I knew ahead of time that I 'd have to allow my bags to be searched ( or at least viewed through an xray machine ) .
Likewise when I pass over the border from another country , I know that I 'll be expected to have a passport .
Crossing an international border is a completely different circumstance .
They have all sorts of reasons to act in the public interest there , even including such basic things like keeping out diseased animals , meat , plants , etc. , so they have plenty of reasons to need to search .
That 's a border , which you 'll notice is always a separate step from the actual security checkpoints in airports when flying internationally .
Governments often have less power to search you , even at the border , than the searches you 're consenting to at airport security .
That is , unless they have a warrant or probable cause .
If they do n't have those , they just deny you entry , which is their legal right in most circumstances .
They do n't have the right to unnecessarily search you at the border ; you consent as a condition of entering the country.If a police officer asked me for my papers while I was just walking down the street , that would seem far more sinister to me .
I 've also emptied my pockets , walked through a metal detector , and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport .
I would n't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets .
Good that you would n't consent to a random search on the street .
Because such searches " on the streets " would be illegal .
If a police officer has probable cause , they can pat you down or look in your bag .
If they do n't , they generally do n't... whether it 's on the street or in an airport .
There are certain specific circumstances where the " administrative " exception would be valid , for example , they can do sweeps for drunk driving .
But that does n't give them permission to search your car or person -- merely to determine whether you are drunk , again in the " administrative " action of promoting overall safety on the roads , not targeting you , your person , or your belongings specifically.So looking at it that way , I ca n't quite decide whether these scanners are going too far .
I suppose if the consensus is that you feel like you 've been stripped of your dignity by being asked to step into one , then it probably is too far.But that 's a very subjective thing , and that idea of being " stripped of your dignity " is a very personal thing .
Do n't you as an individual have a right to decide where that line is for yourself ?
Again , the main reason that universal searches work in the US is because everyone consents , not because the government has the right to do it .
In any case , that 's your line .
For a very modest person or perhaps a person from a culture that places a great premium on modesty , such a search may seem to be a fundamental invasion of privacy to them .
Should you or the government have the right to force your idea of reasonable standards upon that person ?
The answer is generally no .
The legal exceptions have been laid out through decades of court decisions , and they grant the police the right to search when it 's actually necessary .
For example , asking someone to remove their turban for a search is generally a question of probable cause ( i.e. , the same probable cause that would be required for a pat down ) -- the government does have the right to force an indignity upon a person unless they have a reason.However , I think I would n't really feel worse for being scanned than I feel for being asked to take my shoes off .
Maybe that 's just a mental defect on my part.No , it 's not a " mental defect " at all .
It 's your opinion .
But I do n't necessarily think that any one person 's opinion should determine policy , nor do I think that how you feel about something is necessarily applicable to how other people might feel .
That 's why we have decades of court rulings based on laws to draw the boundaries and suggest good guidelines for all people .
I suggest you try reading up on some of these legal guidelines , because it seems you already " feel " like you 've given up rights that you actually have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem here is that you're confusing a heck of a lot of different issues.
This may seem like legalese to you, but when it comes to rights, the distinctions are important.Like yes, I have the freedom of speech, but if someone in the House of Representatives decides to run toward the President during the state of the Union yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!
" then you'd better bet he's going to be detained for a little while.
There's the issue of context, and these rights are still subject to reason.Actually, this is not an issue of "freedom of speech" at all.
You were threatening to attack the President of the US.
That is actually a crime in and of itself.
No need to violate freedom of speech.
I think the example you may be looking for might be something like falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, which is a classic example used for supposedly restricted speech, for the obvious reason that it can cause panic, injury, etc.
Although this example is often used, the ruling was later limited, so the restriction on speech only occurs when the speech would incite imminent lawless actions, such as rioting.
Thus, the reasons for restricting freedom of speech are very, very few.
Your example has nothing to do with that.Likewise there have been court decisions, I believe, that school administrators can search student lockers without probable cause-- or at least that the standard of probable cause needed is quite a bit lower.The reason for this has to do with the fact that school administrators are de facto guardians serving in loco parentis, i.e., acting in the place of parents.
They are not acting as police, but rather assume the duties of parents for minors.
This has nothing to do with probable cause, but rather the fact that you're dealing with minors who are in the care of the state.
For a similar reason, prisoners give up their rights against searches, because they are in the care of the state.
This has nothing to do with the general adult population, however, and it's a poor analogy.So given this issue of context, This "context" is irrelevant.
Rights don't disappear depending on "context.
"  The situations you mention don't deprive anyone of any of their normal rights under the law.I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere.
You could say that, but before 9/11 and the Patriot Act, you'd be on rather shaky ground.
Before 9/11, the scanners were operated by the airlines, even though the process was administered by the FAA; in any case, it wasn't actually law enforcement who were conducting searches.
Basically, in general you consented to search in order to do business with the airlines.
There are actually precious few exceptions to the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches -- under almost all circumstances, a warrant is required.
The only exceptions generally require a high standard of probable cause, and they usually only happen in circumstances where time is critical, such as in airports, where warrants would delay travel.
The relevant exceptions to airline security are the administrative exception, the stop-and-frisk exception, and the consent exception.
The last one is obviously what most searches have traditionally fallen under, which is simply that people just consent to them, and therefore they are legal.
That isn't really a "lower expectation of privacy," since you are voluntarily giving it up.
The "stop-and-frisk" exception requires probable cause; it's generally what a police officer would use if he/she thought you were carrying contraband and didn't have time or opportunity to obtain a warrant.
Note that it still does *require* probable cause.
That's the reason police don't just pat down everyone in security; they wait until you show up on the scanner as potentially carrying something of interest.
Then they have the probable cause to search you further.
The final "administrative" exception is the one that has a greater potential for abuse, but basically it requires that the law enforcement is conducting searches for a greater societal aim, not as part of an individual investigation against a person.
"Security" could be said to be justification for this last exception, but whether it would stand up to a court challenge really is dependent on the circumstances.
For example, if the police had reason to believe that a threat was to occur at a particular airport or on a particular day, they could legally search you.
If there had been a recent string of hijackings by a particular group, they might institute legal searches for a reasonable period of time.
But, generally speaking, if there is not an elevated threat of terrorism, and if they don't have probable cause, the government really can't force you to consent to a search.
The airline may refuse you passage as part of their own terms, perhaps, but the government has no right to search you.
In sum, you're absolutely wrong about the idea that you have a "lower expectation of privacy.
"  There are very few search exceptions that allow law enforcement to search without specific probable cause against you, and airline searches in general don't fall under them.I don't know if that's a legally appropriate way of saying it, but what I mean is, we already essentially allow our bags to be searched at airports.
Exactly.  You figured it out.
We consent to the searches, and therefore they are legal.
If one person doesn't consent, the airline may be able to deny them boarding.
But if a whole bunch of people refused to consent, and there were not exigent circumstances or probable cause, the airlines would have to decide either to let people on or lose a lot of customers.If a police officer stopped me randomly on the street and asked to look in my bag, I'd say no.
Good.If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I'm going through security at an airport, I'll agree.
Why?  What's the difference?
If you can give a specific reason for why you should be treated as a criminal at an airport compared to on the street, then you should.
But most of us just submit because it just makes our lives easier.
We consent.
But that's different from determining what our fundamental rights are, and there are very few exceptions to those, even in airports.When I showed up to the airport that day, I knew ahead of time that I'd have to allow my bags to be searched (or at least viewed through an xray machine).
Likewise when I pass over the border from another country, I know that I'll be expected to have a passport.
Crossing an international border is a completely different circumstance.
They have all sorts of reasons to act in the public interest there, even including such basic things like keeping out diseased animals, meat, plants, etc., so they have plenty of reasons to need to search.
That's a border, which you'll notice is always a separate step from the actual security checkpoints in airports when flying internationally.
Governments often have less power to search you, even at the border, than the searches you're consenting to at airport security.
That is, unless they have a warrant or probable cause.
If they don't have those, they just deny you entry, which is their legal right in most circumstances.
They don't have the right to unnecessarily search you at the border; you consent as a condition of entering the country.If a police officer asked me for my papers while I was just walking down the street, that would seem far more sinister to me.
I've also emptied my pockets, walked through a metal detector, and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport.
I wouldn't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets.
Good that you wouldn't consent to a random search on the street.
Because such searches "on the streets" would be illegal.
If a police officer has probable cause, they can pat you down or look in your bag.
If they don't, they generally don't... whether it's on the street or in an airport.
There are certain specific circumstances where the "administrative" exception would be valid, for example, they can do sweeps for drunk driving.
But that doesn't give them permission to search your car or person -- merely to determine whether you are drunk, again in the "administrative" action of promoting overall safety on the roads, not targeting you, your person, or your belongings specifically.So looking at it that way, I can't quite decide whether these scanners are going too far.
I suppose if the consensus is that you feel like you've been stripped of your dignity by being asked to step into one, then it probably is too far.But that's a very subjective thing, and that idea of being "stripped of your dignity" is a very personal thing.
Don't you as an individual have a right to decide where that line is for yourself?
Again, the main reason that universal searches work in the US is because everyone consents, not because the government has the right to do it.
In any case, that's your line.
For a very modest person or perhaps a person from a culture that places a great premium on modesty, such a search may seem to be a fundamental invasion of privacy to them.
Should you or the government have the right to force your idea of reasonable standards upon that person?
The answer is generally no.
The legal exceptions have been laid out through decades of court decisions, and they grant the police the right to search when it's actually necessary.
For example, asking someone to remove their turban for a search is generally a question of probable cause (i.e., the same probable cause that would be required for a pat down) -- the government does have the right to force an indignity upon a person unless they have a reason.However, I think I wouldn't really feel worse for being scanned than I feel for being asked to take my shoes off.
Maybe that's just a mental defect on my part.No, it's not a "mental defect" at all.
It's your opinion.
But I don't necessarily think that any one person's opinion should determine policy, nor do I think that how you feel about something is necessarily applicable to how other people might feel.
That's why we have decades of court rulings based on laws to draw the boundaries and suggest good guidelines for all people.
I suggest you try reading up on some of these legal guidelines, because it seems you already "feel" like you've given up rights that you actually have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734036</id>
	<title>Re:... So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263239460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's the big deal? I can think of better places to get porn.</p></div><p>     Greetings and Salutations...<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Well, there are a couple of issues here that may have escaped your notice.  Firstly, in all the discussions up to this point, EVERY governmental and company representative that discussed the capabilities of the scanners stated that the images were NOT stored in any long term or accessible fashion.  They would be snapped, and, displayed on a screen for a person to look at, then, be destroyed.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; This was a deliberate lie, as these documents prove.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Secondly, the government is being secretive about how this image transmission to long-term storage is activated.   As a long-time analyst and programmer, I suspect that all that it takes is for some one to log into the machine as an administrator, and click a check-box.   it has been my experience that "test modes" like this are built to be very easy to access, as the folks that do the testing hate to work any harder than required.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Thirdly, while it may not matter to YOU that your privacy is being invaded with no great benefits or increase in security, it DOES matter to me and many others like me.   More and more reports are coming out that indicate that these machines are more theater than an effective tool.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Fourthly, as Pres. Obama noted in his address to the Nation a few nights ago, the only reason that the "Christmas Boob"...sorry...Bomber...was able to get onto the plane with his toys was because of a massive failure to analyze intelligence by the various Federal agencies...including Homeland Security, which was supposed to do EXACTLY that sort of analysis.   I appreciated his fairly tough statements, but, frankly, I would have preferred that he be slightly less merciful and go ahead and fire some of the bureaucrats whose incompetence and malfeasance put Americans in jeopardy.  That would have been a much clearer message that we have plenty of tools to find and halt terrorist plots now...and that the only thing that will truly deal with the problem is better intelligence gathering, analysis, and, examinations of why it is that so much of the world is pissed enough with America's policies that even well educated members of society are willing to blow them selves up to attempt to strike at us.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Finally, have you noticed that much of the world press is referring to this as a "hysterical" reaction, and that not ony will it not do anything significant to increase America's safety, but, will likely have the effect of causing fewer and fewer world citizens to visit the country for business purposes, or vacations?<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Pleasant dreams<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Dave Mundt</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the big deal ?
I can think of better places to get porn .
Greetings and Salutations.. .           Well , there are a couple of issues here that may have escaped your notice .
Firstly , in all the discussions up to this point , EVERY governmental and company representative that discussed the capabilities of the scanners stated that the images were NOT stored in any long term or accessible fashion .
They would be snapped , and , displayed on a screen for a person to look at , then , be destroyed .
          This was a deliberate lie , as these documents prove .
          Secondly , the government is being secretive about how this image transmission to long-term storage is activated .
As a long-time analyst and programmer , I suspect that all that it takes is for some one to log into the machine as an administrator , and click a check-box .
it has been my experience that " test modes " like this are built to be very easy to access , as the folks that do the testing hate to work any harder than required .
          Thirdly , while it may not matter to YOU that your privacy is being invaded with no great benefits or increase in security , it DOES matter to me and many others like me .
More and more reports are coming out that indicate that these machines are more theater than an effective tool .
          Fourthly , as Pres .
Obama noted in his address to the Nation a few nights ago , the only reason that the " Christmas Boob " ...sorry...Bomber...was able to get onto the plane with his toys was because of a massive failure to analyze intelligence by the various Federal agencies...including Homeland Security , which was supposed to do EXACTLY that sort of analysis .
I appreciated his fairly tough statements , but , frankly , I would have preferred that he be slightly less merciful and go ahead and fire some of the bureaucrats whose incompetence and malfeasance put Americans in jeopardy .
That would have been a much clearer message that we have plenty of tools to find and halt terrorist plots now...and that the only thing that will truly deal with the problem is better intelligence gathering , analysis , and , examinations of why it is that so much of the world is pissed enough with America 's policies that even well educated members of society are willing to blow them selves up to attempt to strike at us .
          Finally , have you noticed that much of the world press is referring to this as a " hysterical " reaction , and that not ony will it not do anything significant to increase America 's safety , but , will likely have the effect of causing fewer and fewer world citizens to visit the country for business purposes , or vacations ?
          Pleasant dreams           Dave Mundt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the big deal?
I can think of better places to get porn.
Greetings and Salutations...
          Well, there are a couple of issues here that may have escaped your notice.
