<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_05_1548226</id>
	<title>Can You Trust Chinese Computer Equipment?</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265385720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Ian Lamont writes <i>"Suspicions about China slipping eavesdropping technology into computer exports have <a href="http://www.csoonline.com/article/215118/U.S.\_Group\_Calls\_for\_Lenovo\_Spy\_Probe">been around for years</a>. But the recent spying attacks, attributed to China, on <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/14/1637251/Google-Attackers-Identified-as-Chinese-Government?art\_pos=22">Google and other Internet companies</a> have revived the hardware spying concerns. An IT World blogger suggests <a href="http://www.itworld.com/security/95398/can-you-trust-chinese-computer-equipment">the gear can't be trusted</a>, noting that it wouldn't be hard to add security holes to the firmware of Chinese-made USB memory sticks, computers, hard drives, and cameras. He also implies that running automatic checks for data of interest in the compromised gear would not be difficult."</i> The blog post mentions Ken Thompson's admission in 1983 that he had put a backdoor into the Unix C compiler; he laid out the details in the 1983 Turing Award lecture, <a href="http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html">Reflections On Trusting Trust</a>: <i>"The moral is obvious. You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself. (Especially code from companies that employ people like me.) No amount of source-level verification or scrutiny will protect you from using untrusted code. In demonstrating the possibility of this kind of attack, I picked on the C compiler. I could have picked on any program-handling program such as an assembler, a loader, or even hardware microcode. As the level of program gets lower, these bugs will be harder and harder to detect. A well installed microcode bug will be almost impossible to detect."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ian Lamont writes " Suspicions about China slipping eavesdropping technology into computer exports have been around for years .
But the recent spying attacks , attributed to China , on Google and other Internet companies have revived the hardware spying concerns .
An IT World blogger suggests the gear ca n't be trusted , noting that it would n't be hard to add security holes to the firmware of Chinese-made USB memory sticks , computers , hard drives , and cameras .
He also implies that running automatic checks for data of interest in the compromised gear would not be difficult .
" The blog post mentions Ken Thompson 's admission in 1983 that he had put a backdoor into the Unix C compiler ; he laid out the details in the 1983 Turing Award lecture , Reflections On Trusting Trust : " The moral is obvious .
You ca n't trust code that you did not totally create yourself .
( Especially code from companies that employ people like me .
) No amount of source-level verification or scrutiny will protect you from using untrusted code .
In demonstrating the possibility of this kind of attack , I picked on the C compiler .
I could have picked on any program-handling program such as an assembler , a loader , or even hardware microcode .
As the level of program gets lower , these bugs will be harder and harder to detect .
A well installed microcode bug will be almost impossible to detect .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ian Lamont writes "Suspicions about China slipping eavesdropping technology into computer exports have been around for years.
But the recent spying attacks, attributed to China, on Google and other Internet companies have revived the hardware spying concerns.
An IT World blogger suggests the gear can't be trusted, noting that it wouldn't be hard to add security holes to the firmware of Chinese-made USB memory sticks, computers, hard drives, and cameras.
He also implies that running automatic checks for data of interest in the compromised gear would not be difficult.
" The blog post mentions Ken Thompson's admission in 1983 that he had put a backdoor into the Unix C compiler; he laid out the details in the 1983 Turing Award lecture, Reflections On Trusting Trust: "The moral is obvious.
You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself.
(Especially code from companies that employ people like me.
) No amount of source-level verification or scrutiny will protect you from using untrusted code.
In demonstrating the possibility of this kind of attack, I picked on the C compiler.
I could have picked on any program-handling program such as an assembler, a loader, or even hardware microcode.
As the level of program gets lower, these bugs will be harder and harder to detect.
A well installed microcode bug will be almost impossible to detect.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31054162</id>
	<title>Re:Have you read the fucking article?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265575620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the real fun is that one of the worlds smallest countries own your ass  A country of a mere 5 million inhabitants (one million muslims) is the shit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the real fun is that one of the worlds smallest countries own your ass A country of a mere 5 million inhabitants ( one million muslims ) is the shit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the real fun is that one of the worlds smallest countries own your ass  A country of a mere 5 million inhabitants (one million muslims) is the shit</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035562</id>
	<title>Re:Ahem *cough* why is "china" singled out??</title>
	<author>Reapman</author>
	<datestamp>1265391180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm maybe they're singling out China because of, as the Summary points out, recent events?</p><p>If the US government (or ANY government) was strongly suspected of doing the same thing, and that country was a leading supplier of xyz goods, you'd see a similar article posted.  It's how news works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm maybe they 're singling out China because of , as the Summary points out , recent events ? If the US government ( or ANY government ) was strongly suspected of doing the same thing , and that country was a leading supplier of xyz goods , you 'd see a similar article posted .
It 's how news works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm maybe they're singling out China because of, as the Summary points out, recent events?If the US government (or ANY government) was strongly suspected of doing the same thing, and that country was a leading supplier of xyz goods, you'd see a similar article posted.
It's how news works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036456</id>
	<title>Re:Back doors in hardware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265394660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>One of the obvious places to put in a "back door" is in Ethernet controllers. Many used in servers already have logic for hardware "remote administration" (turn machine off, reboot, load code, etc.). It is supposed to be disabled by default, and work only when initialized with keys during hardware installation. Just build a set of default remote administration keys into the chip, and everyone using that chip is 0wned. Send the right UDP packets, and you can take over the machine. This would be completely invisible until activated.</i></p><p>True, but that is easily blocked by firewalls &amp; routers. I remember many many many years ago looking at some smtp logs trying to figure out why a Xerox network printer was sending email. It turns out that by default they email color &amp; page usage information back to the mothership. We changed the router &amp; switch defaults to block all traffic from everything, then selectively enabled traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the obvious places to put in a " back door " is in Ethernet controllers .
Many used in servers already have logic for hardware " remote administration " ( turn machine off , reboot , load code , etc. ) .
It is supposed to be disabled by default , and work only when initialized with keys during hardware installation .
Just build a set of default remote administration keys into the chip , and everyone using that chip is 0wned .
Send the right UDP packets , and you can take over the machine .
This would be completely invisible until activated.True , but that is easily blocked by firewalls &amp; routers .
I remember many many many years ago looking at some smtp logs trying to figure out why a Xerox network printer was sending email .
It turns out that by default they email color &amp; page usage information back to the mothership .
We changed the router &amp; switch defaults to block all traffic from everything , then selectively enabled traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the obvious places to put in a "back door" is in Ethernet controllers.
Many used in servers already have logic for hardware "remote administration" (turn machine off, reboot, load code, etc.).
It is supposed to be disabled by default, and work only when initialized with keys during hardware installation.
Just build a set of default remote administration keys into the chip, and everyone using that chip is 0wned.
Send the right UDP packets, and you can take over the machine.
This would be completely invisible until activated.True, but that is easily blocked by firewalls &amp; routers.
I remember many many many years ago looking at some smtp logs trying to figure out why a Xerox network printer was sending email.
It turns out that by default they email color &amp; page usage information back to the mothership.
We changed the router &amp; switch defaults to block all traffic from everything, then selectively enabled traffic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036246</id>
	<title>no</title>
	<author>unix\_geek\_512</author>
	<datestamp>1265393820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Q. Can You Trust Chinese Computer Equipment?</p><p>A. Heck no!</p><p>If it doesn't blow up and set your whole machine room on fire, it's almost guaranteed to come trojaned straight from the factory.</p><p>When will we learn?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Q. Can You Trust Chinese Computer Equipment ? A .
Heck no ! If it does n't blow up and set your whole machine room on fire , it 's almost guaranteed to come trojaned straight from the factory.When will we learn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Q. Can You Trust Chinese Computer Equipment?A.
Heck no!If it doesn't blow up and set your whole machine room on fire, it's almost guaranteed to come trojaned straight from the factory.When will we learn?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31045468</id>
	<title>Re:Back doors in hardware</title>
	<author>cstacy</author>
	<datestamp>1265471220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>DoD is really worried about this.</p></div><p>Everyone seems to be talking about "spying".</p><p>How about just worrying over the "HCF" packet that the computer is waiting to receive?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DoD is really worried about this.Everyone seems to be talking about " spying " .How about just worrying over the " HCF " packet that the computer is waiting to receive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DoD is really worried about this.Everyone seems to be talking about "spying".How about just worrying over the "HCF" packet that the computer is waiting to receive?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31053450</id>
	<title>Re:Sure...</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1265568960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Is the USB key going to open a TCP/IP or UDP connection back to their servers without tripping my firewall that a new application is trying to connect?<br></i><br>Your firewall I don't know about.  Not everyone has an outgoing firewall though.  How many people have an outgoing firewall on their home network for instance?  How many people use laptops at work and home?  Maybe it doesn't work at the workplace, but works perfectly well when the laptop gets connected at home, the airport, or coffee shop.  That might be a day, a week, or a month later.  So what?  Report back all the goodies it's gathered during that time period.<br><i><br>
&nbsp; Is my virus scanner going to get tripped that something suspicious is coming out of the key without my interaction?<br></i><br>Probably not.  Virus scanners mostly work off signatures of known viruses/malware.  This isn't going to be a known piece of spyware.  The behavior based ones are relatively poor and produce a lot of false positives.  I'm sure it wouldn't be terribly hard to design the spyware to even get around even that kind of detection.</p><p><i><br>In a lot of corporate networks USB Mass media is disabled. I'd love to see a proof of concept that can get around these common checks<br></i><br>Most of these kinds of checks just don't protect against the dedicated attacker, but are designed for the mass virus and malware attacks.  Protecting against someone that knows something about your infra-structure, or is willing to write custom software for just one person is going to be much more difficult to protect against.  Also, if you really think that USB mass media keys are the only vector a dedicated attacker might use to get into your PC, think again.</p><p>Anyway, even if this kind of attack is only 10\% effective, do you really think that's not high enough to not be worth it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the USB key going to open a TCP/IP or UDP connection back to their servers without tripping my firewall that a new application is trying to connect ? Your firewall I do n't know about .
Not everyone has an outgoing firewall though .
How many people have an outgoing firewall on their home network for instance ?
How many people use laptops at work and home ?
Maybe it does n't work at the workplace , but works perfectly well when the laptop gets connected at home , the airport , or coffee shop .
That might be a day , a week , or a month later .
So what ?
Report back all the goodies it 's gathered during that time period .
  Is my virus scanner going to get tripped that something suspicious is coming out of the key without my interaction ? Probably not .
Virus scanners mostly work off signatures of known viruses/malware .
This is n't going to be a known piece of spyware .
The behavior based ones are relatively poor and produce a lot of false positives .
I 'm sure it would n't be terribly hard to design the spyware to even get around even that kind of detection.In a lot of corporate networks USB Mass media is disabled .
I 'd love to see a proof of concept that can get around these common checksMost of these kinds of checks just do n't protect against the dedicated attacker , but are designed for the mass virus and malware attacks .
Protecting against someone that knows something about your infra-structure , or is willing to write custom software for just one person is going to be much more difficult to protect against .
Also , if you really think that USB mass media keys are the only vector a dedicated attacker might use to get into your PC , think again.Anyway , even if this kind of attack is only 10 \ % effective , do you really think that 's not high enough to not be worth it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the USB key going to open a TCP/IP or UDP connection back to their servers without tripping my firewall that a new application is trying to connect?Your firewall I don't know about.
Not everyone has an outgoing firewall though.
How many people have an outgoing firewall on their home network for instance?
How many people use laptops at work and home?
Maybe it doesn't work at the workplace, but works perfectly well when the laptop gets connected at home, the airport, or coffee shop.
That might be a day, a week, or a month later.
So what?
Report back all the goodies it's gathered during that time period.
  Is my virus scanner going to get tripped that something suspicious is coming out of the key without my interaction?Probably not.
Virus scanners mostly work off signatures of known viruses/malware.
This isn't going to be a known piece of spyware.
The behavior based ones are relatively poor and produce a lot of false positives.
I'm sure it wouldn't be terribly hard to design the spyware to even get around even that kind of detection.In a lot of corporate networks USB Mass media is disabled.
I'd love to see a proof of concept that can get around these common checksMost of these kinds of checks just don't protect against the dedicated attacker, but are designed for the mass virus and malware attacks.
Protecting against someone that knows something about your infra-structure, or is willing to write custom software for just one person is going to be much more difficult to protect against.
Also, if you really think that USB mass media keys are the only vector a dedicated attacker might use to get into your PC, think again.Anyway, even if this kind of attack is only 10\% effective, do you really think that's not high enough to not be worth it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31041686</id>
	<title>Re:Programmers vs. Users</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1265377260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not every programmer is going to be bright enough to find back doors and such in large programs.  In fact, they may have it worse.  A knowledgeable user will know he can't necessarily trust a program and adjust his actions accordingly.  A mediocre programmer could take a look at the source code, decide he doesn't see anything suspicious, and treat the program as if it is completely secure.</p><p>I also have to say that in a lot of cases it isn't the lack of mental faculties that prevents people from becoming programmers...but greater interest in something else.  Not every genius is a programmer.  Not every programmer is a genius...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not every programmer is going to be bright enough to find back doors and such in large programs .
In fact , they may have it worse .
A knowledgeable user will know he ca n't necessarily trust a program and adjust his actions accordingly .
A mediocre programmer could take a look at the source code , decide he does n't see anything suspicious , and treat the program as if it is completely secure.I also have to say that in a lot of cases it is n't the lack of mental faculties that prevents people from becoming programmers...but greater interest in something else .
Not every genius is a programmer .
Not every programmer is a genius.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not every programmer is going to be bright enough to find back doors and such in large programs.
In fact, they may have it worse.
A knowledgeable user will know he can't necessarily trust a program and adjust his actions accordingly.
A mediocre programmer could take a look at the source code, decide he doesn't see anything suspicious, and treat the program as if it is completely secure.I also have to say that in a lot of cases it isn't the lack of mental faculties that prevents people from becoming programmers...but greater interest in something else.
Not every genius is a programmer.
Not every programmer is a genius...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31040958</id>
	<title>metal cables are more for stopping theft then that</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1265372280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>metal cables are more for stopping theft then that and why you see them in schools and on other public pcs / public pcs are locked in a cabinet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>metal cables are more for stopping theft then that and why you see them in schools and on other public pcs / public pcs are locked in a cabinet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>metal cables are more for stopping theft then that and why you see them in schools and on other public pcs / public pcs are locked in a cabinet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035516</id>
	<title>Contratulations</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1265391000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For outsourcing the production to the lowest bidder...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For outsourcing the production to the lowest bidder.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For outsourcing the production to the lowest bidder...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037000</id>
	<title>Re:Cisco</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1265397120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>did you buy them from a trusted source? there are a lot of Joe's Ethernet shop or Al's Used Switches dot com type places on the internet. One place i deal with for used server power supplies for old servers has buyers scour the internet and used sales for equipment. not much control. not as controlled as an authorized reseller but they are cheaper.</p><p>i've read of authorized resellers selling counterfeit as well but then it comes down to trust and buying from someone you believe gets the gear from Cisco and not just passing it from another distributor</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>did you buy them from a trusted source ?
there are a lot of Joe 's Ethernet shop or Al 's Used Switches dot com type places on the internet .
One place i deal with for used server power supplies for old servers has buyers scour the internet and used sales for equipment .
not much control .
not as controlled as an authorized reseller but they are cheaper.i 've read of authorized resellers selling counterfeit as well but then it comes down to trust and buying from someone you believe gets the gear from Cisco and not just passing it from another distributor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>did you buy them from a trusted source?
there are a lot of Joe's Ethernet shop or Al's Used Switches dot com type places on the internet.
One place i deal with for used server power supplies for old servers has buyers scour the internet and used sales for equipment.
not much control.
not as controlled as an authorized reseller but they are cheaper.i've read of authorized resellers selling counterfeit as well but then it comes down to trust and buying from someone you believe gets the gear from Cisco and not just passing it from another distributor</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035388</id>
	<title>So the Chinese hardware must be doing fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265390400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Otherwise the powers that be wouldn't resort to this kind of a sham campaign. For example the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loongson" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Chinese Loongson CPU</a> [wikipedia.org] is very interesting. Not least for the fact there's no windoze MIPS port. It's also quite a technical feat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Otherwise the powers that be would n't resort to this kind of a sham campaign .
For example the Chinese Loongson CPU [ wikipedia.org ] is very interesting .
Not least for the fact there 's no windoze MIPS port .
It 's also quite a technical feat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Otherwise the powers that be wouldn't resort to this kind of a sham campaign.
For example the Chinese Loongson CPU [wikipedia.org] is very interesting.
Not least for the fact there's no windoze MIPS port.
It's also quite a technical feat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037374</id>
	<title>Maxtor drives contain trojan code</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1265398680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I submitted the story three years ago but it never got picked up.</p><p><a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9046424/Update\_Maxtor\_drives\_contain\_password\_stealing\_Trojans?intsrc=hm\_list" title="computerworld.com">http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9046424/Update\_Maxtor\_drives\_contain\_password\_stealing\_Trojans?intsrc=hm\_list</a> [computerworld.com]</p><p>In short, Maxtor drives that were produced in Taiwan contained trojan source code that phone home to two servers located in China.  There wasn't any conclusive evidence to tie the incident directly to the Chinese (wink wink, nudge nudge).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I submitted the story three years ago but it never got picked up.http : //www.computerworld.com/s/article/9046424/Update \ _Maxtor \ _drives \ _contain \ _password \ _stealing \ _Trojans ? intsrc = hm \ _list [ computerworld.com ] In short , Maxtor drives that were produced in Taiwan contained trojan source code that phone home to two servers located in China .
There was n't any conclusive evidence to tie the incident directly to the Chinese ( wink wink , nudge nudge ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I submitted the story three years ago but it never got picked up.http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9046424/Update\_Maxtor\_drives\_contain\_password\_stealing\_Trojans?intsrc=hm\_list [computerworld.com]In short, Maxtor drives that were produced in Taiwan contained trojan source code that phone home to two servers located in China.
There wasn't any conclusive evidence to tie the incident directly to the Chinese (wink wink, nudge nudge).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31040020</id>
	<title>Re:Evidence?</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1265367240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The book should've been named 2084. Then there'd be no doubt that Orwell was from the future or the reincarnation of nostradamus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The book should 've been named 2084 .
Then there 'd be no doubt that Orwell was from the future or the reincarnation of nostradamus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The book should've been named 2084.
Then there'd be no doubt that Orwell was from the future or the reincarnation of nostradamus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036628</id>
	<title>Simple Solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265395320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just stop talking about other peoples countries and mind your own business.</p><p>Wait, I didn't write that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just stop talking about other peoples countries and mind your own business.Wait , I did n't write that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just stop talking about other peoples countries and mind your own business.Wait, I didn't write that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31046524</id>
	<title>Possible solution?</title>
	<author>sictransitgloriacfa</author>
	<datestamp>1265481120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Regarding the wider issue of being able to trust one's own hardware, given that <i>some</i> government is in a position to corrupt it, I wonder if FPGAs would be a solution? Of course, you'd have to trust the software you use to program them, and the hardware on which it runs. But there are limits to how complex malware can reasonably be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regarding the wider issue of being able to trust one 's own hardware , given that some government is in a position to corrupt it , I wonder if FPGAs would be a solution ?
Of course , you 'd have to trust the software you use to program them , and the hardware on which it runs .
But there are limits to how complex malware can reasonably be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regarding the wider issue of being able to trust one's own hardware, given that some government is in a position to corrupt it, I wonder if FPGAs would be a solution?
Of course, you'd have to trust the software you use to program them, and the hardware on which it runs.
But there are limits to how complex malware can reasonably be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035168</id>
	<title>Another reason</title>
	<author>AnotherUsername</author>
	<datestamp>1265389320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just another reason for me to not want to buy Chinese made goods.  Unfortunately, so much is made in China that it is nearly impossible to completely avoid the country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just another reason for me to not want to buy Chinese made goods .
Unfortunately , so much is made in China that it is nearly impossible to completely avoid the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just another reason for me to not want to buy Chinese made goods.
Unfortunately, so much is made in China that it is nearly impossible to completely avoid the country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31043168</id>
	<title>Give it a rest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265389980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh please. Give it a rest. The US has been facilitating back-door access for their intelligence agencies to products manufactured there for ages. It's nothing new. Accept your new master and move on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh please .
Give it a rest .
The US has been facilitating back-door access for their intelligence agencies to products manufactured there for ages .
It 's nothing new .
Accept your new master and move on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh please.
Give it a rest.
The US has been facilitating back-door access for their intelligence agencies to products manufactured there for ages.
It's nothing new.
Accept your new master and move on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31044910</id>
	<title>Can you trust yourself?</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1265463480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, seriously. Trust starts with yourself; if you don't trust yourself, you can't trust others.</p><p>The other side is of course whether others are trustworthy; experience will tell you. But in the beginning it is necessary to decide that you will try it out.</p><p>So can we trust Chinese computers? I can; I don't know if you can - it depends on your own choices. If you meet other people with suspicion, you will always find your suspicion is confirmed; because you will keep prying until you find something to hang it on, and in the process you will turn people against you, who might otherwise have become your best friends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , seriously .
Trust starts with yourself ; if you do n't trust yourself , you ca n't trust others.The other side is of course whether others are trustworthy ; experience will tell you .
But in the beginning it is necessary to decide that you will try it out.So can we trust Chinese computers ?
I can ; I do n't know if you can - it depends on your own choices .
If you meet other people with suspicion , you will always find your suspicion is confirmed ; because you will keep prying until you find something to hang it on , and in the process you will turn people against you , who might otherwise have become your best friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, seriously.
Trust starts with yourself; if you don't trust yourself, you can't trust others.The other side is of course whether others are trustworthy; experience will tell you.
But in the beginning it is necessary to decide that you will try it out.So can we trust Chinese computers?
I can; I don't know if you can - it depends on your own choices.
If you meet other people with suspicion, you will always find your suspicion is confirmed; because you will keep prying until you find something to hang it on, and in the process you will turn people against you, who might otherwise have become your best friends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036662</id>
	<title>By logical extension</title>
	<author>superyanthrax</author>
	<datestamp>1265395500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We're justified in accusing Boeing of bugging our government officials' planes?
<br> <br>
Western/American hypocrisy on display right here, as usual.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're justified in accusing Boeing of bugging our government officials ' planes ?
Western/American hypocrisy on display right here , as usual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're justified in accusing Boeing of bugging our government officials' planes?
Western/American hypocrisy on display right here, as usual.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038370</id>
	<title>No backdoor in unix CC</title>
	<author>dirtyhippie</author>
	<datestamp>1265403060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The post makes it sound like Thompson actually put a backdoor in the version of CC that shipped with unix. He did not. What he *did* was demonstrate that he could have in an earlier version and you would be none the wiser by inspecting the source of said compiler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The post makes it sound like Thompson actually put a backdoor in the version of CC that shipped with unix .
He did not .
What he * did * was demonstrate that he could have in an earlier version and you would be none the wiser by inspecting the source of said compiler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The post makes it sound like Thompson actually put a backdoor in the version of CC that shipped with unix.
He did not.
What he *did* was demonstrate that he could have in an earlier version and you would be none the wiser by inspecting the source of said compiler.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037130</id>
	<title>Oh, I've got one of those.</title>
	<author>Target Practice</author>
	<datestamp>1265397660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just happen to keep such a USB key on a shelf next to my beaker of acid that will eat through anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just happen to keep such a USB key on a shelf next to my beaker of acid that will eat through anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just happen to keep such a USB key on a shelf next to my beaker of acid that will eat through anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038384</id>
	<title>What the F</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265403060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you "americans" weren't such arseholes then you wouldn't have to worry about other people screwing you up. Hey - the US-haters far outnumber you today so why don't we just bomb the shit out of your country and be done with it? There's nothing to salvage there anyway - your economy is shot to shit and the only thing you're #1 at anymore is being a bunch of tosser arseholes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you " americans " were n't such arseholes then you would n't have to worry about other people screwing you up .
Hey - the US-haters far outnumber you today so why do n't we just bomb the shit out of your country and be done with it ?
There 's nothing to salvage there anyway - your economy is shot to shit and the only thing you 're # 1 at anymore is being a bunch of tosser arseholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you "americans" weren't such arseholes then you wouldn't have to worry about other people screwing you up.
Hey - the US-haters far outnumber you today so why don't we just bomb the shit out of your country and be done with it?
There's nothing to salvage there anyway - your economy is shot to shit and the only thing you're #1 at anymore is being a bunch of tosser arseholes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038578</id>
	<title>Americans will never cease to amuse me !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265360760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Americans will never cease to amuse me !<br>Who has the biggest eavesdropping agency of the world ?<br>What are the nationalities of the top 10 software giants that wrote the code we are using everyday ?<br>Who controls the internet (and still talks about net neutrality like they give a shit)  ?<br>Wich country invest more than the rest of the world combined in its army ?<br>Wich country has troops "assuring the security" on five continents ?<br>And I could go on and on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>Wake up, America is an evil nation, despite all its effort to hide it behind democracy and human rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Americans will never cease to amuse me ! Who has the biggest eavesdropping agency of the world ? What are the nationalities of the top 10 software giants that wrote the code we are using everyday ? Who controls the internet ( and still talks about net neutrality like they give a shit ) ? Wich country invest more than the rest of the world combined in its army ? Wich country has troops " assuring the security " on five continents ? And I could go on and on ...Wake up , America is an evil nation , despite all its effort to hide it behind democracy and human rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Americans will never cease to amuse me !Who has the biggest eavesdropping agency of the world ?What are the nationalities of the top 10 software giants that wrote the code we are using everyday ?Who controls the internet (and still talks about net neutrality like they give a shit)  ?Wich country invest more than the rest of the world combined in its army ?Wich country has troops "assuring the security" on five continents ?And I could go on and on ...Wake up, America is an evil nation, despite all its effort to hide it behind democracy and human rights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036098</id>
	<title>Re:Evidence?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265393160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why we need to back it up? It is the fact since we know it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why we need to back it up ?
It is the fact since we know it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why we need to back it up?
It is the fact since we know it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037242</id>
	<title>Re:Chinese made, not always = Chinese code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265398080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heaven forbid the <i>products</i> be made in the US...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heaven forbid the products be made in the US.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heaven forbid the products be made in the US...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036074</id>
	<title>Re:Evidence?</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1265393040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is an attitude based on precedents I've <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1538898&amp;cid=31035592" title="slashdot.org">already mentioned</a> [slashdot.org] in another post. There is no evidence that I know of regarding backdoors in Chinese <i>hardware</i> as yet, but the precedents in malicious software are not something that should just be dismissed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is an attitude based on precedents I 've already mentioned [ slashdot.org ] in another post .
There is no evidence that I know of regarding backdoors in Chinese hardware as yet , but the precedents in malicious software are not something that should just be dismissed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is an attitude based on precedents I've already mentioned [slashdot.org] in another post.
There is no evidence that I know of regarding backdoors in Chinese hardware as yet, but the precedents in malicious software are not something that should just be dismissed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036656</id>
	<title>Re:Ahem *cough* why is "china" singled out??</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1265395500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and before thinking that "this is crazy, a U.S. firm wouldn't possibly do that" bear in mind that i've already had some experience of receiving a very weird series of SPAM messages, following which my machine started acting very very weird.</p><p>my guess is that simply by receiving that SPAM message, there was encoded within it some <b>power-fluctuations or signal fluctuations which the CPU could pick up and "activate"</b> whatever it was that was wanted to be activated by whomever it was that sent the SPAM message.</p></div><p>To be fair, the "Troll" mod is also used as a substitute for "Batshit-Crazy".<br> <br>
WARNING! This post is encoded with power and signal fluctuations that which will cause your machine to start acting very very weird. Again, if your computer starts acting very very weird after you read this <i>it is because of this post</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and before thinking that " this is crazy , a U.S. firm would n't possibly do that " bear in mind that i 've already had some experience of receiving a very weird series of SPAM messages , following which my machine started acting very very weird.my guess is that simply by receiving that SPAM message , there was encoded within it some power-fluctuations or signal fluctuations which the CPU could pick up and " activate " whatever it was that was wanted to be activated by whomever it was that sent the SPAM message.To be fair , the " Troll " mod is also used as a substitute for " Batshit-Crazy " .
WARNING ! This post is encoded with power and signal fluctuations that which will cause your machine to start acting very very weird .
Again , if your computer starts acting very very weird after you read this it is because of this post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and before thinking that "this is crazy, a U.S. firm wouldn't possibly do that" bear in mind that i've already had some experience of receiving a very weird series of SPAM messages, following which my machine started acting very very weird.my guess is that simply by receiving that SPAM message, there was encoded within it some power-fluctuations or signal fluctuations which the CPU could pick up and "activate" whatever it was that was wanted to be activated by whomever it was that sent the SPAM message.To be fair, the "Troll" mod is also used as a substitute for "Batshit-Crazy".
WARNING! This post is encoded with power and signal fluctuations that which will cause your machine to start acting very very weird.
Again, if your computer starts acting very very weird after you read this it is because of this post.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035524</id>
	<title>Evidence?</title>
	<author>david.given</author>
	<datestamp>1265391000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, is there any actual evidence backing all this up, or is it just more anti-Chinese vilification?