Firstly, in all the discussions up to this point, EVERY governmental and company representative that discussed the capabilities of the scanners stated that the images were NOT stored in any long term or accessible fashion.
They would be snapped, and, displayed on a screen for a person to look at, then, be destroyed.
          This was a deliberate lie, as these documents prove.
          Secondly, the government is being secretive about how this image transmission to long-term storage is activated.
As a long-time analyst and programmer, I suspect that all that it takes is for some one to log into the machine as an administrator, and click a check-box.
it has been my experience that "test modes" like this are built to be very easy to access, as the folks that do the testing hate to work any harder than required.
          Thirdly, while it may not matter to YOU that your privacy is being invaded with no great benefits or increase in security, it DOES matter to me and many others like me.
More and more reports are coming out that indicate that these machines are more theater than an effective tool.
          Fourthly, as Pres.
Obama noted in his address to the Nation a few nights ago, the only reason that the "Christmas Boob"...sorry...Bomber...was able to get onto the plane with his toys was because of a massive failure to analyze intelligence by the various Federal agencies...including Homeland Security, which was supposed to do EXACTLY that sort of analysis.
I appreciated his fairly tough statements, but, frankly, I would have preferred that he be slightly less merciful and go ahead and fire some of the bureaucrats whose incompetence and malfeasance put Americans in jeopardy.
That would have been a much clearer message that we have plenty of tools to find and halt terrorist plots now...and that the only thing that will truly deal with the problem is better intelligence gathering, analysis, and, examinations of why it is that so much of the world is pissed enough with America's policies that even well educated members of society are willing to blow them selves up to attempt to strike at us.
          Finally, have you noticed that much of the world press is referring to this as a "hysterical" reaction, and that not ony will it not do anything significant to increase America's safety, but, will likely have the effect of causing fewer and fewer world citizens to visit the country for business purposes, or vacations?
          Pleasant dreams
          Dave Mundt
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30739214</id>
	<title>Re:Dignity is an essential human right.</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1263319320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pics or it won't happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pics or it wo n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pics or it won't happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732068</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>peragrin</author>
	<datestamp>1263220680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you know that hasn't already been done? Sony used to sell a video camera with low light enhancement that saw through light weight clothes.  you just never know what technology is already on the market can do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you know that has n't already been done ?
Sony used to sell a video camera with low light enhancement that saw through light weight clothes .
you just never know what technology is already on the market can do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you know that hasn't already been done?
Sony used to sell a video camera with low light enhancement that saw through light weight clothes.
you just never know what technology is already on the market can do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735250</id>
	<title>Apologies for the Failblog link, but...</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1263299100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://failblog.org/2010/01/11/airport-security-fail-2/" title="failblog.org">Here's the problem with all manned security scanners.</a> [failblog.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the problem with all manned security scanners .
[ failblog.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the problem with all manned security scanners.
[failblog.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734272</id>
	<title>Look behind you.</title>
	<author>BlackHawk-666</author>
	<datestamp>1263329340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The terrorists are already in your country, eating your food, watching your TV, waiting for the call to awake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The terrorists are already in your country , eating your food , watching your TV , waiting for the call to awake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The terrorists are already in your country, eating your food, watching your TV, waiting for the call to awake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30736554</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1263309480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's worth noting that whenever they show a scan on TV, they have the subjects put metal plates over their "naughty bits" for the scan. That says something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worth noting that whenever they show a scan on TV , they have the subjects put metal plates over their " naughty bits " for the scan .
That says something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worth noting that whenever they show a scan on TV, they have the subjects put metal plates over their "naughty bits" for the scan.
That says something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731404</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263216600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a fuzzy picture. It shows all dense objects in acute detail projected on large screens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a fuzzy picture .
It shows all dense objects in acute detail projected on large screens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a fuzzy picture.
It shows all dense objects in acute detail projected on large screens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732680</id>
	<title>Re:... So?</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1263225660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like I pointed out before (the last time the scanner issue came up), who is really gonna want to look at these images?<br>"Oh yea, look at the cottage cheese thighs on this one!"<br>"OMG! Quadruple Butt Dimples!"<br>"Damn, the back end of that thong is just GONE!"<br> <br>Looking at people going through an American airport is like looking at people going through a Wal-Mart, not a lot of folks you would want to see naked...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like I pointed out before ( the last time the scanner issue came up ) , who is really gon na want to look at these images ?
" Oh yea , look at the cottage cheese thighs on this one ! " " OMG !
Quadruple Butt Dimples !
" " Damn , the back end of that thong is just GONE !
" Looking at people going through an American airport is like looking at people going through a Wal-Mart , not a lot of folks you would want to see naked.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like I pointed out before (the last time the scanner issue came up), who is really gonna want to look at these images?
"Oh yea, look at the cottage cheese thighs on this one!""OMG!
Quadruple Butt Dimples!
""Damn, the back end of that thong is just GONE!
" Looking at people going through an American airport is like looking at people going through a Wal-Mart, not a lot of folks you would want to see naked...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731508</id>
	<title>Invisibility Cloak</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1263217200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Need a shirt and pants that route x-rays around the body so when you step into the scanner, they only see a head and shoes.</p><p>Add: A fluctuating Eye of Sauron where your chest would be that the x-rays can see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Need a shirt and pants that route x-rays around the body so when you step into the scanner , they only see a head and shoes.Add : A fluctuating Eye of Sauron where your chest would be that the x-rays can see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Need a shirt and pants that route x-rays around the body so when you step into the scanner, they only see a head and shoes.Add: A fluctuating Eye of Sauron where your chest would be that the x-rays can see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733608</id>
	<title>Re:Duh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263233760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No kidding. As if they would delete what can be potential evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding .
As if they would delete what can be potential evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding.
As if they would delete what can be potential evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731560</id>
	<title>With fire.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263217620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm waiting for someone to have the balls to tag this article as 'killitwithfire'. I wonder how fast the FBI would be knocking on (down) the door...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm waiting for someone to have the balls to tag this article as 'killitwithfire' .
I wonder how fast the FBI would be knocking on ( down ) the door.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm waiting for someone to have the balls to tag this article as 'killitwithfire'.
I wonder how fast the FBI would be knocking on (down) the door...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731608</id>
	<title>Re:Dignity is an essential human right.</title>
	<author>PeanutButterBreath</author>
	<datestamp>1263217860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just imagine some TSA creeps snickering at an image of your girlfriend's, your father's or your mother's naked body.</p></div><p>You know, I was kind of annoyed by the concept until you put it just as you did.  I imagined it.  I didn't care.</p><p>I've realized that I don't care about some "TSA creep" snickering about my body, or anything else of mine, or anyone else's body for that matter.  By definition of their being a "creep" their opinion is irrelevant to me.  Can they match person X with their image?  Doubtful, but probably possible.  But even then, there is nothing stopping anyone from [i]claiming[/i] a vague or doctored image corresponds to me either.</p><p>I'd much rather have them view me remotely in ever intimate detail than lay their hands on me or my possessions.  I can't control what someone does with their eyes.  Touching me and my possessions is the [i]real[/i] invasion, IMO.</p><p>If these scanners speed up the pointless, arbitrary and farcical "security" line, that is a win for dignity right there.  Forcing me, a peaceful, law-abiding adult to queue up like livestock and waste my time are two more [i]tangible[/i] indignities that I would gladly trade for the chance that some loser might get a thrill out of my body scan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just imagine some TSA creeps snickering at an image of your girlfriend 's , your father 's or your mother 's naked body.You know , I was kind of annoyed by the concept until you put it just as you did .
I imagined it .
I did n't care.I 've realized that I do n't care about some " TSA creep " snickering about my body , or anything else of mine , or anyone else 's body for that matter .
By definition of their being a " creep " their opinion is irrelevant to me .
Can they match person X with their image ?
Doubtful , but probably possible .
But even then , there is nothing stopping anyone from [ i ] claiming [ /i ] a vague or doctored image corresponds to me either.I 'd much rather have them view me remotely in ever intimate detail than lay their hands on me or my possessions .
I ca n't control what someone does with their eyes .
Touching me and my possessions is the [ i ] real [ /i ] invasion , IMO.If these scanners speed up the pointless , arbitrary and farcical " security " line , that is a win for dignity right there .
Forcing me , a peaceful , law-abiding adult to queue up like livestock and waste my time are two more [ i ] tangible [ /i ] indignities that I would gladly trade for the chance that some loser might get a thrill out of my body scan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just imagine some TSA creeps snickering at an image of your girlfriend's, your father's or your mother's naked body.You know, I was kind of annoyed by the concept until you put it just as you did.
I imagined it.
I didn't care.I've realized that I don't care about some "TSA creep" snickering about my body, or anything else of mine, or anyone else's body for that matter.
By definition of their being a "creep" their opinion is irrelevant to me.
Can they match person X with their image?
Doubtful, but probably possible.
But even then, there is nothing stopping anyone from [i]claiming[/i] a vague or doctored image corresponds to me either.I'd much rather have them view me remotely in ever intimate detail than lay their hands on me or my possessions.
I can't control what someone does with their eyes.
Touching me and my possessions is the [i]real[/i] invasion, IMO.If these scanners speed up the pointless, arbitrary and farcical "security" line, that is a win for dignity right there.
Forcing me, a peaceful, law-abiding adult to queue up like livestock and waste my time are two more [i]tangible[/i] indignities that I would gladly trade for the chance that some loser might get a thrill out of my body scan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735828</id>
	<title>Re:No duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263304680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and.. aren't those body scanners giving you CANCER?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and.. are n't those body scanners giving you CANCER ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and.. aren't those body scanners giving you CANCER?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734220</id>
	<title>Re:No duh</title>
	<author>Chatsubo</author>
	<datestamp>1263328800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the end of the day, it's pretty easy to just whip out a camera-phone (these days this translates to "every cellphone"), and take a picture of the screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the end of the day , it 's pretty easy to just whip out a camera-phone ( these days this translates to " every cellphone " ) , and take a picture of the screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the end of the day, it's pretty easy to just whip out a camera-phone (these days this translates to "every cellphone"), and take a picture of the screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731758</id>
	<title>Like BIG celebrities are going to use this.</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1263218700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C'mon now, all this talk about celebrities and hacking those "high-profile" images.  Please.  Most celebrities don't bother with this now.</p><p>Let's see, I'm a celebrity making millions.  Do I A) Pay $1000 to fly first-class on a public airline and risk my career being ruined by a horny airport scanner operator stealing my "naked" image, or B) Realize I have enough "ah, fuck it" money lying around to lease my own NetJet where I don't have to deal with the bullshit of either scanners or the pubic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C'mon now , all this talk about celebrities and hacking those " high-profile " images .
Please. Most celebrities do n't bother with this now.Let 's see , I 'm a celebrity making millions .
Do I A ) Pay $ 1000 to fly first-class on a public airline and risk my career being ruined by a horny airport scanner operator stealing my " naked " image , or B ) Realize I have enough " ah , fuck it " money lying around to lease my own NetJet where I do n't have to deal with the bullshit of either scanners or the pubic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C'mon now, all this talk about celebrities and hacking those "high-profile" images.
Please.  Most celebrities don't bother with this now.Let's see, I'm a celebrity making millions.
Do I A) Pay $1000 to fly first-class on a public airline and risk my career being ruined by a horny airport scanner operator stealing my "naked" image, or B) Realize I have enough "ah, fuck it" money lying around to lease my own NetJet where I don't have to deal with the bullshit of either scanners or the pubic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30742890</id>
	<title>easy solution</title>
	<author>jcgam69</author>
	<datestamp>1263291720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Code the scanner software to automatically blur the face.  The resulting images will then be essentially anonymous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Code the scanner software to automatically blur the face .
The resulting images will then be essentially anonymous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Code the scanner software to automatically blur the face.
The resulting images will then be essentially anonymous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734774</id>
	<title>Re:... So?</title>
	<author>foobsr</author>
	<datestamp>1263293100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot considering that 'they', stupid as they are, will probably extract some nonsense characteristics from the pictures that will go into 'profiling for risk assessment'.
<br> <br>
CC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot considering that 'they ' , stupid as they are , will probably extract some nonsense characteristics from the pictures that will go into 'profiling for risk assessment' .
CC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot considering that 'they', stupid as they are, will probably extract some nonsense characteristics from the pictures that will go into 'profiling for risk assessment'.
CC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731606</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>$beirdo</author>
	<datestamp>1263217860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for posting this, you are 100\% right on the money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for posting this , you are 100 \ % right on the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for posting this, you are 100\% right on the money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731686</id>
	<title>Re:Good enough for government work</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1263218220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"cannot be hacked"
This should be a massive red flag...I would be temped to get a job with the TSA just to get a chance to hack these things.  Plus, working with a partner, you could easily get high value images of celebrities.</p></div><p>Ah, sorry, but you couldn't pay me enough to sit in front of one of these things for even five minutes.  After seeing the 457th lard-ass waddle their way through the scanner, I'd likely be puking too hard to care about hacking.  I'm betting those images would make a Gynecologists office in a retirement community look like Playboy by comparison.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" can not be hacked " This should be a massive red flag...I would be temped to get a job with the TSA just to get a chance to hack these things .
Plus , working with a partner , you could easily get high value images of celebrities.Ah , sorry , but you could n't pay me enough to sit in front of one of these things for even five minutes .
After seeing the 457th lard-ass waddle their way through the scanner , I 'd likely be puking too hard to care about hacking .
I 'm betting those images would make a Gynecologists office in a retirement community look like Playboy by comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"cannot be hacked"
This should be a massive red flag...I would be temped to get a job with the TSA just to get a chance to hack these things.
Plus, working with a partner, you could easily get high value images of celebrities.Ah, sorry, but you couldn't pay me enough to sit in front of one of these things for even five minutes.
After seeing the 457th lard-ass waddle their way through the scanner, I'd likely be puking too hard to care about hacking.
I'm betting those images would make a Gynecologists office in a retirement community look like Playboy by comparison.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30761920</id>
	<title>Re:No crap!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263462180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they catch a guy with something they can probably show the something to the judge. Except maybe a dagger made of ice, I think I read that in a book once</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they catch a guy with something they can probably show the something to the judge .
Except maybe a dagger made of ice , I think I read that in a book once</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they catch a guy with something they can probably show the something to the judge.
Except maybe a dagger made of ice, I think I read that in a book once</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735176</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>Rexdude</author>
	<datestamp>1263298200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You have other options- drive where you need to go, take a cruise, or get your own plane...</p></div><p>What about international travel, do we just hop onto the nearest tramp steamer? And the slight fact that we're not all millionaires with private jets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have other options- drive where you need to go , take a cruise , or get your own plane...What about international travel , do we just hop onto the nearest tramp steamer ?
And the slight fact that we 're not all millionaires with private jets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have other options- drive where you need to go, take a cruise, or get your own plane...What about international travel, do we just hop onto the nearest tramp steamer?
And the slight fact that we're not all millionaires with private jets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732928</id>
	<title>I have a question about this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263227640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suppose an elderly airline passenger is wearing his adult diaper (recently used), will they be pulled out of line and made to display their crap to TSA employees?  I mean, wouldn't that look a lot like our nigerian friends special underpants?  Is this just another excuse to harass the incontinent?</p><p>Will very fat people be asked to lift and display what's under their folds?  I've seen people who could hide quite a lot in their sweaty crevices,  Why I bet the average<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. reader could be hiding a very dirty bomb on their person for sure that wouldn't be detected by these machines. What would this scanner detect on <a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/fisherwy/SBM-EzmHWxI/AAAAAAAAOp8/iiGSZrPB7Co/Russian\%20woman\%20Natalya\%20M\%20belly\%20fat\%20picture\%5B3\%5D.jpg" title="ggpht.com" rel="nofollow"> this woman</a> [ggpht.com].  There's a lot on her that is (and would be best left) unseen by such a device.</p><p>This, like every other measure taken, seems only to harass and annoy regular people.  These are people representing several government organizations, who when told that someone is planning a terrorist attack by that persons father, and that person pays cash, buys a one way ticket and checks no bags, they can't be troubled to ensure that he doesn't get on a plane.  But up untill 2008, made very sure that Nelson Mandella couldn't board a US bound plane?  This is just crazy.  Makes me want to pull my hair out at the thought of handing these people new tools when the basic tool of common sense has been long abandoned and replaced with seemingly random regulations and rules.</p><p>As Frank Zappa said, "America is a nation of laws; Poorly written and randomly enforced"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppose an elderly airline passenger is wearing his adult diaper ( recently used ) , will they be pulled out of line and made to display their crap to TSA employees ?
I mean , would n't that look a lot like our nigerian friends special underpants ?
Is this just another excuse to harass the incontinent ? Will very fat people be asked to lift and display what 's under their folds ?
I 've seen people who could hide quite a lot in their sweaty crevices , Why I bet the average / .
reader could be hiding a very dirty bomb on their person for sure that would n't be detected by these machines .
What would this scanner detect on this woman [ ggpht.com ] .
There 's a lot on her that is ( and would be best left ) unseen by such a device.This , like every other measure taken , seems only to harass and annoy regular people .
These are people representing several government organizations , who when told that someone is planning a terrorist attack by that persons father , and that person pays cash , buys a one way ticket and checks no bags , they ca n't be troubled to ensure that he does n't get on a plane .
But up untill 2008 , made very sure that Nelson Mandella could n't board a US bound plane ?
This is just crazy .
Makes me want to pull my hair out at the thought of handing these people new tools when the basic tool of common sense has been long abandoned and replaced with seemingly random regulations and rules.As Frank Zappa said , " America is a nation of laws ; Poorly written and randomly enforced "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suppose an elderly airline passenger is wearing his adult diaper (recently used), will they be pulled out of line and made to display their crap to TSA employees?
I mean, wouldn't that look a lot like our nigerian friends special underpants?
Is this just another excuse to harass the incontinent?Will very fat people be asked to lift and display what's under their folds?
I've seen people who could hide quite a lot in their sweaty crevices,  Why I bet the average /.
reader could be hiding a very dirty bomb on their person for sure that wouldn't be detected by these machines.
What would this scanner detect on  this woman [ggpht.com].
There's a lot on her that is (and would be best left) unseen by such a device.This, like every other measure taken, seems only to harass and annoy regular people.
These are people representing several government organizations, who when told that someone is planning a terrorist attack by that persons father, and that person pays cash, buys a one way ticket and checks no bags, they can't be troubled to ensure that he doesn't get on a plane.
But up untill 2008, made very sure that Nelson Mandella couldn't board a US bound plane?
This is just crazy.
Makes me want to pull my hair out at the thought of handing these people new tools when the basic tool of common sense has been long abandoned and replaced with seemingly random regulations and rules.As Frank Zappa said, "America is a nation of laws; Poorly written and randomly enforced"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30739794</id>
	<title>Re:Dignity is an essential human right.</title>
	<author>$beirdo</author>
	<datestamp>1263321480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's something fascinating: it appears that we in the USA could learn about freedom and human rights from the Germans.  The very first sentence in the German Constitution reads:</p><p>"Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority." (again from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity#Law" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org])</p><p>Furthermore, and also fascinating:</p><p>" 14(3) of the Luftsicherheitsgesetz, which would have allowed the Bundeswehr to shoot down airliners if they are used as weapons by terrorists, was declared unconstitutional mainly on the grounds of human dignity: killing a small number of innocent people to save a large number cannot be legalized since it treats dignity as if it were a measurable and limited quantity."</p><p>The Germans are absolutely right.  What the hell is wrong with our country?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's something fascinating : it appears that we in the USA could learn about freedom and human rights from the Germans .
The very first sentence in the German Constitution reads : " Human dignity shall be inviolable .
To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority .
" ( again from Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] ) Furthermore , and also fascinating : " 14 ( 3 ) of the Luftsicherheitsgesetz , which would have allowed the Bundeswehr to shoot down airliners if they are used as weapons by terrorists , was declared unconstitutional mainly on the grounds of human dignity : killing a small number of innocent people to save a large number can not be legalized since it treats dignity as if it were a measurable and limited quantity .
" The Germans are absolutely right .
What the hell is wrong with our country ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's something fascinating: it appears that we in the USA could learn about freedom and human rights from the Germans.
The very first sentence in the German Constitution reads:"Human dignity shall be inviolable.
To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
" (again from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org])Furthermore, and also fascinating:" 14(3) of the Luftsicherheitsgesetz, which would have allowed the Bundeswehr to shoot down airliners if they are used as weapons by terrorists, was declared unconstitutional mainly on the grounds of human dignity: killing a small number of innocent people to save a large number cannot be legalized since it treats dignity as if it were a measurable and limited quantity.
"The Germans are absolutely right.
What the hell is wrong with our country?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30736218</id>
	<title>Re:No duh</title>
	<author>tophermeyer</author>
	<datestamp>1263307260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The machines must be able to produce a hard copy for use in any court action.</p></div><p>That is a good point, except that as things stand right now, there is no legal requirement to present any evidence that a person has failed this kind of screening.  This imaging system alone would not be used to determine guilt or innocence; rather it would be used to identify which individuals may be carrying something they shouldn't, and should be detained for in depth screening.</p><p>I work on a program to develop security screening technologies.  The TSA, and other organizations, have made it a design requirement (and I mean that in the technical way) that screening technologies be completely anonymous, and not record any information about a person once they have left screening.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The machines must be able to produce a hard copy for use in any court action.That is a good point , except that as things stand right now , there is no legal requirement to present any evidence that a person has failed this kind of screening .
This imaging system alone would not be used to determine guilt or innocence ; rather it would be used to identify which individuals may be carrying something they should n't , and should be detained for in depth screening.I work on a program to develop security screening technologies .
The TSA , and other organizations , have made it a design requirement ( and I mean that in the technical way ) that screening technologies be completely anonymous , and not record any information about a person once they have left screening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The machines must be able to produce a hard copy for use in any court action.That is a good point, except that as things stand right now, there is no legal requirement to present any evidence that a person has failed this kind of screening.
This imaging system alone would not be used to determine guilt or innocence; rather it would be used to identify which individuals may be carrying something they shouldn't, and should be detained for in depth screening.I work on a program to develop security screening technologies.
The TSA, and other organizations, have made it a design requirement (and I mean that in the technical way) that screening technologies be completely anonymous, and not record any information about a person once they have left screening.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732140</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263221340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, they have every right to do it. When you buy a plane ticket, you consent to those security measures. If you don't want to be searched, don't travel by plane, or travel on a private plane.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and no, it's not a strip search. Have you even seen the pictures that come up on these? They're far less detailed than even medical x-rays, which show pretty much nothing. These are actually very reasonable scans, and to compare them to warrentless wiretapping is, quite frankly, moronic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , they have every right to do it .
When you buy a plane ticket , you consent to those security measures .
If you do n't want to be searched , do n't travel by plane , or travel on a private plane .
... and no , it 's not a strip search .
Have you even seen the pictures that come up on these ?
They 're far less detailed than even medical x-rays , which show pretty much nothing .
These are actually very reasonable scans , and to compare them to warrentless wiretapping is , quite frankly , moronic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, they have every right to do it.
When you buy a plane ticket, you consent to those security measures.
If you don't want to be searched, don't travel by plane, or travel on a private plane.
... and no, it's not a strip search.
Have you even seen the pictures that come up on these?
They're far less detailed than even medical x-rays, which show pretty much nothing.
These are actually very reasonable scans, and to compare them to warrentless wiretapping is, quite frankly, moronic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734042</id>
	<title>Public Domain?</title>
	<author>kencf0618</author>
	<datestamp>1263239580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Legal Tangent Department:</p><p>TSA agents being federal employees, I have the entertaining hypothesis<br>that that much-ballyhooed graphic imagery would fall under the aegis of<br>public domain, inasmuch as it's "a work prepared by an officer or<br>employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official<br>duties."</p><p>Presumably it's a different story if contractors are looking at your<br>bits, of course.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Legal Tangent Department : TSA agents being federal employees , I have the entertaining hypothesisthat that much-ballyhooed graphic imagery would fall under the aegis ofpublic domain , inasmuch as it 's " a work prepared by an officer oremployee of the U.S. government as part of that person 's officialduties .
" Presumably it 's a different story if contractors are looking at yourbits , of course .
: /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legal Tangent Department:TSA agents being federal employees, I have the entertaining hypothesisthat that much-ballyhooed graphic imagery would fall under the aegis ofpublic domain, inasmuch as it's "a work prepared by an officer oremployee of the U.S. government as part of that person's officialduties.
"Presumably it's a different story if contractors are looking at yourbits, of course.
:/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731634</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>xmundt</author>
	<datestamp>1263217980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     Greetings and Salutations...<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; this concept of privacy is addressed in another posting to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/....and I will read it later.    In any case, I am right with you, in that I value my privacy and do not like having ANYONE staring over my shoulder all the time.   I am older than dirt, so I recall that the only class of people that were under 24/7 observation were high-security prisoners, and, frankly, I have no desire to join (or be dragged into) that class.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Greetings and Salutations.. .           this concept of privacy is addressed in another posting to /....and I will read it later .
In any case , I am right with you , in that I value my privacy and do not like having ANYONE staring over my shoulder all the time .
I am older than dirt , so I recall that the only class of people that were under 24/7 observation were high-security prisoners , and , frankly , I have no desire to join ( or be dragged into ) that class .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     Greetings and Salutations...
          this concept of privacy is addressed in another posting to /....and I will read it later.
In any case, I am right with you, in that I value my privacy and do not like having ANYONE staring over my shoulder all the time.
I am older than dirt, so I recall that the only class of people that were under 24/7 observation were high-security prisoners, and, frankly, I have no desire to join (or be dragged into) that class.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734408</id>
	<title>Re:Dignity is an essential human right.</title>
	<author>Xenographic</author>
	<datestamp>1263288360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I only wish that were true.  They've managed to exempt themselves and their families (and a few foreign dignitaries) from this indignity.  I'm pretty sure you can find most of that in that screening manual that was leaked or improperly redacted or whatever.  It was on Slashdot a while back, among other places.</p><p>You didn't actually think they'd put up with being treated like that, did you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I only wish that were true .
They 've managed to exempt themselves and their families ( and a few foreign dignitaries ) from this indignity .
I 'm pretty sure you can find most of that in that screening manual that was leaked or improperly redacted or whatever .
It was on Slashdot a while back , among other places.You did n't actually think they 'd put up with being treated like that , did you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only wish that were true.
They've managed to exempt themselves and their families (and a few foreign dignitaries) from this indignity.
I'm pretty sure you can find most of that in that screening manual that was leaked or improperly redacted or whatever.
It was on Slashdot a while back, among other places.You didn't actually think they'd put up with being treated like that, did you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30740438</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263323880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Screw that, I don't want the stupid scanner to "accidentally" flag me, and then save my "flagged" image to a permanent record so that I can be denied flights or whatever shit.</p><p>Let them strip-search me.  Hell, I'll strip naked for security.  I'd rather be subjected to a person's direct judgement than a blurry, fuzzy image.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw that , I do n't want the stupid scanner to " accidentally " flag me , and then save my " flagged " image to a permanent record so that I can be denied flights or whatever shit.Let them strip-search me .
Hell , I 'll strip naked for security .
I 'd rather be subjected to a person 's direct judgement than a blurry , fuzzy image .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw that, I don't want the stupid scanner to "accidentally" flag me, and then save my "flagged" image to a permanent record so that I can be denied flights or whatever shit.Let them strip-search me.
Hell, I'll strip naked for security.
I'd rather be subjected to a person's direct judgement than a blurry, fuzzy image.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732002</id>
	<title>That settles it for me</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1263220320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was initially ambivalent about scanners and pretty much said, "hey, it's not like they're storing the images."  <i>Test Mode</i> my ass.  If they have the ability, they are using the ability.  Next, we'll hear about machines "accidentally" left in test mode during real-world usage.  There is absolutely no reason to store these images.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was initially ambivalent about scanners and pretty much said , " hey , it 's not like they 're storing the images .
" Test Mode my ass .
If they have the ability , they are using the ability .
Next , we 'll hear about machines " accidentally " left in test mode during real-world usage .
There is absolutely no reason to store these images .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was initially ambivalent about scanners and pretty much said, "hey, it's not like they're storing the images.
"  Test Mode my ass.
If they have the ability, they are using the ability.
Next, we'll hear about machines "accidentally" left in test mode during real-world usage.