</p><p>(Remember, we have <i>always</i> been at war with Eastasia.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , is there any actual evidence backing all this up , or is it just more anti-Chinese vilification ?
( Remember , we have always been at war with Eastasia .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, is there any actual evidence backing all this up, or is it just more anti-Chinese vilification?
(Remember, we have always been at war with Eastasia.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037538</id>
	<title>Trust no one</title>
	<author>b0ttle</author>
	<datestamp>1265399520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And why would I trust other countries like the US ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And why would I trust other countries like the US ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why would I trust other countries like the US ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31040088</id>
	<title>Re:Chinese made, not always = Chinese code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265367540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your company makes printers, shavers, or settop boxes it really isn't much of anyone's concern... who cares?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your company makes printers , shavers , or settop boxes it really is n't much of anyone 's concern... who cares ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your company makes printers, shavers, or settop boxes it really isn't much of anyone's concern... who cares?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037458</id>
	<title>Re:Cisco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265399040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This isn't just for good known to be made in china.  This past year we performed an audit of our network infrastructure with Cisco's help.  We found almost 10\% of our switches were counterfeit.  They were all models of layer 2 and layer 3 switches and were virtually indistinguishable from genuine Cisco products down to the enhanced security IOS.</p></div><p>....I think I've seen those counterfeit Cisco switches before.</p><p>Did they say "Procurve Networking by HP" ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't just for good known to be made in china .
This past year we performed an audit of our network infrastructure with Cisco 's help .
We found almost 10 \ % of our switches were counterfeit .
They were all models of layer 2 and layer 3 switches and were virtually indistinguishable from genuine Cisco products down to the enhanced security IOS.....I think I 've seen those counterfeit Cisco switches before.Did they say " Procurve Networking by HP " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't just for good known to be made in china.
This past year we performed an audit of our network infrastructure with Cisco's help.
We found almost 10\% of our switches were counterfeit.
They were all models of layer 2 and layer 3 switches and were virtually indistinguishable from genuine Cisco products down to the enhanced security IOS.....I think I've seen those counterfeit Cisco switches before.Did they say "Procurve Networking by HP" ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035618</id>
	<title>Costs</title>
	<author>HForN</author>
	<datestamp>1265391420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems obvious that if you can't "trust anyone but yourself," then how in the world are you going to get anything done? The whole point of free trade is to let people specialize in what they do best.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems obvious that if you ca n't " trust anyone but yourself , " then how in the world are you going to get anything done ?
The whole point of free trade is to let people specialize in what they do best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems obvious that if you can't "trust anyone but yourself," then how in the world are you going to get anything done?
The whole point of free trade is to let people specialize in what they do best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038916</id>
	<title>Still would be pretty hard</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1265362260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we are talking about military level equipment, do not get stuff made in china, end of story, if we are talking about stuff for the home, we live in a society where the cheaper the better, so it will be impossible not to buy stuff made in china (ahem....linksys routers as example)...and would be even more impossible to stop using them all together, however, if you are smart about what you do, and when, you can avoid transmitting your info...you still need active connection, so if you don't leave your internet on 24/7 then you might have a chance. Leave it on all day long, even with the best firewalls...you still come up short.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we are talking about military level equipment , do not get stuff made in china , end of story , if we are talking about stuff for the home , we live in a society where the cheaper the better , so it will be impossible not to buy stuff made in china ( ahem....linksys routers as example ) ...and would be even more impossible to stop using them all together , however , if you are smart about what you do , and when , you can avoid transmitting your info...you still need active connection , so if you do n't leave your internet on 24/7 then you might have a chance .
Leave it on all day long , even with the best firewalls...you still come up short .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we are talking about military level equipment, do not get stuff made in china, end of story, if we are talking about stuff for the home, we live in a society where the cheaper the better, so it will be impossible not to buy stuff made in china (ahem....linksys routers as example)...and would be even more impossible to stop using them all together, however, if you are smart about what you do, and when, you can avoid transmitting your info...you still need active connection, so if you don't leave your internet on 24/7 then you might have a chance.
Leave it on all day long, even with the best firewalls...you still come up short.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31039242</id>
	<title>Ken Thompson's admission?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265363700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember reading an excerpt from his speech, it was just an example how easy one could do, not that he actually did. Nothing to admit there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember reading an excerpt from his speech , it was just an example how easy one could do , not that he actually did .
Nothing to admit there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember reading an excerpt from his speech, it was just an example how easy one could do, not that he actually did.
Nothing to admit there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035498</id>
	<title>Computers are information networks</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1265390940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is a rather simple military rule that you create your own information networks.  You don't let your enemy or even your ally.