There is absolutely no reason to store these images.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731668</id>
	<title>hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263218160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you can forget getting the Olympic Games for the next..well..forever?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you can forget getting the Olympic Games for the next..well..forever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you can forget getting the Olympic Games for the next..well..forever?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30739666</id>
	<title>Re:Invisibility Cloak</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1263321000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sci-fi predicts real life once again - silver jumpsuits, here we come!
<br> <br>
(good post BTW. Mod parent Informative.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sci-fi predicts real life once again - silver jumpsuits , here we come !
( good post BTW .
Mod parent Informative .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sci-fi predicts real life once again - silver jumpsuits, here we come!
(good post BTW.
Mod parent Informative.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732512</id>
	<title>Here comes Tali-Boy</title>
	<author>gearloos</author>
	<datestamp>1263224340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> Tali-Boy
This months centerfold is a faceless chick with a hella body oh and a dynamite belt...
Wait till you see the spread where she plays with just one stick! LOL sry<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. I had to do it</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tali-Boy This months centerfold is a faceless chick with a hella body oh and a dynamite belt.. . Wait till you see the spread where she plays with just one stick !
LOL sry / .
I had to do it</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Tali-Boy
This months centerfold is a faceless chick with a hella body oh and a dynamite belt...
Wait till you see the spread where she plays with just one stick!
LOL sry /.
I had to do it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731400</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263216600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US. You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>It isn't <i>that</i> fuzzy. I've been seeing reports on the wires about the scanner being refined enough to see male genitalia. These scanners won't last long. I bet one day, if they're put in place, we'll see web sites with some actor's dick showing or some other actress' tits in full view or some politicians little pee-pee and we'll see things change real fast.</p><p>As far as chemical scanners are concerned, I don't really care. What scares me is driving on the road because I know that the odds are I'm going to get creamed by some dumbass tailgating in his SUV or t-boning me like this cunt on a cell phone did to my wife.</p><p>Nope, terrorism isn't a worry of mine - there are about a thousand more things that will take me out way before terrorism. Then again, I'm not a typical American.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US .
You 'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives , but no ...It is n't that fuzzy .
I 've been seeing reports on the wires about the scanner being refined enough to see male genitalia .
These scanners wo n't last long .
I bet one day , if they 're put in place , we 'll see web sites with some actor 's dick showing or some other actress ' tits in full view or some politicians little pee-pee and we 'll see things change real fast.As far as chemical scanners are concerned , I do n't really care .
What scares me is driving on the road because I know that the odds are I 'm going to get creamed by some dumbass tailgating in his SUV or t-boning me like this cunt on a cell phone did to my wife.Nope , terrorism is n't a worry of mine - there are about a thousand more things that will take me out way before terrorism .
Then again , I 'm not a typical American .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US.
You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...It isn't that fuzzy.
I've been seeing reports on the wires about the scanner being refined enough to see male genitalia.
These scanners won't last long.
I bet one day, if they're put in place, we'll see web sites with some actor's dick showing or some other actress' tits in full view or some politicians little pee-pee and we'll see things change real fast.As far as chemical scanners are concerned, I don't really care.
What scares me is driving on the road because I know that the odds are I'm going to get creamed by some dumbass tailgating in his SUV or t-boning me like this cunt on a cell phone did to my wife.Nope, terrorism isn't a worry of mine - there are about a thousand more things that will take me out way before terrorism.
Then again, I'm not a typical American.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30741942</id>
	<title>Re:Putting scanners in US airports...</title>
	<author>AgentPhunk</author>
	<datestamp>1263329940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just came back from a trip to Dubai.  Here's the order of screening that I went through:</p><p>Arrived at airport:  All bags scanned just to get into ticketing area.<br>Pre-ticketing: a guy asked me the usual questions like "did I pack my own bags", and "did anyone ask you to bring anything with you" but also "did you have any electronic items repaired here during your stay", and others that I had never been asked anywhere before.  I found them to be good questions with a proper security focus.</p><p>Got tickets, checked one bag and had a carry-on (backpack) with me.<br>1st / general screening: they checked ticket, passport, and carry-on was run through one scanner.  Shoes went through too.<br>Gate screening:  same set of questions, passport double-checked, and then belt off, shoes off, everything through scanner.  Then I got a FULL (i.e. 'turn your head and cough') pat-down.  Then they hand-checked everything in my backpack, flex-tested my shoes, threw out my bottle of (post-1st-screening-purchased) water, etc.  More questions that I will not post here, but about the same as the 1st screening.</p><p>So, to answer your question, even if you board somewhere else, before you get on a US-bound plane you can expect another more intrusive screening.</p><p>Afterwards on the plane I had a discussion with, literally, the 'little old lady from Topeka' who said "I know they're trying to catch terrorists, but how am I a risk when I can barely catch my breath!"</p><p>I would much rather see them implement behavior, history, and/or risk-based screening than the "one-screen-fits-all" approach they use now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just came back from a trip to Dubai .
Here 's the order of screening that I went through : Arrived at airport : All bags scanned just to get into ticketing area.Pre-ticketing : a guy asked me the usual questions like " did I pack my own bags " , and " did anyone ask you to bring anything with you " but also " did you have any electronic items repaired here during your stay " , and others that I had never been asked anywhere before .
I found them to be good questions with a proper security focus.Got tickets , checked one bag and had a carry-on ( backpack ) with me.1st / general screening : they checked ticket , passport , and carry-on was run through one scanner .
Shoes went through too.Gate screening : same set of questions , passport double-checked , and then belt off , shoes off , everything through scanner .
Then I got a FULL ( i.e .
'turn your head and cough ' ) pat-down .
Then they hand-checked everything in my backpack , flex-tested my shoes , threw out my bottle of ( post-1st-screening-purchased ) water , etc .
More questions that I will not post here , but about the same as the 1st screening.So , to answer your question , even if you board somewhere else , before you get on a US-bound plane you can expect another more intrusive screening.Afterwards on the plane I had a discussion with , literally , the 'little old lady from Topeka ' who said " I know they 're trying to catch terrorists , but how am I a risk when I can barely catch my breath !
" I would much rather see them implement behavior , history , and/or risk-based screening than the " one-screen-fits-all " approach they use now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just came back from a trip to Dubai.
Here's the order of screening that I went through:Arrived at airport:  All bags scanned just to get into ticketing area.Pre-ticketing: a guy asked me the usual questions like "did I pack my own bags", and "did anyone ask you to bring anything with you" but also "did you have any electronic items repaired here during your stay", and others that I had never been asked anywhere before.
I found them to be good questions with a proper security focus.Got tickets, checked one bag and had a carry-on (backpack) with me.1st / general screening: they checked ticket, passport, and carry-on was run through one scanner.
Shoes went through too.Gate screening:  same set of questions, passport double-checked, and then belt off, shoes off, everything through scanner.
Then I got a FULL (i.e.
'turn your head and cough') pat-down.
Then they hand-checked everything in my backpack, flex-tested my shoes, threw out my bottle of (post-1st-screening-purchased) water, etc.
More questions that I will not post here, but about the same as the 1st screening.So, to answer your question, even if you board somewhere else, before you get on a US-bound plane you can expect another more intrusive screening.Afterwards on the plane I had a discussion with, literally, the 'little old lady from Topeka' who said "I know they're trying to catch terrorists, but how am I a risk when I can barely catch my breath!
"I would much rather see them implement behavior, history, and/or risk-based screening than the "one-screen-fits-all" approach they use now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496</id>
	<title>Dignity is an essential human right.</title>
	<author>$beirdo</author>
	<datestamp>1263217140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just imagine some TSA creeps snickering at an image of your girlfriend's, your father's or your mother's naked body.</p><p>We are all endowed with certain inalienable rights, including the right not to be examined nude en masse by the government when we travel.</p><p><b>Dignity is an essential human right</b>.  How dare we sacrifice it to terror?</p><p>Freedom?  Yeah, right!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just imagine some TSA creeps snickering at an image of your girlfriend 's , your father 's or your mother 's naked body.We are all endowed with certain inalienable rights , including the right not to be examined nude en masse by the government when we travel.Dignity is an essential human right .
How dare we sacrifice it to terror ? Freedom ?
Yeah , right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just imagine some TSA creeps snickering at an image of your girlfriend's, your father's or your mother's naked body.We are all endowed with certain inalienable rights, including the right not to be examined nude en masse by the government when we travel.Dignity is an essential human right.
How dare we sacrifice it to terror?Freedom?
Yeah, right!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732606</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1263224880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or worse, what about when they want to shove their fingers up your ass? The whole thing has always been a parade of lunacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or worse , what about when they want to shove their fingers up your ass ?
The whole thing has always been a parade of lunacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or worse, what about when they want to shove their fingers up your ass?
The whole thing has always been a parade of lunacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733070</id>
	<title>Re:Problem Solved</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263228840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a bit much.  Just show up in only a bathrobe.  It would make the regular strip search so much quicker.  Plus it would go with your towel (you do always carry a towel when traveling, right?)</p><p>If you select the electronic equivalent of a strip search instead, I was thinking the only fair thing to do would be for the operators in the back room to be naked.  That way there is less chance of them bringing a cell phone camera or other recording device into the room unnoticed.  We must insure that security is perfect.</p><p>I don't see why they would mind, given that we've been strongly assured that the people in that room would be hidden from the view of the passengers being screened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a bit much .
Just show up in only a bathrobe .
It would make the regular strip search so much quicker .
Plus it would go with your towel ( you do always carry a towel when traveling , right ?
) If you select the electronic equivalent of a strip search instead , I was thinking the only fair thing to do would be for the operators in the back room to be naked .
That way there is less chance of them bringing a cell phone camera or other recording device into the room unnoticed .
We must insure that security is perfect.I do n't see why they would mind , given that we 've been strongly assured that the people in that room would be hidden from the view of the passengers being screened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a bit much.
Just show up in only a bathrobe.
It would make the regular strip search so much quicker.
Plus it would go with your towel (you do always carry a towel when traveling, right?
)If you select the electronic equivalent of a strip search instead, I was thinking the only fair thing to do would be for the operators in the back room to be naked.
That way there is less chance of them bringing a cell phone camera or other recording device into the room unnoticed.
We must insure that security is perfect.I don't see why they would mind, given that we've been strongly assured that the people in that room would be hidden from the view of the passengers being screened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731438</id>
	<title>Not answering is an answer</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1263216780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> 'There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode,' [an anonymous] official said, adding that test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities. But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate.</p></div><p>Leaving aside the idea of whether we really should care or not...</p><p>By not answering, I think this official made the answer pretty obvious. Basically it's analogous to the RFID passport issue. When they say "it can only be done under these specific circumstances", they're simply leaving off the lead-in phrase "Our policy is clear - ". The erstwhile "restriction" is political, not technical.</p><p>I imagine it won't be too long before some enterprising TSA employee - or a hacker - puts up a website with surreptitious photographs of cute women alongside their full-body scan images.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode, ' [ an anonymous ] official said , adding that test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities .
But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware , software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate.Leaving aside the idea of whether we really should care or not...By not answering , I think this official made the answer pretty obvious .
Basically it 's analogous to the RFID passport issue .
When they say " it can only be done under these specific circumstances " , they 're simply leaving off the lead-in phrase " Our policy is clear - " .
The erstwhile " restriction " is political , not technical.I imagine it wo n't be too long before some enterprising TSA employee - or a hacker - puts up a website with surreptitious photographs of cute women alongside their full-body scan images .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode,' [an anonymous] official said, adding that test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities.
But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate.Leaving aside the idea of whether we really should care or not...By not answering, I think this official made the answer pretty obvious.
Basically it's analogous to the RFID passport issue.
When they say "it can only be done under these specific circumstances", they're simply leaving off the lead-in phrase "Our policy is clear - ".
The erstwhile "restriction" is political, not technical.I imagine it won't be too long before some enterprising TSA employee - or a hacker - puts up a website with surreptitious photographs of cute women alongside their full-body scan images.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734528</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263289500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Likewise when I pass over the border from another country, I know that I'll be expected to have a passport. If a police officer asked me for my papers while I was just walking down the street, that would seem far more sinister to me. I've also emptied my pockets, walked through a metal detector, and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport. I wouldn't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets.</p></div><p>If there is a "Terrorist Attack" at some shopping mall in the Homeland don't you think that the government will implement safety/security/searches/scans there too?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Likewise when I pass over the border from another country , I know that I 'll be expected to have a passport .
If a police officer asked me for my papers while I was just walking down the street , that would seem far more sinister to me .
I 've also emptied my pockets , walked through a metal detector , and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport .
I would n't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets.If there is a " Terrorist Attack " at some shopping mall in the Homeland do n't you think that the government will implement safety/security/searches/scans there too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Likewise when I pass over the border from another country, I know that I'll be expected to have a passport.
If a police officer asked me for my papers while I was just walking down the street, that would seem far more sinister to me.
I've also emptied my pockets, walked through a metal detector, and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport.
I wouldn't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets.If there is a "Terrorist Attack" at some shopping mall in the Homeland don't you think that the government will implement safety/security/searches/scans there too?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733356</id>
	<title>Re:Dignity is an essential human right.</title>
	<author>JakartaDean</author>
	<datestamp>1263231180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Dignity is an essential human right. How dare we sacrifice it to terror?</p></div></blockquote><p>
I came across this qutoe from Susan Neiman a couple of weeks ago in the Economist, and it seems to fit here:</p><blockquote><div><p>Human dignity requires the love of ideals for their own sake, but nothing requires that the love will be requited.</p></div></blockquote><p>It can be argued that security agencies aren't in the business of ideals, or dignity, but it seems they're not allowing anyone else to be either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dignity is an essential human right .
How dare we sacrifice it to terror ?
I came across this qutoe from Susan Neiman a couple of weeks ago in the Economist , and it seems to fit here : Human dignity requires the love of ideals for their own sake , but nothing requires that the love will be requited.It can be argued that security agencies are n't in the business of ideals , or dignity , but it seems they 're not allowing anyone else to be either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dignity is an essential human right.
How dare we sacrifice it to terror?