Using Chinese made equipment for any military equipment is a bad idea.


This is a no-brainer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a rather simple military rule that you create your own information networks .
You do n't let your enemy or even your ally .
Using Chinese made equipment for any military equipment is a bad idea .
This is a no-brainer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a rather simple military rule that you create your own information networks.
You don't let your enemy or even your ally.
Using Chinese made equipment for any military equipment is a bad idea.
This is a no-brainer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037624</id>
	<title>Re:Cisco</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1265400060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How was Cisco able to distinguish?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How was Cisco able to distinguish ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How was Cisco able to distinguish?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037588</id>
	<title>"laws in the US that restrict surveillance"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265399820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"there are laws in the US that restrict surveillance of US citizens." And shrub ignored every single one. You don't get out much, do you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" there are laws in the US that restrict surveillance of US citizens .
" And shrub ignored every single one .
You do n't get out much , do you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"there are laws in the US that restrict surveillance of US citizens.
" And shrub ignored every single one.
You don't get out much, do you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036178</id>
	<title>I'll try my best to stay away "from China"</title>
	<author>moogoogaipan</author>
	<datestamp>1265393580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, personally, I would not buy tech products such as telecom equipment sold from China. And I said FROM China. There are plenty of American made products but sold from China on Ebay, for example. My fear is that they can be altered not just on the software level but also hardware.

They killed my dog with the dog food I fed him. Now they are going to try to poison our kids. If you make everyone dumber, you'll end up more intelligent than the rest. That, folks, is what I think they are trying to do next.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , personally , I would not buy tech products such as telecom equipment sold from China .
And I said FROM China .
There are plenty of American made products but sold from China on Ebay , for example .
My fear is that they can be altered not just on the software level but also hardware .
They killed my dog with the dog food I fed him .
Now they are going to try to poison our kids .
If you make everyone dumber , you 'll end up more intelligent than the rest .
That , folks , is what I think they are trying to do next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, personally, I would not buy tech products such as telecom equipment sold from China.
And I said FROM China.
There are plenty of American made products but sold from China on Ebay, for example.
My fear is that they can be altered not just on the software level but also hardware.
They killed my dog with the dog food I fed him.
Now they are going to try to poison our kids.
If you make everyone dumber, you'll end up more intelligent than the rest.
That, folks, is what I think they are trying to do next.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037052</id>
	<title>Have you read the fucking article?</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1265397360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the entire point of someone a LOT smarter then you, is that if the very tool you use is compromised, then how can you ever check it? Your write your program to the memory, but the memory controller itself is corrupted. So you check everything, and you never see anything wrong.
</p><p>A compromised system can never be trusted and if you don't control the system, then you can never know it is compromised unless you verify every last detail, down to grinding the top of the chip and seeing exactly what the layout is. And do this for every last element.
</p><p>How do you know there is not a simple element in the USB connector that records everything? How do you know the simple chip in your ethernet card doesn't transmit everything? How do you know your router hasn't been hardcoded to ignore such traffic?
</p><p>You don't. Granted, putting it all together seems like an enormous task and there are far simpler ways of spying. But it is possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the entire point of someone a LOT smarter then you , is that if the very tool you use is compromised , then how can you ever check it ?
Your write your program to the memory , but the memory controller itself is corrupted .
So you check everything , and you never see anything wrong .
A compromised system can never be trusted and if you do n't control the system , then you can never know it is compromised unless you verify every last detail , down to grinding the top of the chip and seeing exactly what the layout is .
And do this for every last element .
How do you know there is not a simple element in the USB connector that records everything ?
How do you know the simple chip in your ethernet card does n't transmit everything ?
How do you know your router has n't been hardcoded to ignore such traffic ?
You do n't .
Granted , putting it all together seems like an enormous task and there are far simpler ways of spying .
But it is possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the entire point of someone a LOT smarter then you, is that if the very tool you use is compromised, then how can you ever check it?
Your write your program to the memory, but the memory controller itself is corrupted.
So you check everything, and you never see anything wrong.
A compromised system can never be trusted and if you don't control the system, then you can never know it is compromised unless you verify every last detail, down to grinding the top of the chip and seeing exactly what the layout is.
And do this for every last element.
How do you know there is not a simple element in the USB connector that records everything?
How do you know the simple chip in your ethernet card doesn't transmit everything?
How do you know your router hasn't been hardcoded to ignore such traffic?
You don't.
Granted, putting it all together seems like an enormous task and there are far simpler ways of spying.
But it is possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036708</id>
	<title>Can I trust American computer Equipment?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265395680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All around on the interwebs, people say that the American government has a secret agenda in ruling the world more than it does now. There is the CIA, the NSA and other 3 letters that makes anyone fear. Since they are all American and all are evil according even to some American people, should I trust things that come from that the USA?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All around on the interwebs , people say that the American government has a secret agenda in ruling the world more than it does now .
There is the CIA , the NSA and other 3 letters that makes anyone fear .
Since they are all American and all are evil according even to some American people , should I trust things that come from that the USA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All around on the interwebs, people say that the American government has a secret agenda in ruling the world more than it does now.
There is the CIA, the NSA and other 3 letters that makes anyone fear.
Since they are all American and all are evil according even to some American people, should I trust things that come from that the USA?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035698</id>
	<title>israeli's have been doing this for 20 years</title>
	<author>cluemore</author>
	<datestamp>1265391720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>talk about yer hardware backdoors<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... this one is a pseudo random number generator that can be rigged to generate predictable keys.

<a href="http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ketcham.php" title="antiwar.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ketcham.php</a> [antiwar.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>talk about yer hardware backdoors ... this one is a pseudo random number generator that can be rigged to generate predictable keys .
http : //www.antiwar.com/orig/ketcham.php [ antiwar.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>talk about yer hardware backdoors ... this one is a pseudo random number generator that can be rigged to generate predictable keys.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ketcham.php [antiwar.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035706</id>
	<title>Cisco</title>
	<author>Lifyre</author>
	<datestamp>1265391780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't just for good known to be made in china.  This past year we performed an audit of our network infrastructure with Cisco's help.  We found almost 10\% of our switches were counterfeit.  They were all models of layer 2 and layer 3 switches and were virtually indistinguishable from genuine Cisco products down to the enhanced security IOS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't just for good known to be made in china .
This past year we performed an audit of our network infrastructure with Cisco 's help .
We found almost 10 \ % of our switches were counterfeit .
They were all models of layer 2 and layer 3 switches and were virtually indistinguishable from genuine Cisco products down to the enhanced security IOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't just for good known to be made in china.
This past year we performed an audit of our network infrastructure with Cisco's help.
We found almost 10\% of our switches were counterfeit.
They were all models of layer 2 and layer 3 switches and were virtually indistinguishable from genuine Cisco products down to the enhanced security IOS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037642</id>
	<title>Re:Evidence?</title>
	<author>danger42</author>
	<datestamp>1265400120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>actual evidence</p></div><p>You must be new here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>actual evidenceYou must be new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actual evidenceYou must be new here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31044782</id>
	<title>nationalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265461020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>can you trust USA made equipment?
I don't see any difference</htmltext>
<tokenext>can you trust USA made equipment ?
I do n't see any difference</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can you trust USA made equipment?
I don't see any difference</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037960</id>
	<title>Re:Cisco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265401500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't Cisco have an incentive to identify more switches as counterfeit?  Just saying, they could sell quite a lot more if they did...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This isn't just for good known to be made in china.  This past year we performed an audit of our network infrastructure with Cisco's help.  We found almost 10\% of our switches were counterfeit.  They were all models of layer 2 and layer 3 switches and were virtually indistinguishable from genuine Cisco products down to the enhanced security IOS.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't Cisco have an incentive to identify more switches as counterfeit ?
Just saying , they could sell quite a lot more if they did...This is n't just for good known to be made in china .
This past year we performed an audit of our network infrastructure with Cisco 's help .
We found almost 10 \ % of our switches were counterfeit .
They were all models of layer 2 and layer 3 switches and were virtually indistinguishable from genuine Cisco products down to the enhanced security IOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't Cisco have an incentive to identify more switches as counterfeit?
Just saying, they could sell quite a lot more if they did...This isn't just for good known to be made in china.
This past year we performed an audit of our network infrastructure with Cisco's help.
We found almost 10\% of our switches were counterfeit.
They were all models of layer 2 and layer 3 switches and were virtually indistinguishable from genuine Cisco products down to the enhanced security IOS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038098</id>
	<title>Re:There is no comparison!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265401920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a CIA agent, I mean state department analyst, I am quite insulted that you believe that the U.S's domestic spying capabilities are less developed than China, which must I remind you is a developing nation.  In fact to prove how capable the U.S government is, I'll share a secret with Slashdot.  People, Remus Shepherd wears white underwear.  Well, white with a few stains.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm amazed at the number of responses saying, 'Well, the US spies on its citizens too.'</p><p>Folks, there are laws in the US that restrict surveillance of US citizens.  They are allowed to collect aggregate data, and they have far-reaching powers when a subpoena exists due to suspected crime or terrorism.  But just spying on regular citizens as a normal function of government -- that should never happen in the US.</p><p>I say 'should' because it's possible it does happen in some black project somewhere.  But I guarantee you it's much, much smaller and more benevolent than how China spies on its citizens.</p><p>If you're comparing Big Brothers, the US one has one eye closed and only sneaks a peek when the cops aren't watching.  The Chinese practically live in a panopticon; their government probably keeps track of what color underwear they have on.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a CIA agent , I mean state department analyst , I am quite insulted that you believe that the U.S 's domestic spying capabilities are less developed than China , which must I remind you is a developing nation .
In fact to prove how capable the U.S government is , I 'll share a secret with Slashdot .
People , Remus Shepherd wears white underwear .
Well , white with a few stains.I 'm amazed at the number of responses saying , 'Well , the US spies on its citizens too .
'Folks , there are laws in the US that restrict surveillance of US citizens .
They are allowed to collect aggregate data , and they have far-reaching powers when a subpoena exists due to suspected crime or terrorism .
But just spying on regular citizens as a normal function of government -- that should never happen in the US.I say 'should ' because it 's possible it does happen in some black project somewhere .
But I guarantee you it 's much , much smaller and more benevolent than how China spies on its citizens.If you 're comparing Big Brothers , the US one has one eye closed and only sneaks a peek when the cops are n't watching .
The Chinese practically live in a panopticon ; their government probably keeps track of what color underwear they have on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a CIA agent, I mean state department analyst, I am quite insulted that you believe that the U.S's domestic spying capabilities are less developed than China, which must I remind you is a developing nation.
In fact to prove how capable the U.S government is, I'll share a secret with Slashdot.
People, Remus Shepherd wears white underwear.
Well, white with a few stains.I'm amazed at the number of responses saying, 'Well, the US spies on its citizens too.
'Folks, there are laws in the US that restrict surveillance of US citizens.
They are allowed to collect aggregate data, and they have far-reaching powers when a subpoena exists due to suspected crime or terrorism.
But just spying on regular citizens as a normal function of government -- that should never happen in the US.I say 'should' because it's possible it does happen in some black project somewhere.
But I guarantee you it's much, much smaller and more benevolent than how China spies on its citizens.If you're comparing Big Brothers, the US one has one eye closed and only sneaks a peek when the cops aren't watching.
The Chinese practically live in a panopticon; their government probably keeps track of what color underwear they have on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038378</id>
	<title>Can you trust a US computer? Or a Russian one?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265403060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don&rsquo;t think US equipment is much better.<br>Microsoft *cough*backdoor*cough* Windows, for example.</p><p>Then again who can you really trust anyway?<br>There&rsquo;s no point in listing who you don&rsquo;t trust. That&rsquo;s like making a firewall solely based on a blacklist. It makes no sense as it will never work.<br>It makes more sense, and is more efficient, to list only those you trust.</p><p>Frankly, in IT security, I don&rsquo;t know any single human, I would trust to be competent enough, and to be on my side, at the same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I don    t think US equipment is much better.Microsoft * cough * backdoor * cough * Windows , for example.Then again who can you really trust anyway ? There    s no point in listing who you don    t trust .
That    s like making a firewall solely based on a blacklist .
It makes no sense as it will never work.It makes more sense , and is more efficient , to list only those you trust.Frankly , in IT security , I don    t know any single human , I would trust to be competent enough , and to be on my side , at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don’t think US equipment is much better.Microsoft *cough*backdoor*cough* Windows, for example.Then again who can you really trust anyway?There’s no point in listing who you don’t trust.
That’s like making a firewall solely based on a blacklist.
It makes no sense as it will never work.It makes more sense, and is more efficient, to list only those you trust.Frankly, in IT security, I don’t know any single human, I would trust to be competent enough, and to be on my side, at the same time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035728</id>
	<title>Re:Evidence?</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1265391840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks completely made up to me.  Why just think about the times that the consumer has ran across hidden malware such as the Sony Rootkit incident.  Experts saw unusual traffic and traced it back to a CD.  Same thing would happen if a piece of equipment had hidden malware in it, someone would notice the suspicious traffic and trace it back to the source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks completely made up to me .
Why just think about the times that the consumer has ran across hidden malware such as the Sony Rootkit incident .
Experts saw unusual traffic and traced it back to a CD .
Same thing would happen if a piece of equipment had hidden malware in it , someone would notice the suspicious traffic and trace it back to the source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks completely made up to me.
Why just think about the times that the consumer has ran across hidden malware such as the Sony Rootkit incident.
Experts saw unusual traffic and traced it back to a CD.
Same thing would happen if a piece of equipment had hidden malware in it, someone would notice the suspicious traffic and trace it back to the source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038028</id>
	<title>Re:Chinese made, not always = Chinese code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265401680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, "the Chinese" could purchase a copy of your device, reverse engineer your code, insert code in their boot device that injects their attack into your device/code at startup, and you are none the wiser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , " the Chinese " could purchase a copy of your device , reverse engineer your code , insert code in their boot device that injects their attack into your device/code at startup , and you are none the wiser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, "the Chinese" could purchase a copy of your device, reverse engineer your code, insert code in their boot device that injects their attack into your device/code at startup, and you are none the wiser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036838</id>
	<title>Re:Chinese made, not always = Chinese code</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1265396220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you know it's loaded?  How do you know it's to your specifications?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you know it 's loaded ?
How do you know it 's to your specifications ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you know it's loaded?
How do you know it's to your specifications?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038050</id>
	<title>Re:There is no comparison!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265401800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> their government probably keeps track of what color underwear they have on.</p></div><p>See, this is how I keep one step ahead of them.  I'm not wearing any.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>their government probably keeps track of what color underwear they have on.See , this is how I keep one step ahead of them .
I 'm not wearing any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> their government probably keeps track of what color underwear they have on.See, this is how I keep one step ahead of them.
I'm not wearing any.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038168</id>
	<title>Re:Ahem *cough* why is "china" singled out??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265402220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only on slashdot...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only on slashdot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only on slashdot...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035464</id>
	<title>It's no problem</title>
	<author>jDeepbeep</author>
	<datestamp>1265390760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll just return my iPod Touch and my 2 MacBooks to Apple, with a little note about the Chinese manufacturing.  I'm sure they will understand and give me my money back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll just return my iPod Touch and my 2 MacBooks to Apple , with a little note about the Chinese manufacturing .
I 'm sure they will understand and give me my money back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll just return my iPod Touch and my 2 MacBooks to Apple, with a little note about the Chinese manufacturing.
I'm sure they will understand and give me my money back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036904</id>
	<title>Re:It really depends on who "you" are...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265396580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats what she said !!111!!!1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats what she said ! ! 111 ! !
! 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats what she said !!111!!
!1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036672</id>
	<title>Re:Sure...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265395560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is one I could think of in minutes. Secret USB drive firmware saves important data (including "deleted" info), then spits it out when triggered by special (port knocking style) read sequence from a "collector" virus when the USB drive is eventually plugged in to an infected machine.</p><p>I am sure there are other possibilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is one I could think of in minutes .
Secret USB drive firmware saves important data ( including " deleted " info ) , then spits it out when triggered by special ( port knocking style ) read sequence from a " collector " virus when the USB drive is eventually plugged in to an infected machine.I am sure there are other possibilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is one I could think of in minutes.
Secret USB drive firmware saves important data (including "deleted" info), then spits it out when triggered by special (port knocking style) read sequence from a "collector" virus when the USB drive is eventually plugged in to an infected machine.I am sure there are other possibilities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036036</id>
	<title>Re:Sure...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265392860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can think of three ways.</p><p>The first would be to use those self-encrypting sticks, and simply put a backdoor into their encryption. Sooner or later someone will lose (or you can steal) the stick.</p><p>The second would be to give the stick enough power to meddle with files - for example, hideing data in chinese-language word documents and hopeing they get emailed to a chinese address. Then just sneak the data out again at the Great Firewall. This would raise the cost of low-end sticks too much, but it could be done for the most expensive ones.</p><p>The third would be to hide data of interest on the stick in a hidden area of memory, not visible to the user, and make arrangements to ensure it ends up back in the hands of the manufacturer. A lifetime warranty (Optional: Stick 'breaks' when WORM is full) or some sort of manditory recycling law that requires electronic devices be disposed or at manufacturer's cost.</p><p>But USB sticks are a really hard target.</p><p>Now, if I were a secret chinese agent, I'd be much more evil than that: I'd place my bug in network interface. It would be designed to trigger on a particular 128-bit sequence. Then these go out all over the world. Then, when I want to unleash the wrath of the chinese government upon someone - be they government, corporation or even individual - it's a simple matter of sending the killer packets that make the network cards short +5VSB to ground, thus burning out the computer's power supply. You could hide it in any TCP stream or UDP packet easily, including http requests, so it would be easy to get through a firewall. And if used only occasionally and in moderation, undetectable - who would think to blame a power supply failure on the network interface?</p><p>For extra bonus points, get a second killcode going into routers that only fries some seconds after forwarding. That way you could burn out every router in a major corporation with ease, potentially causing billions in damage and thus leaving the market open for a chinese economic takeover.</p><p>The same idea could also go in the northbridge or processor - anywhere that will see data coming in over the network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can think of three ways.The first would be to use those self-encrypting sticks , and simply put a backdoor into their encryption .
Sooner or later someone will lose ( or you can steal ) the stick.The second would be to give the stick enough power to meddle with files - for example , hideing data in chinese-language word documents and hopeing they get emailed to a chinese address .
Then just sneak the data out again at the Great Firewall .
This would raise the cost of low-end sticks too much , but it could be done for the most expensive ones.The third would be to hide data of interest on the stick in a hidden area of memory , not visible to the user , and make arrangements to ensure it ends up back in the hands of the manufacturer .
A lifetime warranty ( Optional : Stick 'breaks ' when WORM is full ) or some sort of manditory recycling law that requires electronic devices be disposed or at manufacturer 's cost.But USB sticks are a really hard target.Now , if I were a secret chinese agent , I 'd be much more evil than that : I 'd place my bug in network interface .
It would be designed to trigger on a particular 128-bit sequence .
Then these go out all over the world .
Then , when I want to unleash the wrath of the chinese government upon someone - be they government , corporation or even individual - it 's a simple matter of sending the killer packets that make the network cards short + 5VSB to ground , thus burning out the computer 's power supply .
You could hide it in any TCP stream or UDP packet easily , including http requests , so it would be easy to get through a firewall .
And if used only occasionally and in moderation , undetectable - who would think to blame a power supply failure on the network interface ? For extra bonus points , get a second killcode going into routers that only fries some seconds after forwarding .
That way you could burn out every router in a major corporation with ease , potentially causing billions in damage and thus leaving the market open for a chinese economic takeover.The same idea could also go in the northbridge or processor - anywhere that will see data coming in over the network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can think of three ways.The first would be to use those self-encrypting sticks, and simply put a backdoor into their encryption.
Sooner or later someone will lose (or you can steal) the stick.The second would be to give the stick enough power to meddle with files - for example, hideing data in chinese-language word documents and hopeing they get emailed to a chinese address.
Then just sneak the data out again at the Great Firewall.
This would raise the cost of low-end sticks too much, but it could be done for the most expensive ones.The third would be to hide data of interest on the stick in a hidden area of memory, not visible to the user, and make arrangements to ensure it ends up back in the hands of the manufacturer.
A lifetime warranty (Optional: Stick 'breaks' when WORM is full) or some sort of manditory recycling law that requires electronic devices be disposed or at manufacturer's cost.But USB sticks are a really hard target.Now, if I were a secret chinese agent, I'd be much more evil than that: I'd place my bug in network interface.
It would be designed to trigger on a particular 128-bit sequence.
Then these go out all over the world.
Then, when I want to unleash the wrath of the chinese government upon someone - be they government, corporation or even individual - it's a simple matter of sending the killer packets that make the network cards short +5VSB to ground, thus burning out the computer's power supply.
You could hide it in any TCP stream or UDP packet easily, including http requests, so it would be easy to get through a firewall.
And if used only occasionally and in moderation, undetectable - who would think to blame a power supply failure on the network interface?For extra bonus points, get a second killcode going into routers that only fries some seconds after forwarding.
That way you could burn out every router in a major corporation with ease, potentially causing billions in damage and thus leaving the market open for a chinese economic takeover.The same idea could also go in the northbridge or processor - anywhere that will see data coming in over the network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31044310</id>
	<title>Lies, Lies and war propaganda</title>
	<author>unixtechie</author>
	<datestamp>1265453400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot is a "corporate medium" in the sense that, in spite of its pretence, it constantly peddles lies and disinformation along the lines needed by the rulers of its country.</p><p>1. One most persistent lie is about Chinese censorship. Google, a central spying and censorship hub for large masses of users across the Globe, have consistently censored information. For example, it routinely denies some information from some countries (e.g. Germany about WWII and geopolitics around it), which is available in other (e.g. USA). However, the propaganda has it that it's the Chinese that censor, and that the big, big, absolutely unforgivable shame must be placed on Google when it censors in accordance with the agreements with the Chinese government.</p><p>The truth behind the latter case us that the USA is waging a propaganda war against China and is attempting internal subversion (similar to what it did with radio-war and dissident war in the USSR in the pre-Internet era). Therefore some amply funded "funds" and "societies" develop Tor-like schemes to allow the Chinese internal subverters to jump over the Great Chinese Firewall.<br>So in US propaganda Google (of all places, the corporate mega-spy Google!) is "guilty" in "appeasing the Chinese".</p><p>Let me repeat: while routinely censoring Germany etc. etc.</p><p>2. Now the current article is as much of a lie, as the previous one.<br>Not only backdoors are built in US-deloped software (Microsoft OS, Checkpoint firewall, etc. etc. etc.), but the US is actively pursuing the docrtine of "Total Information Awareness", not passed a while ago, and split into sub-doctrines now being introduced quite successfully.<br>Current corporate coordinate policy is towards what Stallman correctly identifies as "treacherous computing".</p><p>And Slashdot peddles war disinfo - maybe designed to cover the US agencies forcing hardware backdoors - that it is not US, but China is the big, big villain of the piece.</p><p>3. The most amazing part of Slashdot discussions, of course, is that lemmings NEVER QUESTION THE PREMISES of the title post and happily twitter further developing the points of the launched propaganda piece</p><p>How utterly disgusting</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot is a " corporate medium " in the sense that , in spite of its pretence , it constantly peddles lies and disinformation along the lines needed by the rulers of its country.1 .
One most persistent lie is about Chinese censorship .
Google , a central spying and censorship hub for large masses of users across the Globe , have consistently censored information .
For example , it routinely denies some information from some countries ( e.g .
Germany about WWII and geopolitics around it ) , which is available in other ( e.g .
USA ) . However , the propaganda has it that it 's the Chinese that censor , and that the big , big , absolutely unforgivable shame must be placed on Google when it censors in accordance with the agreements with the Chinese government.The truth behind the latter case us that the USA is waging a propaganda war against China and is attempting internal subversion ( similar to what it did with radio-war and dissident war in the USSR in the pre-Internet era ) .
Therefore some amply funded " funds " and " societies " develop Tor-like schemes to allow the Chinese internal subverters to jump over the Great Chinese Firewall.So in US propaganda Google ( of all places , the corporate mega-spy Google !
) is " guilty " in " appeasing the Chinese " .Let me repeat : while routinely censoring Germany etc .
etc.2. Now the current article is as much of a lie , as the previous one.Not only backdoors are built in US-deloped software ( Microsoft OS , Checkpoint firewall , etc .
etc. etc .
) , but the US is actively pursuing the docrtine of " Total Information Awareness " , not passed a while ago , and split into sub-doctrines now being introduced quite successfully.Current corporate coordinate policy is towards what Stallman correctly identifies as " treacherous computing " .And Slashdot peddles war disinfo - maybe designed to cover the US agencies forcing hardware backdoors - that it is not US , but China is the big , big villain of the piece.3 .
The most amazing part of Slashdot discussions , of course , is that lemmings NEVER QUESTION THE PREMISES of the title post and happily twitter further developing the points of the launched propaganda pieceHow utterly disgusting</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot is a "corporate medium" in the sense that, in spite of its pretence, it constantly peddles lies and disinformation along the lines needed by the rulers of its country.1.
One most persistent lie is about Chinese censorship.
Google, a central spying and censorship hub for large masses of users across the Globe, have consistently censored information.
For example, it routinely denies some information from some countries (e.g.
Germany about WWII and geopolitics around it), which is available in other (e.g.
USA). However, the propaganda has it that it's the Chinese that censor, and that the big, big, absolutely unforgivable shame must be placed on Google when it censors in accordance with the agreements with the Chinese government.The truth behind the latter case us that the USA is waging a propaganda war against China and is attempting internal subversion (similar to what it did with radio-war and dissident war in the USSR in the pre-Internet era).
Therefore some amply funded "funds" and "societies" develop Tor-like schemes to allow the Chinese internal subverters to jump over the Great Chinese Firewall.So in US propaganda Google (of all places, the corporate mega-spy Google!
) is "guilty" in "appeasing the Chinese".Let me repeat: while routinely censoring Germany etc.
etc.2. Now the current article is as much of a lie, as the previous one.Not only backdoors are built in US-deloped software (Microsoft OS, Checkpoint firewall, etc.
etc. etc.
), but the US is actively pursuing the docrtine of "Total Information Awareness", not passed a while ago, and split into sub-doctrines now being introduced quite successfully.Current corporate coordinate policy is towards what Stallman correctly identifies as "treacherous computing".And Slashdot peddles war disinfo - maybe designed to cover the US agencies forcing hardware backdoors - that it is not US, but China is the big, big villain of the piece.3.
The most amazing part of Slashdot discussions, of course, is that lemmings NEVER QUESTION THE PREMISES of the title post and happily twitter further developing the points of the launched propaganda pieceHow utterly disgusting</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036012</id>
	<title>Right! And this is what I propose we do about it!</title>
	<author>Xaedalus</author>
	<datestamp>1265392800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I vote we identify exactly which manufactured computers are secretly feeding information back to China, and then we take full advantage of this loophole and send them explicit information about our deviant pr0n addictions! All Tubgirl/Goatse/2-girls-and-cup/Mogging/Gainer\_furries all the time! Let's spam their secret government agency servers with so much perversion, filth, horror, and revolting-yet-strangely-exciting deviant sexual behavior that they have no choice but to shut down their entire spyware program to spare what's left of their sanity! </p><p> and then we can unleash the Scientologists upon them to help "cure" their scarred psyches! We can kill two birds with one stone! Who's with me???? </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I vote we identify exactly which manufactured computers are secretly feeding information back to China , and then we take full advantage of this loophole and send them explicit information about our deviant pr0n addictions !
All Tubgirl/Goatse/2-girls-and-cup/Mogging/Gainer \ _furries all the time !
Let 's spam their secret government agency servers with so much perversion , filth , horror , and revolting-yet-strangely-exciting deviant sexual behavior that they have no choice but to shut down their entire spyware program to spare what 's left of their sanity !
and then we can unleash the Scientologists upon them to help " cure " their scarred psyches !
We can kill two birds with one stone !
Who 's with me ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I vote we identify exactly which manufactured computers are secretly feeding information back to China, and then we take full advantage of this loophole and send them explicit information about our deviant pr0n addictions!
All Tubgirl/Goatse/2-girls-and-cup/Mogging/Gainer\_furries all the time!
Let's spam their secret government agency servers with so much perversion, filth, horror, and revolting-yet-strangely-exciting deviant sexual behavior that they have no choice but to shut down their entire spyware program to spare what's left of their sanity!
and then we can unleash the Scientologists upon them to help "cure" their scarred psyches!
We can kill two birds with one stone!
Who's with me???
? </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036176</id>
	<title>In hardware it is harder for them then in software</title>
	<author>trifish</author>
	<datestamp>1265393580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... because hardware means accountability and traceability. Software intrusions are much more convenient for them because the attacks are practically anonymous and nobody can really prove who in China carried them out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... because hardware means accountability and traceability .
Software intrusions are much more convenient for them because the attacks are practically anonymous and nobody can really prove who in China carried them out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... because hardware means accountability and traceability.
Software intrusions are much more convenient for them because the attacks are practically anonymous and nobody can really prove who in China carried them out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31043938</id>
	<title>Re:Sure...</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1265487780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes this summary claims are laughable.<br>
The most vulnerable equipment in my mind is a router or a switch. THAT could be nasty</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes this summary claims are laughable .
The most vulnerable equipment in my mind is a router or a switch .