I came across this qutoe from Susan Neiman a couple of weeks ago in the Economist, and it seems to fit here:Human dignity requires the love of ideals for their own sake, but nothing requires that the love will be requited.It can be argued that security agencies aren't in the business of ideals, or dignity, but it seems they're not allowing anyone else to be either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733014</id>
	<title>It's called evidence...</title>
	<author>FlyingGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1263228420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>News at 11</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>News at 11</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News at 11</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30738552</id>
	<title>Re:Good enough for government work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263317220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not going to stop some terrorist blowing up a huge suitcase-sized bomb in the security check-in line at rush hour, either. That this hasn't happened yet is the main reason why I don't believe terrorists actually exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not going to stop some terrorist blowing up a huge suitcase-sized bomb in the security check-in line at rush hour , either .
That this has n't happened yet is the main reason why I do n't believe terrorists actually exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not going to stop some terrorist blowing up a huge suitcase-sized bomb in the security check-in line at rush hour, either.
That this hasn't happened yet is the main reason why I don't believe terrorists actually exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731744</id>
	<title>privacy</title>
	<author>MrBrainport</author>
	<datestamp>1263218640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In 10 years everybody can buy cheap "sunglass" with similar functionality, so if you like privacy then it's indeed time to invest in shirt and pants that route x-rays around the body<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>In 10 years everybody can buy cheap " sunglass " with similar functionality , so if you like privacy then it 's indeed time to invest in shirt and pants that route x-rays around the body : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 10 years everybody can buy cheap "sunglass" with similar functionality, so if you like privacy then it's indeed time to invest in shirt and pants that route x-rays around the body :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731514</id>
	<title>Duh.</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1263217260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They probably record every single image generated by those things, and hold it at least until the passenger's flight is over.  I don't see why they would do it any other way.  It flies in the face of reason.  I know they say otherwise, but I doubt they feel bad about lying to the general public.  It's for the greater good, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They probably record every single image generated by those things , and hold it at least until the passenger 's flight is over .
I do n't see why they would do it any other way .
It flies in the face of reason .
I know they say otherwise , but I doubt they feel bad about lying to the general public .
It 's for the greater good , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They probably record every single image generated by those things, and hold it at least until the passenger's flight is over.
I don't see why they would do it any other way.
It flies in the face of reason.
I know they say otherwise, but I doubt they feel bad about lying to the general public.
It's for the greater good, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732032</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263220440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone can opt for a pat down.  I will not go through any x-ray.. they may cause cancer.  Pat me down.</p><p>I thought the stimulus package had a "buy American" clause.  These machines are made in two places... California... but they use Chinese guts.. the most expensive parts of the  $100,000 machines... the other mfg is overseas.  If we spend stimulus money overseas.. how will it stimulate us?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone can opt for a pat down .
I will not go through any x-ray.. they may cause cancer .
Pat me down.I thought the stimulus package had a " buy American " clause .
These machines are made in two places... California... but they use Chinese guts.. the most expensive parts of the $ 100,000 machines... the other mfg is overseas .
If we spend stimulus money overseas.. how will it stimulate us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone can opt for a pat down.
I will not go through any x-ray.. they may cause cancer.
Pat me down.I thought the stimulus package had a "buy American" clause.
These machines are made in two places... California... but they use Chinese guts.. the most expensive parts of the  $100,000 machines... the other mfg is overseas.
If we spend stimulus money overseas.. how will it stimulate us?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733856</id>
	<title>Think of the Children!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263236580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and the transmission of nude pictures of kids around government departments!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and the transmission of nude pictures of kids around government departments !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and the transmission of nude pictures of kids around government departments!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733638</id>
	<title>Arse</title>
	<author>zxsqkty</author>
	<datestamp>1263233940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Posting to undo fucked up moderation.</p><p><i>Note to self:</i> Don't moderate whilst drinking Lagavulin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting to undo fucked up moderation.Note to self : Do n't moderate whilst drinking Lagavulin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting to undo fucked up moderation.Note to self: Don't moderate whilst drinking Lagavulin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731672</id>
	<title>Forget tin-foil hats</title>
	<author>mfnickster</author>
	<datestamp>1263218160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now we evidently need tin-foil underwear!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we evidently need tin-foil underwear !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we evidently need tin-foil underwear!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731538</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>dscaife</author>
	<datestamp>1263217440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a line that I draw somewhere between privacy and doing what's necessary in the interests of security, and this solution is on the wrong side of that line by a mile. If their security strategy requires rendering my body sans clothing, they aren't doing their job properly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a line that I draw somewhere between privacy and doing what 's necessary in the interests of security , and this solution is on the wrong side of that line by a mile .
If their security strategy requires rendering my body sans clothing , they are n't doing their job properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a line that I draw somewhere between privacy and doing what's necessary in the interests of security, and this solution is on the wrong side of that line by a mile.
If their security strategy requires rendering my body sans clothing, they aren't doing their job properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733966</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263238620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you. There are various situation in which we give up certain privacy, e.g., giving our Social Security number to get a credit card or be admitted to a hospital. Giving up my right to physical privacy from a bocy scan is something I would be willing to do to be able to get on a plane.</p><p>It seems obvious that getting bombs onto planes is an objective that will not go away as long as there are terrorists. If having a body scan will diminish the possibility that I am boarding a plane with a bomber, that is a small bit of privacy for me to give up. (I do understand that it would be a bigger problem for some, such as transgendere people. Surely there would be an option of a pat-down.)</p><p>I realize that statistically I am more likely to die in a car. But I drive a car with a high safety rating, use all the available safety devices, choose safe routes and times of day, drive well-rested (at least I try to), and drive safely. These all served me well when I hydroplaned at night on a freeway at 65 mph in a sudden gully-washer (you can guess what that means), went into the median, fish-tailed, and hit a guardrail at some speed--my ABS brakes were worthless in the mud. My car was totalled; my face abraded by the airbag, black-eyed, and bleeding from cuts (not gashes). When the EMTs got there and saw the crash, they took me out on a body board. Many hours and tests later, I left the hospital under my own power. Had my car been less well-engineered and had I not been using my seat-belt and headrest, I probably would not be writing this. I was driving a J30 Infiniti.</p><p>I know what my safety precautions saved me from in a car accident that could have killed me. I am willing to take any precautions available to improve my chances in the air--such as having a body scan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you .
There are various situation in which we give up certain privacy , e.g. , giving our Social Security number to get a credit card or be admitted to a hospital .
Giving up my right to physical privacy from a bocy scan is something I would be willing to do to be able to get on a plane.It seems obvious that getting bombs onto planes is an objective that will not go away as long as there are terrorists .
If having a body scan will diminish the possibility that I am boarding a plane with a bomber , that is a small bit of privacy for me to give up .
( I do understand that it would be a bigger problem for some , such as transgendere people .
Surely there would be an option of a pat-down .
) I realize that statistically I am more likely to die in a car .
But I drive a car with a high safety rating , use all the available safety devices , choose safe routes and times of day , drive well-rested ( at least I try to ) , and drive safely .
These all served me well when I hydroplaned at night on a freeway at 65 mph in a sudden gully-washer ( you can guess what that means ) , went into the median , fish-tailed , and hit a guardrail at some speed--my ABS brakes were worthless in the mud .
My car was totalled ; my face abraded by the airbag , black-eyed , and bleeding from cuts ( not gashes ) .
When the EMTs got there and saw the crash , they took me out on a body board .
Many hours and tests later , I left the hospital under my own power .
Had my car been less well-engineered and had I not been using my seat-belt and headrest , I probably would not be writing this .
I was driving a J30 Infiniti.I know what my safety precautions saved me from in a car accident that could have killed me .
I am willing to take any precautions available to improve my chances in the air--such as having a body scan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you.
There are various situation in which we give up certain privacy, e.g., giving our Social Security number to get a credit card or be admitted to a hospital.
Giving up my right to physical privacy from a bocy scan is something I would be willing to do to be able to get on a plane.It seems obvious that getting bombs onto planes is an objective that will not go away as long as there are terrorists.
If having a body scan will diminish the possibility that I am boarding a plane with a bomber, that is a small bit of privacy for me to give up.
(I do understand that it would be a bigger problem for some, such as transgendere people.
Surely there would be an option of a pat-down.
)I realize that statistically I am more likely to die in a car.
But I drive a car with a high safety rating, use all the available safety devices, choose safe routes and times of day, drive well-rested (at least I try to), and drive safely.
These all served me well when I hydroplaned at night on a freeway at 65 mph in a sudden gully-washer (you can guess what that means), went into the median, fish-tailed, and hit a guardrail at some speed--my ABS brakes were worthless in the mud.
My car was totalled; my face abraded by the airbag, black-eyed, and bleeding from cuts (not gashes).
When the EMTs got there and saw the crash, they took me out on a body board.
Many hours and tests later, I left the hospital under my own power.
Had my car been less well-engineered and had I not been using my seat-belt and headrest, I probably would not be writing this.
I was driving a J30 Infiniti.I know what my safety precautions saved me from in a car accident that could have killed me.
I am willing to take any precautions available to improve my chances in the air--such as having a body scan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731534</id>
	<title>Cool!</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1263217440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can add value by auto-updating everyone's FaceBook page with the latest scan and the new status 'clean'/'hilarious'/'needs liposuction'/'tumescent'/'en route to Gitmo' etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can add value by auto-updating everyone 's FaceBook page with the latest scan and the new status 'clean'/'hilarious'/'needs liposuction'/'tumescent'/'en route to Gitmo ' etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can add value by auto-updating everyone's FaceBook page with the latest scan and the new status 'clean'/'hilarious'/'needs liposuction'/'tumescent'/'en route to Gitmo' etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30747112</id>
	<title>Re:No duh</title>
	<author>RockDoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1263318000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Further, they probably have to store the image for a few days in case any aircraft carrying a person that passed through the machine comes to grief (accident or deliberate). Can you imagine the "scandal" if a plane goes down, it's suspicious, and the investigating body does not have this imagery?</p></div></blockquote><p>How does the imagery help? You don't know who took the putative explosives, guns, or whatever through security and into the departure lounge.</p><p>I'm fed up with Abdul and Achmed getting the stick, so in today's scenario the two 'A's are going to be innocent passers-by, and the real terrorists are Jean-Paul and Francoise  of the Free Qubequois. JP is booked onto one flight and carries half the explosives through security, following Achmed-the-innocent. The amount of explosives are calibrated to not trigger the detector (that's another issue). Later, F follows Abdul-the-guiltfree through a different security gate, booked onto a different plane and carrying the other parts of the bomb. JP and F then meet in the toilets (the old briefcase protruding-under-the-cubicle-door language) and join the several parts together. They draw lots and head off. Later, JP watches as Abdul-the-guiltfree is wrestled to the ground by security staff because of his suspected association with the probable bomber (Achmed) thought to have brought down F's flight.</p><p>Why do you think that the person who takes the bomb onto the plane is the person who carries the bomb through security? If bomb-builders are a limiting resource in your organisation, then you'll need to conserve them by sacrificing mules.<br>If you're sufficiently sophisticated to build a bomb, you're probably sufficiently sophisticated to evade simplistic security. Or, if you just want to create mayhem, you detonate your bomb once you see the worried look on the scanner-operator's face. (If you don't see that look, then you board your plane and add several hundred thousand tonne-kilometres-per-second-squared of kinetic energy to the effect of your bomb. Same general effect, just different details.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Further , they probably have to store the image for a few days in case any aircraft carrying a person that passed through the machine comes to grief ( accident or deliberate ) .
Can you imagine the " scandal " if a plane goes down , it 's suspicious , and the investigating body does not have this imagery ? How does the imagery help ?
You do n't know who took the putative explosives , guns , or whatever through security and into the departure lounge.I 'm fed up with Abdul and Achmed getting the stick , so in today 's scenario the two 'A 's are going to be innocent passers-by , and the real terrorists are Jean-Paul and Francoise of the Free Qubequois .
JP is booked onto one flight and carries half the explosives through security , following Achmed-the-innocent .
The amount of explosives are calibrated to not trigger the detector ( that 's another issue ) .
Later , F follows Abdul-the-guiltfree through a different security gate , booked onto a different plane and carrying the other parts of the bomb .
JP and F then meet in the toilets ( the old briefcase protruding-under-the-cubicle-door language ) and join the several parts together .
They draw lots and head off .
Later , JP watches as Abdul-the-guiltfree is wrestled to the ground by security staff because of his suspected association with the probable bomber ( Achmed ) thought to have brought down F 's flight.Why do you think that the person who takes the bomb onto the plane is the person who carries the bomb through security ?
If bomb-builders are a limiting resource in your organisation , then you 'll need to conserve them by sacrificing mules.If you 're sufficiently sophisticated to build a bomb , you 're probably sufficiently sophisticated to evade simplistic security .
Or , if you just want to create mayhem , you detonate your bomb once you see the worried look on the scanner-operator 's face .
( If you do n't see that look , then you board your plane and add several hundred thousand tonne-kilometres-per-second-squared of kinetic energy to the effect of your bomb .
Same general effect , just different details .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Further, they probably have to store the image for a few days in case any aircraft carrying a person that passed through the machine comes to grief (accident or deliberate).
Can you imagine the "scandal" if a plane goes down, it's suspicious, and the investigating body does not have this imagery?How does the imagery help?
You don't know who took the putative explosives, guns, or whatever through security and into the departure lounge.I'm fed up with Abdul and Achmed getting the stick, so in today's scenario the two 'A's are going to be innocent passers-by, and the real terrorists are Jean-Paul and Francoise  of the Free Qubequois.
JP is booked onto one flight and carries half the explosives through security, following Achmed-the-innocent.
The amount of explosives are calibrated to not trigger the detector (that's another issue).
Later, F follows Abdul-the-guiltfree through a different security gate, booked onto a different plane and carrying the other parts of the bomb.
JP and F then meet in the toilets (the old briefcase protruding-under-the-cubicle-door language) and join the several parts together.
They draw lots and head off.
Later, JP watches as Abdul-the-guiltfree is wrestled to the ground by security staff because of his suspected association with the probable bomber (Achmed) thought to have brought down F's flight.Why do you think that the person who takes the bomb onto the plane is the person who carries the bomb through security?
If bomb-builders are a limiting resource in your organisation, then you'll need to conserve them by sacrificing mules.If you're sufficiently sophisticated to build a bomb, you're probably sufficiently sophisticated to evade simplistic security.
Or, if you just want to create mayhem, you detonate your bomb once you see the worried look on the scanner-operator's face.