THAT could be nasty</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes this summary claims are laughable.
The most vulnerable equipment in my mind is a router or a switch.
THAT could be nasty</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035508</id>
	<title>Sun?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265390940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, where is the story of Jon Schwartz's resignation from sun??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , where is the story of Jon Schwartz 's resignation from sun ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, where is the story of Jon Schwartz's resignation from sun?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037906</id>
	<title>Re:Sure...</title>
	<author>Lupu</author>
	<datestamp>1265401200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While the USB memory key (in this example) could have low level software to snoop your data, how are they going to get it? Is the USB key going to open a TCP/IP or UDP connection back to their servers without tripping my firewall that a new application is trying to connect? Is my virus scanner going to get tripped that something suspicious is coming out of the key without my interaction?</p></div><p>
Just because the cases are not obvious doesn't mean there is no potential for exploit.
</p><p>
Keyboards get a lot of raw sensitive data: usernames and passwords, often even accompanied with the direct URLs where the credentials apply. Now, the keyboard obviously wouldn't be able to open a TCP/IP or UDP connection to upload the data, but it could sneak time-encoded hints about pre-recorded data into your typing. While you type, the keyboard firmware could impose miniature delays that would go unnoticed by the human eye, but would in turn influence the timing of packets sent by an SSH session. Such an attack wouldn't necessitate decrypting the SSH session and it would go completely unnoticed through all your Intrusion Detection Systems and firewalls. The practicality of such an attack can be questioned, but it demonstrates non-obvious applications.
</p><p>
The closest equivalent I can think of for a USB memory dongle would be firmware that could recognize, say, JPEG images in FAT file systems. Any information the firmware recognizes as interesting could be steganographically watermarked into your images by the time you pull them off the dongle. In such a case, any image you upload online that came from that dongle could contain sensitive information and you'd have no idea you uploaded it.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the USB memory key ( in this example ) could have low level software to snoop your data , how are they going to get it ?
Is the USB key going to open a TCP/IP or UDP connection back to their servers without tripping my firewall that a new application is trying to connect ?
Is my virus scanner going to get tripped that something suspicious is coming out of the key without my interaction ?
Just because the cases are not obvious does n't mean there is no potential for exploit .
Keyboards get a lot of raw sensitive data : usernames and passwords , often even accompanied with the direct URLs where the credentials apply .
Now , the keyboard obviously would n't be able to open a TCP/IP or UDP connection to upload the data , but it could sneak time-encoded hints about pre-recorded data into your typing .
While you type , the keyboard firmware could impose miniature delays that would go unnoticed by the human eye , but would in turn influence the timing of packets sent by an SSH session .
Such an attack would n't necessitate decrypting the SSH session and it would go completely unnoticed through all your Intrusion Detection Systems and firewalls .
The practicality of such an attack can be questioned , but it demonstrates non-obvious applications .
The closest equivalent I can think of for a USB memory dongle would be firmware that could recognize , say , JPEG images in FAT file systems .
Any information the firmware recognizes as interesting could be steganographically watermarked into your images by the time you pull them off the dongle .
In such a case , any image you upload online that came from that dongle could contain sensitive information and you 'd have no idea you uploaded it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the USB memory key (in this example) could have low level software to snoop your data, how are they going to get it?
Is the USB key going to open a TCP/IP or UDP connection back to their servers without tripping my firewall that a new application is trying to connect?
Is my virus scanner going to get tripped that something suspicious is coming out of the key without my interaction?
Just because the cases are not obvious doesn't mean there is no potential for exploit.
Keyboards get a lot of raw sensitive data: usernames and passwords, often even accompanied with the direct URLs where the credentials apply.
Now, the keyboard obviously wouldn't be able to open a TCP/IP or UDP connection to upload the data, but it could sneak time-encoded hints about pre-recorded data into your typing.
While you type, the keyboard firmware could impose miniature delays that would go unnoticed by the human eye, but would in turn influence the timing of packets sent by an SSH session.
Such an attack wouldn't necessitate decrypting the SSH session and it would go completely unnoticed through all your Intrusion Detection Systems and firewalls.
The practicality of such an attack can be questioned, but it demonstrates non-obvious applications.
The closest equivalent I can think of for a USB memory dongle would be firmware that could recognize, say, JPEG images in FAT file systems.
Any information the firmware recognizes as interesting could be steganographically watermarked into your images by the time you pull them off the dongle.
In such a case, any image you upload online that came from that dongle could contain sensitive information and you'd have no idea you uploaded it.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31039192</id>
	<title>Re:Have you read the fucking article?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265363520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If someone own the memory controller and does their job *right*, you will never be allowed to know that anything is wrong.  Maybe.  That argument has lots of holes.   (a) are they smart enought to think of all the checks you can make?  (b) did they make any mistakes of their own?   (c) *Can* they really make themselves invisible to all checks?</p><p>It's not at all obvious to me.</p><p>It's like saying that if you "own" the OS, no user program could ever tell.    That may or may not be true in principle, but nothing hides that well in the real world.  For instance, Microsoft periodically sends out virus removal tools, and these do actually remove viruses that have control of the OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone own the memory controller and does their job * right * , you will never be allowed to know that anything is wrong .
Maybe. That argument has lots of holes .
( a ) are they smart enought to think of all the checks you can make ?
( b ) did they make any mistakes of their own ?
( c ) * Can * they really make themselves invisible to all checks ? It 's not at all obvious to me.It 's like saying that if you " own " the OS , no user program could ever tell .
That may or may not be true in principle , but nothing hides that well in the real world .
For instance , Microsoft periodically sends out virus removal tools , and these do actually remove viruses that have control of the OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone own the memory controller and does their job *right*, you will never be allowed to know that anything is wrong.
Maybe.  That argument has lots of holes.
(a) are they smart enought to think of all the checks you can make?
(b) did they make any mistakes of their own?
(c) *Can* they really make themselves invisible to all checks?It's not at all obvious to me.It's like saying that if you "own" the OS, no user program could ever tell.
That may or may not be true in principle, but nothing hides that well in the real world.
For instance, Microsoft periodically sends out virus removal tools, and these do actually remove viruses that have control of the OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035900</id>
	<title>Re:Sure...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265392500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your compromised USB key collects the data.  Later on, its attached to a compromised computer that reads the data.  The compromised computer uses a compromised router to bypass your firewall.  The data ends up at Dr. Evil's doorstep.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your compromised USB key collects the data .
Later on , its attached to a compromised computer that reads the data .
The compromised computer uses a compromised router to bypass your firewall .
The data ends up at Dr. Evil 's doorstep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your compromised USB key collects the data.
Later on, its attached to a compromised computer that reads the data.
The compromised computer uses a compromised router to bypass your firewall.
The data ends up at Dr. Evil's doorstep.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035896</id>
	<title>Re:Ahem *cough* why is "china" singled out??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265392440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because its obvious that the US can't keep a secret. The Wiretap Memos, WMD claims, Abu Garib, Torture Memos, Bill and Monica, Iran Contra, the Illinois Senate Seat Sale all show clear as day that a big conspiracy in the US gets leaked.</p><p>Comon' for corporate espionage and backroom dealing, Boeing couldn't even bribe the USAF to buy/lease KC-767 tankers without it getting leaked.</p><p>The PRC, a little better at keeping their spying and cyberwarfare on the low down. China is being singled out because they actually do all the human rights violations and anti-disident things that everyone dreams the US does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because its obvious that the US ca n't keep a secret .
The Wiretap Memos , WMD claims , Abu Garib , Torture Memos , Bill and Monica , Iran Contra , the Illinois Senate Seat Sale all show clear as day that a big conspiracy in the US gets leaked.Comon ' for corporate espionage and backroom dealing , Boeing could n't even bribe the USAF to buy/lease KC-767 tankers without it getting leaked.The PRC , a little better at keeping their spying and cyberwarfare on the low down .
China is being singled out because they actually do all the human rights violations and anti-disident things that everyone dreams the US does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because its obvious that the US can't keep a secret.
The Wiretap Memos, WMD claims, Abu Garib, Torture Memos, Bill and Monica, Iran Contra, the Illinois Senate Seat Sale all show clear as day that a big conspiracy in the US gets leaked.Comon' for corporate espionage and backroom dealing, Boeing couldn't even bribe the USAF to buy/lease KC-767 tankers without it getting leaked.The PRC, a little better at keeping their spying and cyberwarfare on the low down.
China is being singled out because they actually do all the human rights violations and anti-disident things that everyone dreams the US does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037064</id>
	<title>Gee...</title>
	<author>tcarlson</author>
	<datestamp>1265397360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if I can trust my PowerBook 180?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if I can trust my PowerBook 180 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if I can trust my PowerBook 180?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036142</id>
	<title>Ring -1</title>
	<author>Antony T Curtis</author>
	<datestamp>1265393400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine hiding some nefarious code inside the SMBIOS, the contents of which are typically hidden from the operating system. Imagine including some hardware on the motherboard to trigger the system management interrupt and gate the SMBIOS to allow the CPU to to see and execute the code...</p><p>Hmm... Fun thought.</p><p>It could be quite challenging to even find out if it is there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine hiding some nefarious code inside the SMBIOS , the contents of which are typically hidden from the operating system .
Imagine including some hardware on the motherboard to trigger the system management interrupt and gate the SMBIOS to allow the CPU to to see and execute the code...Hmm... Fun thought.It could be quite challenging to even find out if it is there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine hiding some nefarious code inside the SMBIOS, the contents of which are typically hidden from the operating system.
Imagine including some hardware on the motherboard to trigger the system management interrupt and gate the SMBIOS to allow the CPU to to see and execute the code...Hmm... Fun thought.It could be quite challenging to even find out if it is there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037836</id>
	<title>Re:Sure...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265401020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about a USB wireless 3G modem to allow communication outside the network without going through the network? It shouldn't be too difficult to reconfigure the routing table of the PC to send certain IP addresses through the modem while handling other data as normal.</p><p>I would guess that the BIOS would be set to prevent booting from eternal devices (there is an order network, internal drive, cd-rom, usb), and that the BIOS would be password protected. Some IT departments have metal cables looped through the back of the case to prevent anyone from tampering with the innards.</p><p>I wonder whether it would be possible to create a PS/2 to USB adapter that would allow a USB device to be plugged into the PS/2 port of a PC (there are already adapters that allow PS/2 keyboards/mice to be plugged into a USB port) and send the data across.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a USB wireless 3G modem to allow communication outside the network without going through the network ?
It should n't be too difficult to reconfigure the routing table of the PC to send certain IP addresses through the modem while handling other data as normal.I would guess that the BIOS would be set to prevent booting from eternal devices ( there is an order network , internal drive , cd-rom , usb ) , and that the BIOS would be password protected .
Some IT departments have metal cables looped through the back of the case to prevent anyone from tampering with the innards.I wonder whether it would be possible to create a PS/2 to USB adapter that would allow a USB device to be plugged into the PS/2 port of a PC ( there are already adapters that allow PS/2 keyboards/mice to be plugged into a USB port ) and send the data across .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a USB wireless 3G modem to allow communication outside the network without going through the network?
It shouldn't be too difficult to reconfigure the routing table of the PC to send certain IP addresses through the modem while handling other data as normal.I would guess that the BIOS would be set to prevent booting from eternal devices (there is an order network, internal drive, cd-rom, usb), and that the BIOS would be password protected.
Some IT departments have metal cables looped through the back of the case to prevent anyone from tampering with the innards.I wonder whether it would be possible to create a PS/2 to USB adapter that would allow a USB device to be plugged into the PS/2 port of a PC (there are already adapters that allow PS/2 keyboards/mice to be plugged into a USB port) and send the data across.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31047324</id>
	<title>Re:Evidence?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265488320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming it contacted out-- There could be a specially formed sequence of packets that triggers a machine to self destruct or otherwise act maliciously.   Sure most important things would be behind firewalls, but first off a large chunk of the internet isnt, and second off those firewalls are all running the same potentially rogue chips. See also: http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2009/11/military-wins-small-battle-in-war-against-counterfeit-chips.ars</p><p>I'm not saying its likely that everything is backdoored, just that it isnt out of the question. Even if you secure all your intelligence computers, just being able to take down large portions of internet users would disrupt communications and incite panic, making it easy to conceal other actions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming it contacted out-- There could be a specially formed sequence of packets that triggers a machine to self destruct or otherwise act maliciously .
Sure most important things would be behind firewalls , but first off a large chunk of the internet isnt , and second off those firewalls are all running the same potentially rogue chips .
See also : http : //arstechnica.com/security/news/2009/11/military-wins-small-battle-in-war-against-counterfeit-chips.arsI 'm not saying its likely that everything is backdoored , just that it isnt out of the question .
Even if you secure all your intelligence computers , just being able to take down large portions of internet users would disrupt communications and incite panic , making it easy to conceal other actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming it contacted out-- There could be a specially formed sequence of packets that triggers a machine to self destruct or otherwise act maliciously.
Sure most important things would be behind firewalls, but first off a large chunk of the internet isnt, and second off those firewalls are all running the same potentially rogue chips.
See also: http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2009/11/military-wins-small-battle-in-war-against-counterfeit-chips.arsI'm not saying its likely that everything is backdoored, just that it isnt out of the question.
Even if you secure all your intelligence computers, just being able to take down large portions of internet users would disrupt communications and incite panic, making it easy to conceal other actions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038100</id>
	<title>Can you trust computer equipment?</title>
	<author>swordgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1265401920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.</p><p>There, that's all there is to it. Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, American, British, Indian, or other.</p><p>You can't trust the companies, and you can't trust the governments. Everywhere a corrupt person \_could\_ have (or create) access to data they shouldn't, there \_will\_ be a corrupt person working at it.</p><p>Maybe it's the Chinese government, maybe it's a hacker at a chip factory, maybe it's the Russian mafia, maybe it's a rogue NSA operative (or the NSA itself), but SOMEONE will do this eventually. They may not be after your data, but if it becomes useful (i.e. valuable) to them, then they'll use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No.There , that 's all there is to it .
Chinese , Korean , Vietnamese , American , British , Indian , or other.You ca n't trust the companies , and you ca n't trust the governments .
Everywhere a corrupt person \ _could \ _ have ( or create ) access to data they should n't , there \ _will \ _ be a corrupt person working at it.Maybe it 's the Chinese government , maybe it 's a hacker at a chip factory , maybe it 's the Russian mafia , maybe it 's a rogue NSA operative ( or the NSA itself ) , but SOMEONE will do this eventually .
They may not be after your data , but if it becomes useful ( i.e .
valuable ) to them , then they 'll use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.There, that's all there is to it.
Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, American, British, Indian, or other.You can't trust the companies, and you can't trust the governments.
Everywhere a corrupt person \_could\_ have (or create) access to data they shouldn't, there \_will\_ be a corrupt person working at it.Maybe it's the Chinese government, maybe it's a hacker at a chip factory, maybe it's the Russian mafia, maybe it's a rogue NSA operative (or the NSA itself), but SOMEONE will do this eventually.
They may not be after your data, but if it becomes useful (i.e.
valuable) to them, then they'll use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037332</id>
	<title>2002:  China finds spy bugs in Jiang's Boeing jet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265398440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"CHINA claims to have found almost 30 surveillance bugs, including one in the headboard of the presidential bed, on a Boeing 767 that had just been delivered from America to serve as President Jiang Zemin's official aircraft."</p><p>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1382116/China-finds-spy-bugs-in-Jiangs-Boeing-jet.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" CHINA claims to have found almost 30 surveillance bugs , including one in the headboard of the presidential bed , on a Boeing 767 that had just been delivered from America to serve as President Jiang Zemin 's official aircraft .
" http : //www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1382116/China-finds-spy-bugs-in-Jiangs-Boeing-jet.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"CHINA claims to have found almost 30 surveillance bugs, including one in the headboard of the presidential bed, on a Boeing 767 that had just been delivered from America to serve as President Jiang Zemin's official aircraft.
"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1382116/China-finds-spy-bugs-in-Jiangs-Boeing-jet.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035686</id>
	<title>At the end of the day, you gotta trust SOMEONE</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1265391720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm *far* from trying to defend China or claim they're "trustworthy"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but taken to its logical conclusion, this line of thinking is a dead-end for most individuals and businesses.  Ultimately, yes, you can't know for 100\% certain a given piece of software is trusted unless you wrote it yourself<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... but what's new?  That's always been, and always will be the case<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and unless you were able to engineer your own computer processor and other components on the motherboard, etc. - you STILL can't prove you're running a completely trusted system, can you?</p><p>In reality, I think people have to possess some awareness of their computing environment, as a whole - and that may realistically be the best we can do.  If some piece of gear is "compromised", it still has to communicate the information it stole to a receiver on the other end.  That means, your firewall is capable of either blocking or at least logging that connection.  There's also, of course, the "strength in numbers" facet to all of this.  Maybe YOU as an individual never noticed something strange was going on with a piece of gear, but as thousands or millions of people become customers/users of the same gear, chance increase that SOMEONE will figure it out.  Keep an eye on the tech news and Internet forums, and you'll receive pretty quick warnings about such things.  (This is probably also a good argument for going with popular products, vs. obscure ones with a far lower installed user-base?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm * far * from trying to defend China or claim they 're " trustworthy " ... but taken to its logical conclusion , this line of thinking is a dead-end for most individuals and businesses .
Ultimately , yes , you ca n't know for 100 \ % certain a given piece of software is trusted unless you wrote it yourself .... but what 's new ?
That 's always been , and always will be the case ... and unless you were able to engineer your own computer processor and other components on the motherboard , etc .
- you STILL ca n't prove you 're running a completely trusted system , can you ? In reality , I think people have to possess some awareness of their computing environment , as a whole - and that may realistically be the best we can do .
If some piece of gear is " compromised " , it still has to communicate the information it stole to a receiver on the other end .
That means , your firewall is capable of either blocking or at least logging that connection .
There 's also , of course , the " strength in numbers " facet to all of this .
Maybe YOU as an individual never noticed something strange was going on with a piece of gear , but as thousands or millions of people become customers/users of the same gear , chance increase that SOMEONE will figure it out .
Keep an eye on the tech news and Internet forums , and you 'll receive pretty quick warnings about such things .
( This is probably also a good argument for going with popular products , vs. obscure ones with a far lower installed user-base ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm *far* from trying to defend China or claim they're "trustworthy" ... but taken to its logical conclusion, this line of thinking is a dead-end for most individuals and businesses.
Ultimately, yes, you can't know for 100\% certain a given piece of software is trusted unless you wrote it yourself .... but what's new?
That's always been, and always will be the case ... and unless you were able to engineer your own computer processor and other components on the motherboard, etc.
- you STILL can't prove you're running a completely trusted system, can you?In reality, I think people have to possess some awareness of their computing environment, as a whole - and that may realistically be the best we can do.
If some piece of gear is "compromised", it still has to communicate the information it stole to a receiver on the other end.
That means, your firewall is capable of either blocking or at least logging that connection.
There's also, of course, the "strength in numbers" facet to all of this.
Maybe YOU as an individual never noticed something strange was going on with a piece of gear, but as thousands or millions of people become customers/users of the same gear, chance increase that SOMEONE will figure it out.
Keep an eye on the tech news and Internet forums, and you'll receive pretty quick warnings about such things.
(This is probably also a good argument for going with popular products, vs. obscure ones with a far lower installed user-base?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035396</id>
	<title>Ahem *cough* why is "china" singled out??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265390400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>um.... why is there an assumption that it is only china that "cannot be trusted"??</p><p>why is it assumed that there is not a hardware spying bug in Pentium Processors, one which would, being quotes A well installed microcode bug [which] will be almost impossible to detect. quotes</p><p>ehn?</p><p>and before thinking that "this is crazy, a U.S. firm wouldn't possibly do that" bear in mind that i've already had some experience of receiving a very weird series of SPAM messages, following which my machine started acting very very weird.</p><p>my guess is that simply by receiving that SPAM message, there was encoded within it some power-fluctuations or signal fluctuations which the CPU could pick up and "activate" whatever it was that was wanted to be activated by whomever it was that sent the SPAM message.</p><p>i'm not saying who it was that sent the SPAM - except that it wasn't from a U.S. organisation.</p><p>now, again, before you dumb fuckers with "Troll Trigger Happy" fingers go "this guys fucking nuts let's get rid of him with a Troll moderation", think about this: if i was saying "I heard that China attacked some guy's computer, he's a friend of mine in China", you'd put "Informative" or "Interesting" +1, right?  THINK impartially - unlike the last time i mentioned something like this - "is this guy out to deliberately cause trouble and DELIBERATELY bait people (definition of Troll)" or "is this guy mentioning something controversial, from his own direct experience, just like all the other people in the world who report all their personal and directly experienced controversial stories"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>um.... why is there an assumption that it is only china that " can not be trusted " ?
? why is it assumed that there is not a hardware spying bug in Pentium Processors , one which would , being quotes A well installed microcode bug [ which ] will be almost impossible to detect .
quotesehn ? and before thinking that " this is crazy , a U.S. firm would n't possibly do that " bear in mind that i 've already had some experience of receiving a very weird series of SPAM messages , following which my machine started acting very very weird.my guess is that simply by receiving that SPAM message , there was encoded within it some power-fluctuations or signal fluctuations which the CPU could pick up and " activate " whatever it was that was wanted to be activated by whomever it was that sent the SPAM message.i 'm not saying who it was that sent the SPAM - except that it was n't from a U.S. organisation.now , again , before you dumb fuckers with " Troll Trigger Happy " fingers go " this guys fucking nuts let 's get rid of him with a Troll moderation " , think about this : if i was saying " I heard that China attacked some guy 's computer , he 's a friend of mine in China " , you 'd put " Informative " or " Interesting " + 1 , right ?
THINK impartially - unlike the last time i mentioned something like this - " is this guy out to deliberately cause trouble and DELIBERATELY bait people ( definition of Troll ) " or " is this guy mentioning something controversial , from his own direct experience , just like all the other people in the world who report all their personal and directly experienced controversial stories " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>um.... why is there an assumption that it is only china that "cannot be trusted"?
?why is it assumed that there is not a hardware spying bug in Pentium Processors, one which would, being quotes A well installed microcode bug [which] will be almost impossible to detect.
quotesehn?and before thinking that "this is crazy, a U.S. firm wouldn't possibly do that" bear in mind that i've already had some experience of receiving a very weird series of SPAM messages, following which my machine started acting very very weird.my guess is that simply by receiving that SPAM message, there was encoded within it some power-fluctuations or signal fluctuations which the CPU could pick up and "activate" whatever it was that was wanted to be activated by whomever it was that sent the SPAM message.i'm not saying who it was that sent the SPAM - except that it wasn't from a U.S. organisation.now, again, before you dumb fuckers with "Troll Trigger Happy" fingers go "this guys fucking nuts let's get rid of him with a Troll moderation", think about this: if i was saying "I heard that China attacked some guy's computer, he's a friend of mine in China", you'd put "Informative" or "Interesting" +1, right?
THINK impartially - unlike the last time i mentioned something like this - "is this guy out to deliberately cause trouble and DELIBERATELY bait people (definition of Troll)" or "is this guy mentioning something controversial, from his own direct experience, just like all the other people in the world who report all their personal and directly experienced controversial stories"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036680</id>
	<title>Slam on the brakes!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265395620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just wait until we are driving Chinese made cars, and their back door into the braking and accelerating software allows remote control!</p><p>You think traffic is bad now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wait until we are driving Chinese made cars , and their back door into the braking and accelerating software allows remote control ! You think traffic is bad now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wait until we are driving Chinese made cars, and their back door into the braking and accelerating software allows remote control!You think traffic is bad now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035604</id>
	<title>Can Avoid Chinese "controlled" products</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265391420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am glad to see someone else asking this question.  Obviously we can not avoid Chinese goods in all respects, but this does keep me from ever buying a Lenovo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am glad to see someone else asking this question .
Obviously we can not avoid Chinese goods in all respects , but this does keep me from ever buying a Lenovo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am glad to see someone else asking this question.
Obviously we can not avoid Chinese goods in all respects, but this does keep me from ever buying a Lenovo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035462</id>
	<title>It really depends on who "you" are...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265390760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In a general sense, you really can't trust any computer equipment that you didn't build yourself, pretty much from the ground up(as the issues with compilers and microcode suggest). I'm pretty sure that using somebody else's sand to make your silicon is safe; but that's about it.<br> <br>

Computer gear hasn't quite reached biological levels of complexity, where trust is even harder(one malformed Prion in a batch of millions can end up eating holes in your brain); but, from the perspective of a user who isn't a tech god, it might as well have.<br> <br>

That being so, the question of whether you can trust Chinese computer equipment is basically a political one. China's general enthusiasm for industrial espionage is well known, so if you have data on interesting technology or military stuff, the answer is almost certainly "no". If you are basically just Joe Consumer, though, your data are just noise obscuring what Chinese intelligence really wants. You would do better to be worried about the botnet your PC is part of, Google, ChoicePoint, Equifax, the NSA, and whoever is taking advantage of CALEA at that particular moment. The world of technology is a ghastly morass of potential backdoors, quite a few of them not even hidden, that most of us are constantly vulnerable to, and, in a great many cases, actively being monitored through.<br> <br>

Bugged Chinese chips are definitely something to think about if you are doing military COTS procurement, or doing security for somebody who has data of real interest; but, for most of us, it's all just one more piece of assymetric transparency. I, for one, don't feel any warmer and fuzzier about the Americans spying on me than the Chinese spying on me(worse, in fact, because some sinister chinese intelligence agency is substantially less likely to sell my information to advertisers, make it harder to get medical insurance, or damage my credit rating than some warm, fuzzy, American multinational corporation).<br> <br>

I really hope that this threat leads to a general recognition of the need for sound and open practices for security(both in the sense of novel CS research on how to do maximally verifiable stuff, test blackboxes, build verified bootstrap compilers, etc, etc. and in the sense of market acceptance of the fact that mysterious binary firmwares, and "just trust us" responses from vendors, and blackbox systems in general just aren't good enough). That would make things better for everybody. I get the unpleasant sense, though, that a lot of this concern is less about "We really need to understand how to build highly complex systems that are dependable and verifiable for those who use them." and more about "Goddam chinks, only we are supposed to have backdoors and surveillance capabilities!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a general sense , you really ca n't trust any computer equipment that you did n't build yourself , pretty much from the ground up ( as the issues with compilers and microcode suggest ) .
I 'm pretty sure that using somebody else 's sand to make your silicon is safe ; but that 's about it .
Computer gear has n't quite reached biological levels of complexity , where trust is even harder ( one malformed Prion in a batch of millions can end up eating holes in your brain ) ; but , from the perspective of a user who is n't a tech god , it might as well have .
That being so , the question of whether you can trust Chinese computer equipment is basically a political one .
China 's general enthusiasm for industrial espionage is well known , so if you have data on interesting technology or military stuff , the answer is almost certainly " no " .
If you are basically just Joe Consumer , though , your data are just noise obscuring what Chinese intelligence really wants .
You would do better to be worried about the botnet your PC is part of , Google , ChoicePoint , Equifax , the NSA , and whoever is taking advantage of CALEA at that particular moment .
The world of technology is a ghastly morass of potential backdoors , quite a few of them not even hidden , that most of us are constantly vulnerable to , and , in a great many cases , actively being monitored through .
Bugged Chinese chips are definitely something to think about if you are doing military COTS procurement , or doing security for somebody who has data of real interest ; but , for most of us , it 's all just one more piece of assymetric transparency .
I , for one , do n't feel any warmer and fuzzier about the Americans spying on me than the Chinese spying on me ( worse , in fact , because some sinister chinese intelligence agency is substantially less likely to sell my information to advertisers , make it harder to get medical insurance , or damage my credit rating than some warm , fuzzy , American multinational corporation ) .
I really hope that this threat leads to a general recognition of the need for sound and open practices for security ( both in the sense of novel CS research on how to do maximally verifiable stuff , test blackboxes , build verified bootstrap compilers , etc , etc .
and in the sense of market acceptance of the fact that mysterious binary firmwares , and " just trust us " responses from vendors , and blackbox systems in general just are n't good enough ) .
That would make things better for everybody .
I get the unpleasant sense , though , that a lot of this concern is less about " We really need to understand how to build highly complex systems that are dependable and verifiable for those who use them .
" and more about " Goddam chinks , only we are supposed to have backdoors and surveillance capabilities !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a general sense, you really can't trust any computer equipment that you didn't build yourself, pretty much from the ground up(as the issues with compilers and microcode suggest).
I'm pretty sure that using somebody else's sand to make your silicon is safe; but that's about it.
Computer gear hasn't quite reached biological levels of complexity, where trust is even harder(one malformed Prion in a batch of millions can end up eating holes in your brain); but, from the perspective of a user who isn't a tech god, it might as well have.
That being so, the question of whether you can trust Chinese computer equipment is basically a political one.
China's general enthusiasm for industrial espionage is well known, so if you have data on interesting technology or military stuff, the answer is almost certainly "no".
If you are basically just Joe Consumer, though, your data are just noise obscuring what Chinese intelligence really wants.
You would do better to be worried about the botnet your PC is part of, Google, ChoicePoint, Equifax, the NSA, and whoever is taking advantage of CALEA at that particular moment.
The world of technology is a ghastly morass of potential backdoors, quite a few of them not even hidden, that most of us are constantly vulnerable to, and, in a great many cases, actively being monitored through.
Bugged Chinese chips are definitely something to think about if you are doing military COTS procurement, or doing security for somebody who has data of real interest; but, for most of us, it's all just one more piece of assymetric transparency.
I, for one, don't feel any warmer and fuzzier about the Americans spying on me than the Chinese spying on me(worse, in fact, because some sinister chinese intelligence agency is substantially less likely to sell my information to advertisers, make it harder to get medical insurance, or damage my credit rating than some warm, fuzzy, American multinational corporation).
I really hope that this threat leads to a general recognition of the need for sound and open practices for security(both in the sense of novel CS research on how to do maximally verifiable stuff, test blackboxes, build verified bootstrap compilers, etc, etc.
and in the sense of market acceptance of the fact that mysterious binary firmwares, and "just trust us" responses from vendors, and blackbox systems in general just aren't good enough).
That would make things better for everybody.
I get the unpleasant sense, though, that a lot of this concern is less about "We really need to understand how to build highly complex systems that are dependable and verifiable for those who use them.
" and more about "Goddam chinks, only we are supposed to have backdoors and surveillance capabilities!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037638</id>
	<title>Re:Chinese made, not always = Chinese code</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1265400120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not all Chinese-made products contain Chinese computer code.</p><p>I am a consultant to a US company. Our products are made by Chinese companies, to our specifications.</p><p>How do you know?  Perhaps they look at your specifications, alter them without telling you, and then make the product.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all Chinese-made products contain Chinese computer code.I am a consultant to a US company .
Our products are made by Chinese companies , to our specifications.How do you know ?
Perhaps they look at your specifications , alter them without telling you , and then make the product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all Chinese-made products contain Chinese computer code.I am a consultant to a US company.
Our products are made by Chinese companies, to our specifications.How do you know?
Perhaps they look at your specifications, alter them without telling you, and then make the product.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036888</id>
	<title>Re:It really depends on who "you" are...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265396520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>one malformed Prion in a batch of millions can end up eating holes in your brain</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, it's the well-formed Prions that do that; malformed Prions are just lumps of goo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>one malformed Prion in a batch of millions can end up eating holes in your brainActually , it 's the well-formed Prions that do that ; malformed Prions are just lumps of goo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one malformed Prion in a batch of millions can end up eating holes in your brainActually, it's the well-formed Prions that do that; malformed Prions are just lumps of goo.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036092</id>
	<title>Re:Sure...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265393100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But can you trust your firewall and virus scanner?</p><p>Consider the possibility that they too have backdoors wherein your bugged USB key sends packets that they're programmed to ignore. (To a specific IP, say, or with a particular bit sequence as part of the packet.)</p><p>Less likely if you built them yourself rather than using COTS, but can you trust the compiler?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But can you trust your firewall and virus scanner ? Consider the possibility that they too have backdoors wherein your bugged USB key sends packets that they 're programmed to ignore .
( To a specific IP , say , or with a particular bit sequence as part of the packet .
) Less likely if you built them yourself rather than using COTS , but can you trust the compiler ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But can you trust your firewall and virus scanner?Consider the possibility that they too have backdoors wherein your bugged USB key sends packets that they're programmed to ignore.
(To a specific IP, say, or with a particular bit sequence as part of the packet.
)Less likely if you built them yourself rather than using COTS, but can you trust the compiler?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31041422</id>
	<title>Re:Programmers vs. Users</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265375400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The rest of the human race are doomed to simply be Users.</p></div></blockquote><p>I checked it out and my user account was only a member of Users. When I tried to add myself to Programmers, it told me:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>An object named "Programmers" cannot be found. Check the selected object types and location for accuracy and ensure that you typed the object name correctly, or remove this object from the selection.</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>I guess I'm doomed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The rest of the human race are doomed to simply be Users.I checked it out and my user account was only a member of Users .
When I tried to add myself to Programmers , it told me : An object named " Programmers " can not be found .
Check the selected object types and location for accuracy and ensure that you typed the object name correctly , or remove this object from the selection .
I guess I 'm doomed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rest of the human race are doomed to simply be Users.I checked it out and my user account was only a member of Users.
When I tried to add myself to Programmers, it told me: An object named "Programmers" cannot be found.
Check the selected object types and location for accuracy and ensure that you typed the object name correctly, or remove this object from the selection.
I guess I'm doomed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035782</id>
	<title>Just use old-fashioned encryption</title>
	<author>gaelfx</author>
	<datestamp>1265392020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, I teach in China, and I've met many, many, MANY Chinese people that "know English," so the good old-fashioned keep-your-documents-in-a-foreign-language routine is probably sufficient enough to ensure that your actual information is safe from Chinese eyes. They translate everything from English to Chinese word by word still, most of them can't actually understand an English sentence without converting it bit by bit to Chinese, where 90\% of actual relevant information ends up missing. Just think about it, if the US government really needed any information from a Chinese company (for God knows what reason), we would be scrambling to decrypt some mundane QQ message saying something about going out to drink beer tonight and then bangin some hookers. The information is safe as long as you aren't producing 'sensitive information' type documents in Chinese.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , I teach in China , and I 've met many , many , MANY Chinese people that " know English , " so the good old-fashioned keep-your-documents-in-a-foreign-language routine is probably sufficient enough to ensure that your actual information is safe from Chinese eyes .
They translate everything from English to Chinese word by word still , most of them ca n't actually understand an English sentence without converting it bit by bit to Chinese , where 90 \ % of actual relevant information ends up missing .
Just think about it , if the US government really needed any information from a Chinese company ( for God knows what reason ) , we would be scrambling to decrypt some mundane QQ message saying something about going out to drink beer tonight and then bangin some hookers .
The information is safe as long as you are n't producing 'sensitive information ' type documents in Chinese .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, I teach in China, and I've met many, many, MANY Chinese people that "know English," so the good old-fashioned keep-your-documents-in-a-foreign-language routine is probably sufficient enough to ensure that your actual information is safe from Chinese eyes.
They translate everything from English to Chinese word by word still, most of them can't actually understand an English sentence without converting it bit by bit to Chinese, where 90\% of actual relevant information ends up missing.
Just think about it, if the US government really needed any information from a Chinese company (for God knows what reason), we would be scrambling to decrypt some mundane QQ message saying something about going out to drink beer tonight and then bangin some hookers.
The information is safe as long as you aren't producing 'sensitive information' type documents in Chinese.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036530</id>
	<title>Re:Cisco</title>
	<author>macintard</author>
	<datestamp>1265394960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is somebody buying product off Ebay?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is somebody buying product off Ebay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is somebody buying product off Ebay?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31039312</id>
	<title>Holier than thou</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265364000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lets see: Xerox machines in the Kremlin with cameras. AT&amp;T handing information over for the asking. Warrantless wiretaps. The Patriot Act. Asshats from Microsoft saying it would be a good idea for everybody on the Internet to have an I.D. (your papers please?). The Chinese government is just one more hole in the Swiss cheese.

Oh wait, never mind, it's perfectly fine if WE do it.