(If you don't see that look, then you board your plane and add several hundred thousand tonne-kilometres-per-second-squared of kinetic energy to the effect of your bomb.
Same general effect, just different details.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30737412</id>
	<title>Re:Dignity is an essential human right.</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1263312960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Just imagine some TSA creeps snickering at an image of your girlfriend's, your father's or your mother's naked body.</i></p><p>Or your son's, your daughter's....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just imagine some TSA creeps snickering at an image of your girlfriend 's , your father 's or your mother 's naked body.Or your son 's , your daughter 's... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just imagine some TSA creeps snickering at an image of your girlfriend's, your father's or your mother's naked body.Or your son's, your daughter's....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731696</id>
	<title>Putting scanners in US airports...</title>
	<author>doomy</author>
	<datestamp>1263218340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does this stop terrorists who board plans elsewhere and come here (with the thought of blowing up the plane?). These scanners need to be where a terrorist is most likely to board a plane. Thus a push for having them in international airports all over the world would be a much better plan than having them all over the US including tiny domestic airports.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does this stop terrorists who board plans elsewhere and come here ( with the thought of blowing up the plane ? ) .
These scanners need to be where a terrorist is most likely to board a plane .
Thus a push for having them in international airports all over the world would be a much better plan than having them all over the US including tiny domestic airports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does this stop terrorists who board plans elsewhere and come here (with the thought of blowing up the plane?).
These scanners need to be where a terrorist is most likely to board a plane.
Thus a push for having them in international airports all over the world would be a much better plan than having them all over the US including tiny domestic airports.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731602</id>
	<title>great idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263217800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a really good idea, why dont they just put you in a straight jacket and strap you into your seat so when you get on the plane so there is no reason to consider you or anyone a threat. no more long security check lines!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a really good idea , why dont they just put you in a straight jacket and strap you into your seat so when you get on the plane so there is no reason to consider you or anyone a threat .
no more long security check lines !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a really good idea, why dont they just put you in a straight jacket and strap you into your seat so when you get on the plane so there is no reason to consider you or anyone a threat.
no more long security check lines!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732834</id>
	<title>Re:Hey, can I borrow your cameraphone for a moment</title>
	<author>mariushm</author>
	<datestamp>1263226860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just wait until they find out there are actually watches with built in cameras that can even shoot videos: <a href="http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/watches/b550/" title="thinkgeek.com">http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/watches/b550/</a> [thinkgeek.com]  or even as a ball point pen : <a href="http://www.camerapen.org/" title="camerapen.org">http://www.camerapen.org/</a> [camerapen.org] or as a keychain that looks like your car keys : <a href="http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20090524/keychain-car-key-security-spy-camera/" title="coolest-gadgets.com">http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20090524/keychain-car-key-security-spy-camera/</a> [coolest-gadgets.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wait until they find out there are actually watches with built in cameras that can even shoot videos : http : //www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/watches/b550/ [ thinkgeek.com ] or even as a ball point pen : http : //www.camerapen.org/ [ camerapen.org ] or as a keychain that looks like your car keys : http : //www.coolest-gadgets.com/20090524/keychain-car-key-security-spy-camera/ [ coolest-gadgets.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wait until they find out there are actually watches with built in cameras that can even shoot videos: http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/watches/b550/ [thinkgeek.com]  or even as a ball point pen : http://www.camerapen.org/ [camerapen.org] or as a keychain that looks like your car keys : http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20090524/keychain-car-key-security-spy-camera/ [coolest-gadgets.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733110</id>
	<title>Re:Putting scanners in US airports...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263229140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the 9/11 terrorists boarded here in the US.</p><p>Granted, this is a knee jerk reaction to somebody coming from outside, but that's the argument they'll use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the 9/11 terrorists boarded here in the US.Granted , this is a knee jerk reaction to somebody coming from outside , but that 's the argument they 'll use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the 9/11 terrorists boarded here in the US.Granted, this is a knee jerk reaction to somebody coming from outside, but that's the argument they'll use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732200</id>
	<title>Re:Dignity is an essential human right.</title>
	<author>Doug52392</author>
	<datestamp>1263221760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When some idiot blows his dick off (quite literally), we have proven that we cannot have nice things like air travel, and proven that we need more surveillance and shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When some idiot blows his dick off ( quite literally ) , we have proven that we can not have nice things like air travel , and proven that we need more surveillance and shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When some idiot blows his dick off (quite literally), we have proven that we cannot have nice things like air travel, and proven that we need more surveillance and shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731774</id>
	<title>can't be hacked</title>
	<author>barry99705</author>
	<datestamp>1263218820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Further, the TSA says, the machines are not networked and cannot be hacked."

That's what they said about the voting machines too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Further , the TSA says , the machines are not networked and can not be hacked .
" That 's what they said about the voting machines too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Further, the TSA says, the machines are not networked and cannot be hacked.
"

That's what they said about the voting machines too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734886</id>
	<title>Re:Like BIG celebrities are going to use this.</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1263294540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's see, I'm a celebrity making millions.  Do I A) Pay $1000 to fly first-class on a public airline and risk my career being ruined by a horny airport scanner operator stealing my "naked" image, or B) Realize I have enough "ah, fuck it" money lying around to lease my own NetJet where I don't have to deal with the bullshit of either scanners or the pubic.</p></div><p>We need the TSA to run "proper" security for General Aviation! Quick, write to your congresscritter!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see , I 'm a celebrity making millions .
Do I A ) Pay $ 1000 to fly first-class on a public airline and risk my career being ruined by a horny airport scanner operator stealing my " naked " image , or B ) Realize I have enough " ah , fuck it " money lying around to lease my own NetJet where I do n't have to deal with the bullshit of either scanners or the pubic.We need the TSA to run " proper " security for General Aviation !
Quick , write to your congresscritter !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see, I'm a celebrity making millions.
Do I A) Pay $1000 to fly first-class on a public airline and risk my career being ruined by a horny airport scanner operator stealing my "naked" image, or B) Realize I have enough "ah, fuck it" money lying around to lease my own NetJet where I don't have to deal with the bullshit of either scanners or the pubic.We need the TSA to run "proper" security for General Aviation!
Quick, write to your congresscritter!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732008</id>
	<title>Re:Dignity is an essential human right.</title>
	<author>BronsCon</author>
	<datestamp>1263220320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've become french. This is our white flag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've become french .
This is our white flag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've become french.
This is our white flag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731440</id>
	<title>Your question is answered..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263216780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate.</p></div><p>The official's reluctance to provide additional information on what is required to put it into test mode pretty much gives you your answer; you just need more information on how it works in order to put it in test mode.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware , software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate.The official 's reluctance to provide additional information on what is required to put it into test mode pretty much gives you your answer ; you just need more information on how it works in order to put it in test mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate.The official's reluctance to provide additional information on what is required to put it into test mode pretty much gives you your answer; you just need more information on how it works in order to put it in test mode.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30740776</id>
	<title>Re:Duh.</title>
	<author>Kabuthunk</author>
	<datestamp>1263325200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, like ISP's aren't supposed to permenantly keep information about you?</p><p>Face it, those images are permenantly saved, tied to your name/facial scan/however else it can be personally identifiable, and can/will be used against you whenever needed.</p><p>Oh, and naturally, all of said data will in due time be lost and thusly leaked online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , like ISP 's are n't supposed to permenantly keep information about you ? Face it , those images are permenantly saved , tied to your name/facial scan/however else it can be personally identifiable , and can/will be used against you whenever needed.Oh , and naturally , all of said data will in due time be lost and thusly leaked online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, like ISP's aren't supposed to permenantly keep information about you?Face it, those images are permenantly saved, tied to your name/facial scan/however else it can be personally identifiable, and can/will be used against you whenever needed.Oh, and naturally, all of said data will in due time be lost and thusly leaked online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734298</id>
	<title>Not so slim.</title>
	<author>BlackHawk-666</author>
	<datestamp>1263329760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh noes, suddenly wearing black clothing is no longer slimming. All the nerds forced to fly in the future will be cueing up to buy girdles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh noes , suddenly wearing black clothing is no longer slimming .
All the nerds forced to fly in the future will be cueing up to buy girdles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh noes, suddenly wearing black clothing is no longer slimming.
All the nerds forced to fly in the future will be cueing up to buy girdles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1263219000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's quite a difference between being comfortable with your body and enjoying nude beaches...and the government telling you "strip down, you're not trusted and have no rights."</p></div><p>I agree with you generally, but I think there is still another side to this whole thing, which is that your rights are not quite as absolute as our talking about that sometimes implies.  Like yes, I have the freedom of speech, but if someone in the House of Representatives decides to run toward the President during the state of the Union yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!" then you'd better bet he's going to be detained for a little while.  There's the issue of context, and these rights are still subject to reason.  Likewise there have been court decisions, I believe, that school administrators can search student lockers without probable cause-- or at least that the standard of probable cause needed is quite a bit lower.
</p><p>So given this issue of context, I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere.  I don't know if that's a legally appropriate way of saying it, but what I mean is, we already essentially allow our bags to be searched at airports.  If a police officer stopped me randomly on the street and asked to look in my bag, I'd say no.  If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I'm going through security at an airport, I'll agree.  When I showed up to the airport that day, I knew ahead of time that I'd have to allow my bags to be searched (or at least viewed through an xray machine).  Likewise when I pass over the border from another country, I know that I'll be expected to have a passport.  If a police officer asked me for my papers while I was just walking down the street, that would seem far more sinister to me.  I've also emptied my pockets, walked through a metal detector, and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport.  I wouldn't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets.
</p><p>So looking at it that way, I can't quite decide whether these scanners are going too far.  I suppose if the consensus is that you feel like you've been stripped of your dignity by being asked to step into one, then it probably is too far.  However, I think I wouldn't really feel worse for being scanned than I feel for being asked to take my shoes off.  Maybe that's just a mental defect on my part.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's quite a difference between being comfortable with your body and enjoying nude beaches...and the government telling you " strip down , you 're not trusted and have no rights .
" I agree with you generally , but I think there is still another side to this whole thing , which is that your rights are not quite as absolute as our talking about that sometimes implies .
Like yes , I have the freedom of speech , but if someone in the House of Representatives decides to run toward the President during the state of the Union yelling " Sic semper tyrannis !
" then you 'd better bet he 's going to be detained for a little while .
There 's the issue of context , and these rights are still subject to reason .
Likewise there have been court decisions , I believe , that school administrators can search student lockers without probable cause-- or at least that the standard of probable cause needed is quite a bit lower .
So given this issue of context , I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere .
I do n't know if that 's a legally appropriate way of saying it , but what I mean is , we already essentially allow our bags to be searched at airports .
If a police officer stopped me randomly on the street and asked to look in my bag , I 'd say no .
If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I 'm going through security at an airport , I 'll agree .
When I showed up to the airport that day , I knew ahead of time that I 'd have to allow my bags to be searched ( or at least viewed through an xray machine ) .
Likewise when I pass over the border from another country , I know that I 'll be expected to have a passport .
If a police officer asked me for my papers while I was just walking down the street , that would seem far more sinister to me .
I 've also emptied my pockets , walked through a metal detector , and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport .
I would n't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets .
So looking at it that way , I ca n't quite decide whether these scanners are going too far .
I suppose if the consensus is that you feel like you 've been stripped of your dignity by being asked to step into one , then it probably is too far .
However , I think I would n't really feel worse for being scanned than I feel for being asked to take my shoes off .
Maybe that 's just a mental defect on my part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's quite a difference between being comfortable with your body and enjoying nude beaches...and the government telling you "strip down, you're not trusted and have no rights.
"I agree with you generally, but I think there is still another side to this whole thing, which is that your rights are not quite as absolute as our talking about that sometimes implies.
Like yes, I have the freedom of speech, but if someone in the House of Representatives decides to run toward the President during the state of the Union yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!
" then you'd better bet he's going to be detained for a little while.
There's the issue of context, and these rights are still subject to reason.
Likewise there have been court decisions, I believe, that school administrators can search student lockers without probable cause-- or at least that the standard of probable cause needed is quite a bit lower.
So given this issue of context, I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere.
I don't know if that's a legally appropriate way of saying it, but what I mean is, we already essentially allow our bags to be searched at airports.
If a police officer stopped me randomly on the street and asked to look in my bag, I'd say no.
If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I'm going through security at an airport, I'll agree.
When I showed up to the airport that day, I knew ahead of time that I'd have to allow my bags to be searched (or at least viewed through an xray machine).
Likewise when I pass over the border from another country, I know that I'll be expected to have a passport.
If a police officer asked me for my papers while I was just walking down the street, that would seem far more sinister to me.
I've also emptied my pockets, walked through a metal detector, and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport.
I wouldn't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets.
So looking at it that way, I can't quite decide whether these scanners are going too far.
I suppose if the consensus is that you feel like you've been stripped of your dignity by being asked to step into one, then it probably is too far.
However, I think I wouldn't really feel worse for being scanned than I feel for being asked to take my shoes off.
Maybe that's just a mental defect on my part.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732508</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1263224340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Yep. What you said. If they have these scanners at the airport the next time I fly, I want to make sure to ask for a pat-down rather than a scan, which I understand they're supposed to allow you to do according to the current rules. Can any slashdotters report on practical experiences at airports that use these things? Is there some kind of clear signage that lets you know that this is one of the airports that uses them, and that the door-frame you're about to step through is it? If enough people ask for the pat-down, it could actually be a very effective form of civil disobedience. The system is set up under the assumption that only a tiny number of passengers will ask for one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
What you said .
If they have these scanners at the airport the next time I fly , I want to make sure to ask for a pat-down rather than a scan , which I understand they 're supposed to allow you to do according to the current rules .
Can any slashdotters report on practical experiences at airports that use these things ?
Is there some kind of clear signage that lets you know that this is one of the airports that uses them , and that the door-frame you 're about to step through is it ?
If enough people ask for the pat-down , it could actually be a very effective form of civil disobedience .
The system is set up under the assumption that only a tiny number of passengers will ask for one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Yep.
What you said.
If they have these scanners at the airport the next time I fly, I want to make sure to ask for a pat-down rather than a scan, which I understand they're supposed to allow you to do according to the current rules.
Can any slashdotters report on practical experiences at airports that use these things?