*sigh*</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets see : Xerox machines in the Kremlin with cameras .
AT&amp;T handing information over for the asking .
Warrantless wiretaps .
The Patriot Act .
Asshats from Microsoft saying it would be a good idea for everybody on the Internet to have an I.D .
( your papers please ? ) .
The Chinese government is just one more hole in the Swiss cheese .
Oh wait , never mind , it 's perfectly fine if WE do it .
* sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets see: Xerox machines in the Kremlin with cameras.
AT&amp;T handing information over for the asking.
Warrantless wiretaps.
The Patriot Act.
Asshats from Microsoft saying it would be a good idea for everybody on the Internet to have an I.D.
(your papers please?).
The Chinese government is just one more hole in the Swiss cheese.
Oh wait, never mind, it's perfectly fine if WE do it.
*sigh*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036394</id>
	<title>Re:Sure...</title>
	<author>rdavidson3</author>
	<datestamp>1265394420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the Chinese could do this by ensuring that the USB, computer, firewall, etc were made by them, and ensuring there was a hidden pipe through all those channels.  This would only work in certain scenarios, and I doubt that they would try it until they could guarantee that a customer would be using <b>all</b> compromised equipment. <br> <br>

I wouldn't be surpised if they are trying something like this and selling as a packaged deal (computer + servers + routers + switches + etc) to big corporate US that has R&amp;D that they are interested in but can't get their hands on because that US corp is hesitant to set up a shop in China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the Chinese could do this by ensuring that the USB , computer , firewall , etc were made by them , and ensuring there was a hidden pipe through all those channels .
This would only work in certain scenarios , and I doubt that they would try it until they could guarantee that a customer would be using all compromised equipment .
I would n't be surpised if they are trying something like this and selling as a packaged deal ( computer + servers + routers + switches + etc ) to big corporate US that has R&amp;D that they are interested in but ca n't get their hands on because that US corp is hesitant to set up a shop in China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the Chinese could do this by ensuring that the USB, computer, firewall, etc were made by them, and ensuring there was a hidden pipe through all those channels.
This would only work in certain scenarios, and I doubt that they would try it until they could guarantee that a customer would be using all compromised equipment.
I wouldn't be surpised if they are trying something like this and selling as a packaged deal (computer + servers + routers + switches + etc) to big corporate US that has R&amp;D that they are interested in but can't get their hands on because that US corp is hesitant to set up a shop in China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037026</id>
	<title>time for another FUD article about China, I see.</title>
	<author>Petkov</author>
	<datestamp>1265397240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand you poor Americans ARE terrified and scared because you can feel the power slipping away from your fingers but this is getting ridiculous, dont yo think? The level of FUD on China oat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is reaching USA gov levels. Come on now, how bullshiting can you get and how low can you go??? A LOT lower than I ever imagined. Shame on you, shame!</p><p>This is MY last message here, I am deleting my account and NEVER coming back here.<br>You have officially become complete bullshitters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand you poor Americans ARE terrified and scared because you can feel the power slipping away from your fingers but this is getting ridiculous , dont yo think ?
The level of FUD on China oat / .
is reaching USA gov levels .
Come on now , how bullshiting can you get and how low can you go ? ? ?
A LOT lower than I ever imagined .
Shame on you , shame ! This is MY last message here , I am deleting my account and NEVER coming back here.You have officially become complete bullshitters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand you poor Americans ARE terrified and scared because you can feel the power slipping away from your fingers but this is getting ridiculous, dont yo think?
The level of FUD on China oat /.
is reaching USA gov levels.
Come on now, how bullshiting can you get and how low can you go???
A LOT lower than I ever imagined.
Shame on you, shame!This is MY last message here, I am deleting my account and NEVER coming back here.You have officially become complete bullshitters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31042834</id>
	<title>Can you trust American equipment?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265386920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do I know that in the name of war on terror that American equipment is not compromised?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do I know that in the name of war on terror that American equipment is not compromised ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do I know that in the name of war on terror that American equipment is not compromised?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036112</id>
	<title>Re:Sure...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265393280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>   Unnecessary, all it need do is to transmit a small amount of pertinent data, maybe even less than 1K, to your local ISP server during the logon process. Any needed information can then be extracted from THAT machine, complete with your IP address, maybe a hardware/ software serial number if they are particularly anal at any time, convenient or otherwise. Your ISP in some cases, can bring up a complete history/ profile of your activity for billing purposes as it is, a more targeted approach wouldn't need half as much data. Hell,Windows verification in XP/ Vista does much the same already (WGA, anybody?), albeit clumsily enough that people noticed it. The only thing a USB key would have to do is furnish an indicator of "on" or "off" to a compromised ISP, assuming it's even used at all. It IS a "key", after all, isn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unnecessary , all it need do is to transmit a small amount of pertinent data , maybe even less than 1K , to your local ISP server during the logon process .
Any needed information can then be extracted from THAT machine , complete with your IP address , maybe a hardware/ software serial number if they are particularly anal at any time , convenient or otherwise .
Your ISP in some cases , can bring up a complete history/ profile of your activity for billing purposes as it is , a more targeted approach would n't need half as much data .
Hell,Windows verification in XP/ Vista does much the same already ( WGA , anybody ?
) , albeit clumsily enough that people noticed it .
The only thing a USB key would have to do is furnish an indicator of " on " or " off " to a compromised ISP , assuming it 's even used at all .
It IS a " key " , after all , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   Unnecessary, all it need do is to transmit a small amount of pertinent data, maybe even less than 1K, to your local ISP server during the logon process.
Any needed information can then be extracted from THAT machine, complete with your IP address, maybe a hardware/ software serial number if they are particularly anal at any time, convenient or otherwise.
Your ISP in some cases, can bring up a complete history/ profile of your activity for billing purposes as it is, a more targeted approach wouldn't need half as much data.
Hell,Windows verification in XP/ Vista does much the same already (WGA, anybody?
), albeit clumsily enough that people noticed it.
The only thing a USB key would have to do is furnish an indicator of "on" or "off" to a compromised ISP, assuming it's even used at all.
It IS a "key", after all, isn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035870</id>
	<title>Whats with the anti china??</title>
	<author>pablo\_max</author>
	<datestamp>1265392320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, everyone acts like, "OMG, China is like sooooo evil man. They spy on us. Bastards!".</p><p>Do you really think that China is any worse than say..AT&amp;T or the NSA? What about the CIA? Do you think they are no spying on you?<br>At least China does not hind it behind a veil of "freedom".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , everyone acts like , " OMG , China is like sooooo evil man .
They spy on us .
Bastards ! " .Do you really think that China is any worse than say..AT&amp;T or the NSA ?
What about the CIA ?
Do you think they are no spying on you ? At least China does not hind it behind a veil of " freedom " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, everyone acts like, "OMG, China is like sooooo evil man.
They spy on us.
Bastards!".Do you really think that China is any worse than say..AT&amp;T or the NSA?
What about the CIA?
Do you think they are no spying on you?At least China does not hind it behind a veil of "freedom".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037316</id>
	<title>Re:Cisco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265398380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose that's what you get for buying Cisco hardware off ebay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose that 's what you get for buying Cisco hardware off ebay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose that's what you get for buying Cisco hardware off ebay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035660</id>
	<title>Chinese made, not always = Chinese code</title>
	<author>MpVpRb</author>
	<datestamp>1265391600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not all Chinese-made products contain Chinese computer code.

</p><p>I am a consultant to a US company. Our products are made by Chinese companies, to our specifications.

</p><p>I write all of the code, and it is loaded after the products get to the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all Chinese-made products contain Chinese computer code .
I am a consultant to a US company .
Our products are made by Chinese companies , to our specifications .
I write all of the code , and it is loaded after the products get to the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all Chinese-made products contain Chinese computer code.
I am a consultant to a US company.
Our products are made by Chinese companies, to our specifications.
I write all of the code, and it is loaded after the products get to the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035860</id>
	<title>We didnt even know 1984 had already arrived...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265392260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not getting any better. Now it seems that it was worse then in "1983" than we thought. Component level plans were well underway.<br>The Chinese have things in perspective... " its not an event its a process"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not getting any better .
Now it seems that it was worse then in " 1983 " than we thought .
Component level plans were well underway.The Chinese have things in perspective... " its not an event its a process "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not getting any better.
Now it seems that it was worse then in "1983" than we thought.
Component level plans were well underway.The Chinese have things in perspective... " its not an event its a process"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31041086</id>
	<title>Re:There is no comparison!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265373000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no, there are -not- laws preventing such behavior.  they have laws, but they are ignored.<br>it's a small but important difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no , there are -not- laws preventing such behavior .
they have laws , but they are ignored.it 's a small but important difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, there are -not- laws preventing such behavior.
they have laws, but they are ignored.it's a small but important difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036262</id>
	<title>Can I ask a broader question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265393880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can you trust Chinese anything?  If they will send over children's toys with toxic plastics and paints can we really trust them with anything?  We know how they feel about IP and now we have a pretty good idea what they will do if they are denies access to IP (ala the Google situation).
<br> <br>
More and more I'm just simply refusing to buy things that are not made in a first-world country.  And the truth is that it hurts because it is very expensive.  I replaced all my Chinese and Indian made cookware with All-Clad because they not only make the cookware in the US but they also source the steel from US mills.  But it cost me almost $1,000.  The same set made in China is $40 but would anyone really want to use a cookware set for 5 years that may contain lead, mercury and God knows what else?
<br> <br>
Sadly I don't think it is even possible to buy a wholly US made computer.  Maybe you can find one assembled here but the parts will be from all over the world.  I happen to think there are a lot pf people like me who will pay a LOT more for a fully US made product (from raw material sourcing all the way through finished assembly).  But I'll tell you it it hard to find even if you are willing to pay TWENTY-FIVE TIMES as much as the Chinese made garbage.  This should not be the case.  However, <a href="http://stillmadeinusa.com/" title="stillmadeinusa.com">this site</a> [stillmadeinusa.com] did help me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you trust Chinese anything ?
If they will send over children 's toys with toxic plastics and paints can we really trust them with anything ?
We know how they feel about IP and now we have a pretty good idea what they will do if they are denies access to IP ( ala the Google situation ) .
More and more I 'm just simply refusing to buy things that are not made in a first-world country .
And the truth is that it hurts because it is very expensive .
I replaced all my Chinese and Indian made cookware with All-Clad because they not only make the cookware in the US but they also source the steel from US mills .
But it cost me almost $ 1,000 .
The same set made in China is $ 40 but would anyone really want to use a cookware set for 5 years that may contain lead , mercury and God knows what else ?
Sadly I do n't think it is even possible to buy a wholly US made computer .
Maybe you can find one assembled here but the parts will be from all over the world .
I happen to think there are a lot pf people like me who will pay a LOT more for a fully US made product ( from raw material sourcing all the way through finished assembly ) .
But I 'll tell you it it hard to find even if you are willing to pay TWENTY-FIVE TIMES as much as the Chinese made garbage .
This should not be the case .
However , this site [ stillmadeinusa.com ] did help me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you trust Chinese anything?
If they will send over children's toys with toxic plastics and paints can we really trust them with anything?
We know how they feel about IP and now we have a pretty good idea what they will do if they are denies access to IP (ala the Google situation).
More and more I'm just simply refusing to buy things that are not made in a first-world country.
And the truth is that it hurts because it is very expensive.
I replaced all my Chinese and Indian made cookware with All-Clad because they not only make the cookware in the US but they also source the steel from US mills.
But it cost me almost $1,000.
The same set made in China is $40 but would anyone really want to use a cookware set for 5 years that may contain lead, mercury and God knows what else?
Sadly I don't think it is even possible to buy a wholly US made computer.
Maybe you can find one assembled here but the parts will be from all over the world.
I happen to think there are a lot pf people like me who will pay a LOT more for a fully US made product (from raw material sourcing all the way through finished assembly).
But I'll tell you it it hard to find even if you are willing to pay TWENTY-FIVE TIMES as much as the Chinese made garbage.
This should not be the case.
However, this site [stillmadeinusa.com] did help me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036078</id>
	<title>Re:Sure...</title>
	<author>thijsh</author>
	<datestamp>1265393040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Real hardware backdoors should be in the chipset and/or CPU, they have access to both the USB and the LAN... no software firewall could ever block that... but the backdoor communication would still be very detectable!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Real hardware backdoors should be in the chipset and/or CPU , they have access to both the USB and the LAN... no software firewall could ever block that... but the backdoor communication would still be very detectable !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real hardware backdoors should be in the chipset and/or CPU, they have access to both the USB and the LAN... no software firewall could ever block that... but the backdoor communication would still be very detectable!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037604</id>
	<title>Curse those Chinese and their spying!</title>
	<author>Cathoderoytube</author>
	<datestamp>1265399880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It just occurred to me that my five string banjo was made in China! Cripes almighty. They've probably already stolen my patented method of playing 'Baltimore Fire' with a slide at the beginning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It just occurred to me that my five string banjo was made in China !
Cripes almighty .
They 've probably already stolen my patented method of playing 'Baltimore Fire ' with a slide at the beginning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just occurred to me that my five string banjo was made in China!
Cripes almighty.
They've probably already stolen my patented method of playing 'Baltimore Fire' with a slide at the beginning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037440</id>
	<title>Re:Sure...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265398920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if all of your hardware is made in China then how it doesn't interact together to completely bypass your firewall and virus scanners? That's the FUD that's this article is trying to stir up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if all of your hardware is made in China then how it does n't interact together to completely bypass your firewall and virus scanners ?
That 's the FUD that 's this article is trying to stir up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if all of your hardware is made in China then how it doesn't interact together to completely bypass your firewall and virus scanners?
That's the FUD that's this article is trying to stir up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037518</id>
	<title>Would you buy from the US?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265399400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you buy an oil pipleine control unit and software from the US if you're russian?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you buy an oil pipleine control unit and software from the US if you 're russian ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you buy an oil pipleine control unit and software from the US if you're russian?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31046696</id>
	<title>Can you trust American software?</title>
	<author>brajbir</author>
	<datestamp>1265482560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I don't know whats the big deal about chinese computers and eavesdropping built into it is? Can you really trust American software? Ever heard of key escrow?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I do n't know whats the big deal about chinese computers and eavesdropping built into it is ?
Can you really trust American software ?
Ever heard of key escrow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I don't know whats the big deal about chinese computers and eavesdropping built into it is?
Can you really trust American software?
Ever heard of key escrow?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035518</id>
	<title>Programmers vs. Users</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1265391000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are a User, you have no choice but to trust the entire universe of code around you.  Your watch could contain a rogue program, your car radio, your cell phone, your microwave oven.  Everything is enabled with microprocessors programmed by unknown and unknowable people with unknown and unknowable motivations.</p><p>All you can do is hope for the best if you are a User.</p><p>However, if you are a Programmer you can only use code that you trust and have personally verified in addition to the rest of the Programmer community.  Users don't count for much in this world, because they can't help out, they can only blindly follow.  Some Users will have Programmer friends and they can just follow in their footsteps, like a line of soldiers through a minefield.  Only Programmers have this power.</p><p>Sadly, the way people are wired only a very few are going to be Programmers.  The rest simply do not have the skills or the mental faculties.  The rest of the human race are doomed to simply be Users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are a User , you have no choice but to trust the entire universe of code around you .
Your watch could contain a rogue program , your car radio , your cell phone , your microwave oven .
Everything is enabled with microprocessors programmed by unknown and unknowable people with unknown and unknowable motivations.All you can do is hope for the best if you are a User.However , if you are a Programmer you can only use code that you trust and have personally verified in addition to the rest of the Programmer community .
Users do n't count for much in this world , because they ca n't help out , they can only blindly follow .
Some Users will have Programmer friends and they can just follow in their footsteps , like a line of soldiers through a minefield .
Only Programmers have this power.Sadly , the way people are wired only a very few are going to be Programmers .
The rest simply do not have the skills or the mental faculties .
The rest of the human race are doomed to simply be Users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are a User, you have no choice but to trust the entire universe of code around you.
Your watch could contain a rogue program, your car radio, your cell phone, your microwave oven.
Everything is enabled with microprocessors programmed by unknown and unknowable people with unknown and unknowable motivations.All you can do is hope for the best if you are a User.However, if you are a Programmer you can only use code that you trust and have personally verified in addition to the rest of the Programmer community.
Users don't count for much in this world, because they can't help out, they can only blindly follow.
Some Users will have Programmer friends and they can just follow in their footsteps, like a line of soldiers through a minefield.
Only Programmers have this power.Sadly, the way people are wired only a very few are going to be Programmers.
The rest simply do not have the skills or the mental faculties.
The rest of the human race are doomed to simply be Users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038108</id>
	<title>its already happened</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265401980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there was an incident with the CIA and Lenovo pcs, they were able to download the data and send it home to China. thats why there was a big issue over the a Chinese company buying 3COM, it was part of the deal that if they bought 3COM, then 3Com would pay ot have all of there network stuff replaced with Cisco or other US Company equivalent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there was an incident with the CIA and Lenovo pcs , they were able to download the data and send it home to China .
thats why there was a big issue over the a Chinese company buying 3COM , it was part of the deal that if they bought 3COM , then 3Com would pay ot have all of there network stuff replaced with Cisco or other US Company equivalent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there was an incident with the CIA and Lenovo pcs, they were able to download the data and send it home to China.
thats why there was a big issue over the a Chinese company buying 3COM, it was part of the deal that if they bought 3COM, then 3Com would pay ot have all of there network stuff replaced with Cisco or other US Company equivalent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036424</id>
	<title>I wouldn't be surprised.</title>
	<author>MrTripps</author>
	<datestamp>1265394600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>After all we did that to the Russians in the 80's causing one of their large oil pipelines to explode. Does it make you feel better that Microsoft gave China a peek at the full source code for Windows?
<a href="http://www.builderau.com.au/architect/work/soa/US-software-blew-up-Russian-gas-pipeline-/0,339024596,320283135,00.htm" title="builderau.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.builderau.com.au/architect/work/soa/US-software-blew-up-Russian-gas-pipeline-/0,339024596,320283135,00.htm</a> [builderau.com.au]</htmltext>
<tokenext>After all we did that to the Russians in the 80 's causing one of their large oil pipelines to explode .
Does it make you feel better that Microsoft gave China a peek at the full source code for Windows ?
http : //www.builderau.com.au/architect/work/soa/US-software-blew-up-Russian-gas-pipeline-/0,339024596,320283135,00.htm [ builderau.com.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all we did that to the Russians in the 80's causing one of their large oil pipelines to explode.
Does it make you feel better that Microsoft gave China a peek at the full source code for Windows?
http://www.builderau.com.au/architect/work/soa/US-software-blew-up-Russian-gas-pipeline-/0,339024596,320283135,00.htm [builderau.com.au]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038144</id>
	<title>do you trust US built equipment?</title>
	<author>kubitus</author>
	<datestamp>1265402100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
I do not!