Is there some kind of clear signage that lets you know that this is one of the airports that uses them, and that the door-frame you're about to step through is it?
If enough people ask for the pat-down, it could actually be a very effective form of civil disobedience.
The system is set up under the assumption that only a tiny number of passengers will ask for one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731386</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263216420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm concerned about both. I'm not ashamed of my body but that doesn't mean I want a complete stranger looking at a picture of me naked, no matter how fuzzy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm concerned about both .
I 'm not ashamed of my body but that does n't mean I want a complete stranger looking at a picture of me naked , no matter how fuzzy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm concerned about both.
I'm not ashamed of my body but that doesn't mean I want a complete stranger looking at a picture of me naked, no matter how fuzzy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733566</id>
	<title>Re:No crap!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263233400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep watching TV, son. They present the TSA personnels' account, and the results of the subsequent strip-search. This scanner is just an alarm bell. Copies of the the scan are not needed for court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep watching TV , son .
They present the TSA personnels ' account , and the results of the subsequent strip-search .
This scanner is just an alarm bell .
Copies of the the scan are not needed for court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep watching TV, son.
They present the TSA personnels' account, and the results of the subsequent strip-search.
This scanner is just an alarm bell.
Copies of the the scan are not needed for court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30736228</id>
	<title>Re:Good enough for government work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263307260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"employees who misuse the machines are subject to serious discipline or removal"</p></div><p>Why doesn't this line read something like:</p><p>"employees who misuse the machine are subject to 50 years, no parole, in Federal, pound-me-in-the-ass prison <b>AND</b> forfeiture of all assets held solely or jointly to the victim(s) of the misuse."?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" employees who misuse the machines are subject to serious discipline or removal " Why does n't this line read something like : " employees who misuse the machine are subject to 50 years , no parole , in Federal , pound-me-in-the-ass prison AND forfeiture of all assets held solely or jointly to the victim ( s ) of the misuse .
" ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"employees who misuse the machines are subject to serious discipline or removal"Why doesn't this line read something like:"employees who misuse the machine are subject to 50 years, no parole, in Federal, pound-me-in-the-ass prison AND forfeiture of all assets held solely or jointly to the victim(s) of the misuse.
"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731294</id>
	<title>... So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263215880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the big deal? I can think of better places to get porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the big deal ?
I can think of better places to get porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the big deal?
I can think of better places to get porn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734360</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>mr\_matticus</author>
	<datestamp>1263287400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So given this issue of context, I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere.</p></div><p>Lower doesn't mean nonexistent.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know if that's a legally appropriate way of saying it, but what I mean is, we already essentially allow our bags to be searched at airports.</p></div><p>That's fine, but I'm not a bag, nor is my laptop's hard drive.</p><p>There's nothing wrong with some basic preventative scanning, but you don't get to order a strip search with absolutely zero suspicion.  If there is something irregular about the purchase, some red flag in the computer, or some anomaly with a passenger's bag, by all means, it may be appropriate to pull them aside and pat them down or ask them if they'd consent to a body scan.</p><p>No suspicion means no search.  This is a principle that has stood for two centuries, first whittled away by the extremely lax standards at border crossings (but again, originally those had limits and required some irregularity to justify the extra processes).  In the past twenty years, airport security has washed that away, now to the point of having no rights when traveling by air.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I've also emptied my pockets, walked through a metal detector, and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport. I wouldn't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets.</p> </div><p>So in essence you're saying that they can do whatever they want in an airport, but not on the street?  I wholeheartedly disagree.</p><p>We are already subject to less privacy and more invasion at an airport.  They haven't the right to demand more invasion with less suspicion.  It will yield no better results.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I suppose if the consensus is that you feel like you've been stripped of your dignity</p></div><p>It's not about dignity, as clearly illustrated above.  It's about liberty and the right to be treated as innocent until presented with the appropriate level of suspicion for the alleged crime or offense.</p><p>Law enforcement <em>must</em> have grounds to conduct a search.  They already get to do a more thorough search without any suspicion than would ever be tolerated on the street.  People should not have to submit to even more for no reason at all.</p><p>There's no exigency, no probable cause, no reasonable suspicion.  Enough is enough.  We draw lines around these requirements and the various levels of search and seizure because each one is a greater and greater harm to privacy and liberty.  A digital strip search revealing more than a cavity search could ever hope to is a whole new level, justified by <em>nothing at all</em>.</p><p>It's not about dignity.  Dignity is why these searches are currently conducted in small rooms near the security lines instead of at the metal detector.  Yes, strip searches happen in airports right now.  But you have to trigger special screening, and then do something to trigger a <em>third</em> level of suspicion, where they bring in real cops and conduct a strip search.</p><p>These machines do away with those three levels and subject everyone to the same degree of search--something previously justified essentially only by observed criminal behavior.  That with the arbitrary power to seize your computer, again with no suspicion whatsoever, even when those machines contain confidential and/or privileged information protected by law, including attorney/client communications and records, medical records, financial records and the like is something that cannot be justified and should not be tolerated.</p><p>This is the single biggest affront to personal liberty of this generation, and it's going over with barely a hiccup because it's abstract and because people like you assume it's about dignity or vanity.  Not consenting to strip searches on the street isn't about dignity or vanity.  It's no different at an airport.  They have strip search policies and laws already.  They can use them.  They don't need to extend that highest level of invasion to <em>all</em> travelers of <em>all</em> flights simply because they can do it digitally.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So given this issue of context , I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere.Lower does n't mean nonexistent.I do n't know if that 's a legally appropriate way of saying it , but what I mean is , we already essentially allow our bags to be searched at airports.That 's fine , but I 'm not a bag , nor is my laptop 's hard drive.There 's nothing wrong with some basic preventative scanning , but you do n't get to order a strip search with absolutely zero suspicion .
If there is something irregular about the purchase , some red flag in the computer , or some anomaly with a passenger 's bag , by all means , it may be appropriate to pull them aside and pat them down or ask them if they 'd consent to a body scan.No suspicion means no search .
This is a principle that has stood for two centuries , first whittled away by the extremely lax standards at border crossings ( but again , originally those had limits and required some irregularity to justify the extra processes ) .
In the past twenty years , airport security has washed that away , now to the point of having no rights when traveling by air.I 've also emptied my pockets , walked through a metal detector , and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport .
I would n't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets .
So in essence you 're saying that they can do whatever they want in an airport , but not on the street ?
I wholeheartedly disagree.We are already subject to less privacy and more invasion at an airport .
They have n't the right to demand more invasion with less suspicion .
It will yield no better results.I suppose if the consensus is that you feel like you 've been stripped of your dignityIt 's not about dignity , as clearly illustrated above .
It 's about liberty and the right to be treated as innocent until presented with the appropriate level of suspicion for the alleged crime or offense.Law enforcement must have grounds to conduct a search .
They already get to do a more thorough search without any suspicion than would ever be tolerated on the street .
People should not have to submit to even more for no reason at all.There 's no exigency , no probable cause , no reasonable suspicion .
Enough is enough .
We draw lines around these requirements and the various levels of search and seizure because each one is a greater and greater harm to privacy and liberty .
A digital strip search revealing more than a cavity search could ever hope to is a whole new level , justified by nothing at all.It 's not about dignity .
Dignity is why these searches are currently conducted in small rooms near the security lines instead of at the metal detector .
Yes , strip searches happen in airports right now .
But you have to trigger special screening , and then do something to trigger a third level of suspicion , where they bring in real cops and conduct a strip search.These machines do away with those three levels and subject everyone to the same degree of search--something previously justified essentially only by observed criminal behavior .
That with the arbitrary power to seize your computer , again with no suspicion whatsoever , even when those machines contain confidential and/or privileged information protected by law , including attorney/client communications and records , medical records , financial records and the like is something that can not be justified and should not be tolerated.This is the single biggest affront to personal liberty of this generation , and it 's going over with barely a hiccup because it 's abstract and because people like you assume it 's about dignity or vanity .
Not consenting to strip searches on the street is n't about dignity or vanity .
It 's no different at an airport .
They have strip search policies and laws already .
They can use them .
They do n't need to extend that highest level of invasion to all travelers of all flights simply because they can do it digitally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So given this issue of context, I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere.Lower doesn't mean nonexistent.I don't know if that's a legally appropriate way of saying it, but what I mean is, we already essentially allow our bags to be searched at airports.That's fine, but I'm not a bag, nor is my laptop's hard drive.There's nothing wrong with some basic preventative scanning, but you don't get to order a strip search with absolutely zero suspicion.
If there is something irregular about the purchase, some red flag in the computer, or some anomaly with a passenger's bag, by all means, it may be appropriate to pull them aside and pat them down or ask them if they'd consent to a body scan.No suspicion means no search.
This is a principle that has stood for two centuries, first whittled away by the extremely lax standards at border crossings (but again, originally those had limits and required some irregularity to justify the extra processes).
In the past twenty years, airport security has washed that away, now to the point of having no rights when traveling by air.I've also emptied my pockets, walked through a metal detector, and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport.
I wouldn't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets.
So in essence you're saying that they can do whatever they want in an airport, but not on the street?
I wholeheartedly disagree.We are already subject to less privacy and more invasion at an airport.
They haven't the right to demand more invasion with less suspicion.
It will yield no better results.I suppose if the consensus is that you feel like you've been stripped of your dignityIt's not about dignity, as clearly illustrated above.
It's about liberty and the right to be treated as innocent until presented with the appropriate level of suspicion for the alleged crime or offense.Law enforcement must have grounds to conduct a search.
They already get to do a more thorough search without any suspicion than would ever be tolerated on the street.
People should not have to submit to even more for no reason at all.There's no exigency, no probable cause, no reasonable suspicion.
Enough is enough.
We draw lines around these requirements and the various levels of search and seizure because each one is a greater and greater harm to privacy and liberty.
A digital strip search revealing more than a cavity search could ever hope to is a whole new level, justified by nothing at all.It's not about dignity.
Dignity is why these searches are currently conducted in small rooms near the security lines instead of at the metal detector.
Yes, strip searches happen in airports right now.
But you have to trigger special screening, and then do something to trigger a third level of suspicion, where they bring in real cops and conduct a strip search.These machines do away with those three levels and subject everyone to the same degree of search--something previously justified essentially only by observed criminal behavior.
That with the arbitrary power to seize your computer, again with no suspicion whatsoever, even when those machines contain confidential and/or privileged information protected by law, including attorney/client communications and records, medical records, financial records and the like is something that cannot be justified and should not be tolerated.This is the single biggest affront to personal liberty of this generation, and it's going over with barely a hiccup because it's abstract and because people like you assume it's about dignity or vanity.
Not consenting to strip searches on the street isn't about dignity or vanity.
It's no different at an airport.
They have strip search policies and laws already.
They can use them.
They don't need to extend that highest level of invasion to all travelers of all flights simply because they can do it digitally.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732118</id>
	<title>An alternate solution</title>
	<author>Corwyn\_123</author>
	<datestamp>1263221100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scrap the old technology, forget people scanners, just make everyone have to strip to get on the plane. That's it, no clothes past the security check point. Few will be able to easily hide anything, and it'll definitely make flying more fun.</p><p>While you're at it, no carry on luggage at all. You strip at security, your clothes are put through the same xray as carry on used to be, then bagged and put on as checked luggage, you get it back after you land.</p><p>I love this idea!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scrap the old technology , forget people scanners , just make everyone have to strip to get on the plane .
That 's it , no clothes past the security check point .
Few will be able to easily hide anything , and it 'll definitely make flying more fun.While you 're at it , no carry on luggage at all .
You strip at security , your clothes are put through the same xray as carry on used to be , then bagged and put on as checked luggage , you get it back after you land.I love this idea ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scrap the old technology, forget people scanners, just make everyone have to strip to get on the plane.
That's it, no clothes past the security check point.
Few will be able to easily hide anything, and it'll definitely make flying more fun.While you're at it, no carry on luggage at all.
You strip at security, your clothes are put through the same xray as carry on used to be, then bagged and put on as checked luggage, you get it back after you land.I love this idea!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732128</id>
	<title>Re:Like BIG celebrities are going to use this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263221220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...horny airport scanner operator...</p></div><p>Are you saying it is possible to get sexually aroused by these images?  Are you serious?</p><p>I know someone will come along with the "different strokes for different folks" argument, but don't be a pedant jackass.  These images are not sexually explicit.</p><p>An invasion of privacy, probably so.  But that is the only intelligent argument you can possibly make about the entire whole-body-scanner discussion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...horny airport scanner operator...Are you saying it is possible to get sexually aroused by these images ?
Are you serious ? I know someone will come along with the " different strokes for different folks " argument , but do n't be a pedant jackass .
These images are not sexually explicit.An invasion of privacy , probably so .
But that is the only intelligent argument you can possibly make about the entire whole-body-scanner discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...horny airport scanner operator...Are you saying it is possible to get sexually aroused by these images?
Are you serious?I know someone will come along with the "different strokes for different folks" argument, but don't be a pedant jackass.
These images are not sexually explicit.An invasion of privacy, probably so.
But that is the only intelligent argument you can possibly make about the entire whole-body-scanner discussion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733086</id>
	<title>Re:Invisibility Cloak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263229020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My 10-year-old daughter defeated the terahertz scanner by wearing her shiny shirt made out of <a href="http://www.hartsfabric.com/metallicfabric.html" title="hartsfabric.com" rel="nofollow">metallic fabric</a> [hartsfabric.com].  It worked much like a Faraday cage - the care tag claims "10\% metallic fiber".  The TSA booth monitor requested a pat-down of my daughter - and thankfully did a very poor job.  Just wait until everyone starts wearing shiny, metallic clothes when flying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My 10-year-old daughter defeated the terahertz scanner by wearing her shiny shirt made out of metallic fabric [ hartsfabric.com ] .
It worked much like a Faraday cage - the care tag claims " 10 \ % metallic fiber " .
The TSA booth monitor requested a pat-down of my daughter - and thankfully did a very poor job .
Just wait until everyone starts wearing shiny , metallic clothes when flying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My 10-year-old daughter defeated the terahertz scanner by wearing her shiny shirt made out of metallic fabric [hartsfabric.com].
It worked much like a Faraday cage - the care tag claims "10\% metallic fiber".
The TSA booth monitor requested a pat-down of my daughter - and thankfully did a very poor job.
Just wait until everyone starts wearing shiny, metallic clothes when flying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733346</id>
	<title>Conductive fabric</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263231060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The stuff is mostly used for RF shielding and occasionally used for wearable electronics and other niche applications. The current market is pretty limited because of it's expense, but I can just imagine the demand taking off and the prices finally becoming reasonable.</p><p>Screw the tin-foil hats, nickel plated boxers are the ticket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The stuff is mostly used for RF shielding and occasionally used for wearable electronics and other niche applications .
The current market is pretty limited because of it 's expense , but I can just imagine the demand taking off and the prices finally becoming reasonable.Screw the tin-foil hats , nickel plated boxers are the ticket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The stuff is mostly used for RF shielding and occasionally used for wearable electronics and other niche applications.
The current market is pretty limited because of it's expense, but I can just imagine the demand taking off and the prices finally becoming reasonable.Screw the tin-foil hats, nickel plated boxers are the ticket.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731722</id>
	<title>Re:Good enough for government work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263218520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the wireless ability is probably an expansion card that's removed after testing/servicing. so unhackable in that instance is correct.<p>
All the fuss is really about women who don't want slack jawed TSA agents gawking at their naked image. i can well imagine them creating walls of fame as actors etc go through these machines and they take a snap shot of the screen with their phones.</p><p>
one solution would be to make all the operators female, even that isn't a perfect solution. really i question the cost effectiveness of this whole fiasco. this isn't going to stop some terrorist smuggling a bomb on a plane that he's shoved up his arse is it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the wireless ability is probably an expansion card that 's removed after testing/servicing .
so unhackable in that instance is correct .
All the fuss is really about women who do n't want slack jawed TSA agents gawking at their naked image .
i can well imagine them creating walls of fame as actors etc go through these machines and they take a snap shot of the screen with their phones .
one solution would be to make all the operators female , even that is n't a perfect solution .
really i question the cost effectiveness of this whole fiasco .
this is n't going to stop some terrorist smuggling a bomb on a plane that he 's shoved up his arse is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the wireless ability is probably an expansion card that's removed after testing/servicing.
so unhackable in that instance is correct.
All the fuss is really about women who don't want slack jawed TSA agents gawking at their naked image.
i can well imagine them creating walls of fame as actors etc go through these machines and they take a snap shot of the screen with their phones.
one solution would be to make all the operators female, even that isn't a perfect solution.
really i question the cost effectiveness of this whole fiasco.
this isn't going to stop some terrorist smuggling a bomb on a plane that he's shoved up his arse is it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30737886</id>
	<title>Dear TSA</title>
	<author>jDeepbeep</author>
	<datestamp>1263314940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've gone too far. I won't be flying any longer.
<br> <br>
sincerely,<br>
a citizen</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've gone too far .
I wo n't be flying any longer .
sincerely , a citizen</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've gone too far.
I won't be flying any longer.
sincerely,
a citizen</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732432</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>russ1337</author>
	<datestamp>1263223560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It isn't <i>that</i> fuzzy. I've been seeing reports on the wires about the scanner being refined enough to see male genitalia. These scanners won't last long. I bet one day, if they're put in place, we'll see web sites with some actor's dick showing or some other actress' tits in full view or some politicians little pee-pee and we'll see things change real fast.</p></div><p>That is why i'm going to make sure I 'chub up' before going through one...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't that fuzzy .
I 've been seeing reports on the wires about the scanner being refined enough to see male genitalia .
These scanners wo n't last long .
I bet one day , if they 're put in place , we 'll see web sites with some actor 's dick showing or some other actress ' tits in full view or some politicians little pee-pee and we 'll see things change real fast.That is why i 'm going to make sure I 'chub up ' before going through one.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't that fuzzy.
I've been seeing reports on the wires about the scanner being refined enough to see male genitalia.
These scanners won't last long.
I bet one day, if they're put in place, we'll see web sites with some actor's dick showing or some other actress' tits in full view or some politicians little pee-pee and we'll see things change real fast.That is why i'm going to make sure I 'chub up' before going through one...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30738238</id>
	<title>Re:Like BIG celebrities are going to use this.</title>
	<author>CompMD</author>
	<datestamp>1263316140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a big celebrity and I've given up flying commercially domestically.  I either borrow my friend's airplane or rent one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a big celebrity and I 've given up flying commercially domestically .
I either borrow my friend 's airplane or rent one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a big celebrity and I've given up flying commercially domestically.
I either borrow my friend's airplane or rent one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30738040</id>
	<title>Re:Good enough for government work</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1263315480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think "cannot be hacked" is an unreasonable thing to say if it's truly airgapped from any networks and there's no way to do anything unusual through the console. Of course hardhacks are always a possibility when you have physical access, but it's an accurate statement within reason.
<br> <br>
Still doesn't mean you can take pics of the screen though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think " can not be hacked " is an unreasonable thing to say if it 's truly airgapped from any networks and there 's no way to do anything unusual through the console .
Of course hardhacks are always a possibility when you have physical access , but it 's an accurate statement within reason .
Still does n't mean you can take pics of the screen though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think "cannot be hacked" is an unreasonable thing to say if it's truly airgapped from any networks and there's no way to do anything unusual through the console.
Of course hardhacks are always a possibility when you have physical access, but it's an accurate statement within reason.
Still doesn't mean you can take pics of the screen though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732132</id>
	<title>Re:Dignity is an essential human right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263221220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We are all endowed...</p></div><p>Sir, let me assure you that the TSA is not in the least interested in how endowed you are, either individually or as a group. Nor does the TSA want to know how you, as a group of endowed people, spend your time or what activities you engage in, as long as your activities pose no threat to national security. Thank you, you may now go back to your nudist swinger group and share the good news.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are all endowed...Sir , let me assure you that the TSA is not in the least interested in how endowed you are , either individually or as a group .
Nor does the TSA want to know how you , as a group of endowed people , spend your time or what activities you engage in , as long as your activities pose no threat to national security .
Thank you , you may now go back to your nudist swinger group and share the good news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are all endowed...Sir, let me assure you that the TSA is not in the least interested in how endowed you are, either individually or as a group.
Nor does the TSA want to know how you, as a group of endowed people, spend your time or what activities you engage in, as long as your activities pose no threat to national security.
Thank you, you may now go back to your nudist swinger group and share the good news.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735582</id>
	<title>Re:amusing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263302280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like yes, I have the freedom of speech, but if someone in the House of Representatives decides to run toward the President during the state of the Union yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!" then you'd better bet he's going to be detained for a little while.</p><p>Yes, but that'd be because of the whole "charging towards the POTUS" part, not because of what he said. He'd just as well be he detained by the SS if he didn't shout anything, or even if he shouted "c'mere, sexy, and kiss me".</p><p>Your argument about context is a problematic one, too, as it essentially boils down to "if it's done consistently/regularly/for a while, it ceases to be illegal": in other words, "might makes right".</p><p>But you're attacking the problem from the wrong angle, anyway. You shouldn't attempt to justify why you don't like these scanners, and then conclude you don't have a right to not like them when you can't come up with a compelling reason; rather, you should ask the following things: 1) what are they supposed to do (e.g. "find bombs"); 2) are they effective for what they're supposed to do; 3) if yes, would being effective for what they're supposed to do make air travel safer; 4) if yes, would the increase in safety justify the costs (in terms of liberties, money etc.) associated with them.</p><p>Put more succinctly, the DEFAULT should be "no new scanners", and if the government wants to have them, it's up to the government to provide a compelling reason why they should be installed. It's NOT "we'll install them until you convince us why we shouldn't" - that's basically "guilty until proven innocent" thinking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like yes , I have the freedom of speech , but if someone in the House of Representatives decides to run toward the President during the state of the Union yelling " Sic semper tyrannis !
" then you 'd better bet he 's going to be detained for a little while.Yes , but that 'd be because of the whole " charging towards the POTUS " part , not because of what he said .
He 'd just as well be he detained by the SS if he did n't shout anything , or even if he shouted " c'mere , sexy , and kiss me " .Your argument about context is a problematic one , too , as it essentially boils down to " if it 's done consistently/regularly/for a while , it ceases to be illegal " : in other words , " might makes right " .But you 're attacking the problem from the wrong angle , anyway .
You should n't attempt to justify why you do n't like these scanners , and then conclude you do n't have a right to not like them when you ca n't come up with a compelling reason ; rather , you should ask the following things : 1 ) what are they supposed to do ( e.g .
" find bombs " ) ; 2 ) are they effective for what they 're supposed to do ; 3 ) if yes , would being effective for what they 're supposed to do make air travel safer ; 4 ) if yes , would the increase in safety justify the costs ( in terms of liberties , money etc .
) associated with them.Put more succinctly , the DEFAULT should be " no new scanners " , and if the government wants to have them , it 's up to the government to provide a compelling reason why they should be installed .
It 's NOT " we 'll install them until you convince us why we should n't " - that 's basically " guilty until proven innocent " thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like yes, I have the freedom of speech, but if someone in the House of Representatives decides to run toward the President during the state of the Union yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!
" then you'd better bet he's going to be detained for a little while.Yes, but that'd be because of the whole "charging towards the POTUS" part, not because of what he said.
He'd just as well be he detained by the SS if he didn't shout anything, or even if he shouted "c'mere, sexy, and kiss me".Your argument about context is a problematic one, too, as it essentially boils down to "if it's done consistently/regularly/for a while, it ceases to be illegal": in other words, "might makes right".But you're attacking the problem from the wrong angle, anyway.
You shouldn't attempt to justify why you don't like these scanners, and then conclude you don't have a right to not like them when you can't come up with a compelling reason; rather, you should ask the following things: 1) what are they supposed to do (e.g.
"find bombs"); 2) are they effective for what they're supposed to do; 3) if yes, would being effective for what they're supposed to do make air travel safer; 4) if yes, would the increase in safety justify the costs (in terms of liberties, money etc.
) associated with them.Put more succinctly, the DEFAULT should be "no new scanners", and if the government wants to have them, it's up to the government to provide a compelling reason why they should be installed.
It's NOT "we'll install them until you convince us why we shouldn't" - that's basically "guilty until proven innocent" thinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731626</id>
	<title>quasi naked pictures of your children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263217920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>quasi naked pictures of your children. can anyone say child pornography.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>quasi naked pictures of your children .
can anyone say child pornography .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>quasi naked pictures of your children.
can anyone say child pornography.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30738472</id>
	<title>Re:Like BIG celebrities are going to use this.</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1263316920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, <a href="http://www.tv.com/Paris\%20Hilton/person/207608/viewer.html?ii=1&amp;gri=616&amp;grti=1001" title="tv.com">here's a picture of the Jonas Brothers in a security line at LAX</a> [tv.com].  <a href="http://meetthefamous.com/photos-videos/details.php?story=2651" title="meetthefamous.com">Here's one of Paris Hilton</a> [meetthefamous.com] at LAX.  <a href="http://travel.ninemsn.com.au/holidaytype/showbiz/655335/celebrity-airport-arrests-151-where-the-stars-got-stung" title="ninemsn.com.au">Here</a> [ninemsn.com.au] is a whole who's-who of famous celebrities who have gotten in trouble going through standard airport security, including Naomi Campbell, Snoop Dogg, Courtney Love, Whitney Houston, and Paul McCartney.  Now, I'm not saying they're treated the same: Whitney Houston had issues because they found a bunch of pot in her carry-on -- but they let her board the plane and keep the pot.  Likewise <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2352256/airport\_security\_liquids\_lax\_lets\_britney.html" title="associatedcontent.com">if you're Britney Spears they'll hold your liter-sized container of liquid while you go through security and then give it back to you</a> [associatedcontent.com] but the image of rich people only flying in private jets is completely false.  They regularly fly on commercial aircraft along with the proles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , here 's a picture of the Jonas Brothers in a security line at LAX [ tv.com ] .
Here 's one of Paris Hilton [ meetthefamous.com ] at LAX .
Here [ ninemsn.com.au ] is a whole who 's-who of famous celebrities who have gotten in trouble going through standard airport security , including Naomi Campbell , Snoop Dogg , Courtney Love , Whitney Houston , and Paul McCartney .
Now , I 'm not saying they 're treated the same : Whitney Houston had issues because they found a bunch of pot in her carry-on -- but they let her board the plane and keep the pot .
Likewise if you 're Britney Spears they 'll hold your liter-sized container of liquid while you go through security and then give it back to you [ associatedcontent.com ] but the image of rich people only flying in private jets is completely false .
They regularly fly on commercial aircraft along with the proles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, here's a picture of the Jonas Brothers in a security line at LAX [tv.com].
Here's one of Paris Hilton [meetthefamous.com] at LAX.
Here [ninemsn.com.au] is a whole who's-who of famous celebrities who have gotten in trouble going through standard airport security, including Naomi Campbell, Snoop Dogg, Courtney Love, Whitney Houston, and Paul McCartney.
Now, I'm not saying they're treated the same: Whitney Houston had issues because they found a bunch of pot in her carry-on -- but they let her board the plane and keep the pot.
Likewise if you're Britney Spears they'll hold your liter-sized container of liquid while you go through security and then give it back to you [associatedcontent.com] but the image of rich people only flying in private jets is completely false.
They regularly fly on commercial aircraft along with the proles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733620</id>
	<title>Snap a pic with your cell phone camera</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263233820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A TSA employee will just copy the images with his cell phone camera and auto upload them to the internet. This still leaves the other hand free to jack off under the table.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A TSA employee will just copy the images with his cell phone camera and auto upload them to the internet .
This still leaves the other hand free to jack off under the table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A TSA employee will just copy the images with his cell phone camera and auto upload them to the internet.
This still leaves the other hand free to jack off under the table.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30736554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30761920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30747706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30738238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30737412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30747384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30741942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30738472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30738040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30740438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30737026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30739666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30747112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30740776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30736228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30737016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30739794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30738552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30738670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30739214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30736218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30739596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1950206_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30737508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30739596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30739794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30737412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30739214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30738040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30738552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30736228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30740776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733150
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733536
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731634
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30738670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30736554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731798
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30747706
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30737016
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734528
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735582
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732264
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733966
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733562
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734360
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30737508
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30740438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30738238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30737026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30738472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30741942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30747112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30736218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30747384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30761920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30735658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30734882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30739666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30733638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30732834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1950206.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1950206.30731440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