years agoI said : logic commands that behind a successful web-search engine there ought to be the national secret service - if he is not behind it, he is not worth a dime.<p>
 Everybody laughed! Now the NSA officially moves in to Google. ( Probably from the Back-Office now going in throught the Front-Door )

The perfect and low budget replacement with added target-ability saving the Services the hassle to scan through the mud of nonsense flowing in the communication traffic worldwide, the inclusion of a Trojan Boot Loader (TBL) in Network Devices.</p><p>
Put it in Routers and Switches in the form of a dirty programmed self-modifying routine nobody is able to detect it. </p><p>
When you hear that company XYZ or University MNO or government of BigBrotherHome has something interesting, you wake it up via a reply from a search engine, addressed by the serial number of the device.
This TrojanBootLoader then receives its orders from Gockel or any other and everybody has the fifth colonne right in his house - even paying for it himself!
 </p><p>
ECHELON is by far too expensive! </p><p> Put a TBL into Zischko Routers and you are the listener on the net everywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not !
years agoI said : logic commands that behind a successful web-search engine there ought to be the national secret service - if he is not behind it , he is not worth a dime .
Everybody laughed !
Now the NSA officially moves in to Google .
( Probably from the Back-Office now going in throught the Front-Door ) The perfect and low budget replacement with added target-ability saving the Services the hassle to scan through the mud of nonsense flowing in the communication traffic worldwide , the inclusion of a Trojan Boot Loader ( TBL ) in Network Devices .
Put it in Routers and Switches in the form of a dirty programmed self-modifying routine nobody is able to detect it .
When you hear that company XYZ or University MNO or government of BigBrotherHome has something interesting , you wake it up via a reply from a search engine , addressed by the serial number of the device .
This TrojanBootLoader then receives its orders from Gockel or any other and everybody has the fifth colonne right in his house - even paying for it himself !
ECHELON is by far too expensive !
Put a TBL into Zischko Routers and you are the listener on the net everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I do not!
years agoI said : logic commands that behind a successful web-search engine there ought to be the national secret service - if he is not behind it, he is not worth a dime.
Everybody laughed!
Now the NSA officially moves in to Google.
( Probably from the Back-Office now going in throught the Front-Door )

The perfect and low budget replacement with added target-ability saving the Services the hassle to scan through the mud of nonsense flowing in the communication traffic worldwide, the inclusion of a Trojan Boot Loader (TBL) in Network Devices.
Put it in Routers and Switches in the form of a dirty programmed self-modifying routine nobody is able to detect it.
When you hear that company XYZ or University MNO or government of BigBrotherHome has something interesting, you wake it up via a reply from a search engine, addressed by the serial number of the device.
This TrojanBootLoader then receives its orders from Gockel or any other and everybody has the fifth colonne right in his house - even paying for it himself!
ECHELON is by far too expensive!
Put a TBL into Zischko Routers and you are the listener on the net everywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038256</id>
	<title>Re:Back doors in hardware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265402580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what about surface temperature on the die while it's being fuzzed? should conform somewhat to the original layout, which would need altering to jam all kinds of fun stuff in there. Now just a little fun stuff may be harder to find...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what about surface temperature on the die while it 's being fuzzed ?
should conform somewhat to the original layout , which would need altering to jam all kinds of fun stuff in there .
Now just a little fun stuff may be harder to find.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what about surface temperature on the die while it's being fuzzed?
should conform somewhat to the original layout, which would need altering to jam all kinds of fun stuff in there.
Now just a little fun stuff may be harder to find...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544</id>
	<title>Sure...</title>
	<author>ironicsky</author>
	<datestamp>1265391060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the USB memory key (in this example) could have low level software to snoop your data, how are they going to get it? Is the USB key going to open a TCP/IP or UDP connection back to their servers without tripping my firewall that a new application is trying to connect? Is my virus scanner going to get tripped that something suspicious is coming out of the key without my interaction?</p><p>Most decent virus scanners and firewalls will pick up on this. In a lot of corporate networks USB Mass media is disabled.  I'd love to see a proof of concept that can get around these common checks... If anyone has a USB key that can do this, please let me know<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) I'll happily test it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the USB memory key ( in this example ) could have low level software to snoop your data , how are they going to get it ?
Is the USB key going to open a TCP/IP or UDP connection back to their servers without tripping my firewall that a new application is trying to connect ?
Is my virus scanner going to get tripped that something suspicious is coming out of the key without my interaction ? Most decent virus scanners and firewalls will pick up on this .
In a lot of corporate networks USB Mass media is disabled .
I 'd love to see a proof of concept that can get around these common checks... If anyone has a USB key that can do this , please let me know : - ) I 'll happily test it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the USB memory key (in this example) could have low level software to snoop your data, how are they going to get it?
Is the USB key going to open a TCP/IP or UDP connection back to their servers without tripping my firewall that a new application is trying to connect?
Is my virus scanner going to get tripped that something suspicious is coming out of the key without my interaction?Most decent virus scanners and firewalls will pick up on this.
In a lot of corporate networks USB Mass media is disabled.
I'd love to see a proof of concept that can get around these common checks... If anyone has a USB key that can do this, please let me know :-) I'll happily test it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036542</id>
	<title>Re:It really depends on who "you" are...</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1265394960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno.  It seems to me that financing your intelligence operations with illicit sale of personal information would be a lot easier and less risky than financing it through the sale of hardcore drugs.  I suppose technically either way you involve yourself with unsavory characters, but one way you never have to actually be in the same room as them...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno .
It seems to me that financing your intelligence operations with illicit sale of personal information would be a lot easier and less risky than financing it through the sale of hardcore drugs .
I suppose technically either way you involve yourself with unsavory characters , but one way you never have to actually be in the same room as them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno.
It seems to me that financing your intelligence operations with illicit sale of personal information would be a lot easier and less risky than financing it through the sale of hardcore drugs.
I suppose technically either way you involve yourself with unsavory characters, but one way you never have to actually be in the same room as them...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31041000</id>
	<title>Domestic surveillance is greater threat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265372580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No country has a more comprehensive spy program then the United States. Whatever China can do, the US can do much better in that department. I think the recent aligations against China for hacking gmail accounts is an example. If the US did this to Chinese citizens emails... China would be unlikely to know about it... let alone the email hosting company finding out about it (like Google did).</p><p>As far as having network hardware modified to include malware, Trojan, viruses, bots or whatever... the US has done and admitted as much with pride. It was used in the first Gulf War via specially infected network printers. Check it out.</p><p>Other printer companies do this without telling the public. These are commercial printers made by several US manufacturers and are widely dispersed across the world in business and residence. These printers attach "invisible" watermarks on the printed output which can later be used to identify the original and individual printer used to create that page. This is also common knowledge and you can prove it to yourself if you have one of these printers and some minor additional equipment.</p><p>I would suggest that if such "tampered" hardware is coming from China that it was more likely that China put said component in said device was because some US company or agency requested it be so.</p><p>I don't deny China is in the surveillance business (like all International trade countries). But having said this, China is not the one to worry about. Assuming you live within the US, your primary concern for illegal surveillance of your network data is the US government itself.</p><p>The current mood appears to be highly forgiving of such by their citizens. Or maybe it is the media who doesn't properly portray the real sentiment of their people. Strange.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No country has a more comprehensive spy program then the United States .
Whatever China can do , the US can do much better in that department .
I think the recent aligations against China for hacking gmail accounts is an example .
If the US did this to Chinese citizens emails... China would be unlikely to know about it... let alone the email hosting company finding out about it ( like Google did ) .As far as having network hardware modified to include malware , Trojan , viruses , bots or whatever... the US has done and admitted as much with pride .
It was used in the first Gulf War via specially infected network printers .
Check it out.Other printer companies do this without telling the public .
These are commercial printers made by several US manufacturers and are widely dispersed across the world in business and residence .
These printers attach " invisible " watermarks on the printed output which can later be used to identify the original and individual printer used to create that page .
This is also common knowledge and you can prove it to yourself if you have one of these printers and some minor additional equipment.I would suggest that if such " tampered " hardware is coming from China that it was more likely that China put said component in said device was because some US company or agency requested it be so.I do n't deny China is in the surveillance business ( like all International trade countries ) .
But having said this , China is not the one to worry about .
Assuming you live within the US , your primary concern for illegal surveillance of your network data is the US government itself.The current mood appears to be highly forgiving of such by their citizens .
Or maybe it is the media who does n't properly portray the real sentiment of their people .
Strange .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No country has a more comprehensive spy program then the United States.
Whatever China can do, the US can do much better in that department.
I think the recent aligations against China for hacking gmail accounts is an example.
If the US did this to Chinese citizens emails... China would be unlikely to know about it... let alone the email hosting company finding out about it (like Google did).As far as having network hardware modified to include malware, Trojan, viruses, bots or whatever... the US has done and admitted as much with pride.
It was used in the first Gulf War via specially infected network printers.
Check it out.Other printer companies do this without telling the public.
These are commercial printers made by several US manufacturers and are widely dispersed across the world in business and residence.
These printers attach "invisible" watermarks on the printed output which can later be used to identify the original and individual printer used to create that page.
This is also common knowledge and you can prove it to yourself if you have one of these printers and some minor additional equipment.I would suggest that if such "tampered" hardware is coming from China that it was more likely that China put said component in said device was because some US company or agency requested it be so.I don't deny China is in the surveillance business (like all International trade countries).
But having said this, China is not the one to worry about.
Assuming you live within the US, your primary concern for illegal surveillance of your network data is the US government itself.The current mood appears to be highly forgiving of such by their citizens.
Or maybe it is the media who doesn't properly portray the real sentiment of their people.
Strange.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035710</id>
	<title>What2Do?</title>
	<author>Thundercleets</author>
	<datestamp>1265391780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was more or less common knowledge that in China (as I'm sure it must be elsewhere) that if the military saw a technology it liked it would just take it.

If anyone at the factory complained they became organ doners.

If the IP owner complained they usually ran into delivery problems, workers strikes or were just kicked out.

Think of Lucent's fiber optics fiasco and the observation that most Chinese domestic router manufacturers seem to use router code that looks suspiciously like IOS.

It goes without saying that this also applied not just to things that were taken out of a factory but also to things that were brought in.

If this were a real concern which it should be, then the different governments who should be concerned about it should implement a standard where this kind of thing is checked for and those clearing it bear a seal of some type.

Considering the way the PRC is buying campaigns in the US I doubt it will happen here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was more or less common knowledge that in China ( as I 'm sure it must be elsewhere ) that if the military saw a technology it liked it would just take it .
If anyone at the factory complained they became organ doners .
If the IP owner complained they usually ran into delivery problems , workers strikes or were just kicked out .
Think of Lucent 's fiber optics fiasco and the observation that most Chinese domestic router manufacturers seem to use router code that looks suspiciously like IOS .
It goes without saying that this also applied not just to things that were taken out of a factory but also to things that were brought in .
If this were a real concern which it should be , then the different governments who should be concerned about it should implement a standard where this kind of thing is checked for and those clearing it bear a seal of some type .
Considering the way the PRC is buying campaigns in the US I doubt it will happen here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was more or less common knowledge that in China (as I'm sure it must be elsewhere) that if the military saw a technology it liked it would just take it.
If anyone at the factory complained they became organ doners.
If the IP owner complained they usually ran into delivery problems, workers strikes or were just kicked out.
Think of Lucent's fiber optics fiasco and the observation that most Chinese domestic router manufacturers seem to use router code that looks suspiciously like IOS.
It goes without saying that this also applied not just to things that were taken out of a factory but also to things that were brought in.
If this were a real concern which it should be, then the different governments who should be concerned about it should implement a standard where this kind of thing is checked for and those clearing it bear a seal of some type.
Considering the way the PRC is buying campaigns in the US I doubt it will happen here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035648</id>
	<title>As long as it is not part of ...</title>
	<author>wisnoskij</author>
	<datestamp>1265391600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can You Trust Chinese Computer Equipment?<br>
As long as it is not part of the Cruise Control.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can You Trust Chinese Computer Equipment ?
As long as it is not part of the Cruise Control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can You Trust Chinese Computer Equipment?
As long as it is not part of the Cruise Control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036040</id>
	<title>Overblown fears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265392920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMO people are worrying far too much about an exploit mechanism that is simply not needed if the Chinese want to spy on the West, or anyone else for that matter.</p><p>The problem with building backdoors into the hardware or firmware is that such backdoors are traceable.  You <i>know</i> where it was made.  The right forensics people can probably tell you the exact factory it came out of.  And how many people would buy chips from a Chinese fab once someone found a hardware backdoor inserted into a product?  The Chinese want to make money first and foremost, not shoot themselves in the foot adding a backdoor that might have a one-in-a-million shot of giving them access to a system they even cared about, but would destroy an entire industry if they were caught.  It's not worth the risk.</p><p>The smart thing to do is what they (and everyone else) are doing right now - use software exploits over the net to gain access.  The attack can be targeted, the attackers can easily hide their tracks, the attacks can be modified as needed, and you have plausible deniability if you're caught.  That's the smart way to subvert your enemies, and as long as governments and businesses keep running Windows, it's the way that they'll keep using.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMO people are worrying far too much about an exploit mechanism that is simply not needed if the Chinese want to spy on the West , or anyone else for that matter.The problem with building backdoors into the hardware or firmware is that such backdoors are traceable .
You know where it was made .
The right forensics people can probably tell you the exact factory it came out of .
And how many people would buy chips from a Chinese fab once someone found a hardware backdoor inserted into a product ?
The Chinese want to make money first and foremost , not shoot themselves in the foot adding a backdoor that might have a one-in-a-million shot of giving them access to a system they even cared about , but would destroy an entire industry if they were caught .
It 's not worth the risk.The smart thing to do is what they ( and everyone else ) are doing right now - use software exploits over the net to gain access .
The attack can be targeted , the attackers can easily hide their tracks , the attacks can be modified as needed , and you have plausible deniability if you 're caught .
That 's the smart way to subvert your enemies , and as long as governments and businesses keep running Windows , it 's the way that they 'll keep using .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMO people are worrying far too much about an exploit mechanism that is simply not needed if the Chinese want to spy on the West, or anyone else for that matter.The problem with building backdoors into the hardware or firmware is that such backdoors are traceable.
You know where it was made.
The right forensics people can probably tell you the exact factory it came out of.
And how many people would buy chips from a Chinese fab once someone found a hardware backdoor inserted into a product?
The Chinese want to make money first and foremost, not shoot themselves in the foot adding a backdoor that might have a one-in-a-million shot of giving them access to a system they even cared about, but would destroy an entire industry if they were caught.
It's not worth the risk.The smart thing to do is what they (and everyone else) are doing right now - use software exploits over the net to gain access.
The attack can be targeted, the attackers can easily hide their tracks, the attacks can be modified as needed, and you have plausible deniability if you're caught.
That's the smart way to subvert your enemies, and as long as governments and businesses keep running Windows, it's the way that they'll keep using.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036522</id>
	<title>I'll just start buying American mobos</title>
	<author>CranberryKing</author>
	<datestamp>1265394900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>..oh wait. There are none.<p> Now if you dump Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, Soyo, hmm.. I guess Intel "makes" motherboards, but look closely at all the components on there and I don't think there would be an industry without China (and Taiwan).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..oh wait .
There are none .
Now if you dump Asus , Gigabyte , MSI , Soyo , hmm.. I guess Intel " makes " motherboards , but look closely at all the components on there and I do n't think there would be an industry without China ( and Taiwan ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..oh wait.
There are none.
Now if you dump Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, Soyo, hmm.. I guess Intel "makes" motherboards, but look closely at all the components on there and I don't think there would be an industry without China (and Taiwan).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31040842</id>
	<title>Re:NSA</title>
	<author>Phrogman</author>
	<datestamp>1265371560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you trust the NSA to not simply forward all the commercially viable information to a corporation, if it serves their interests?<br>They have apparently used sigint to aid US corporations in the past, whats to stop them now.<br>I feel  no guarantee that the NSA is going to be any more careful about using personal information than the Chinese will be. I am opposed to both of them knowing my personal details. Really the only defense I have is the fact that I am undoubtedly of little interest to either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you trust the NSA to not simply forward all the commercially viable information to a corporation , if it serves their interests ? They have apparently used sigint to aid US corporations in the past , whats to stop them now.I feel no guarantee that the NSA is going to be any more careful about using personal information than the Chinese will be .
I am opposed to both of them knowing my personal details .
Really the only defense I have is the fact that I am undoubtedly of little interest to either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you trust the NSA to not simply forward all the commercially viable information to a corporation, if it serves their interests?They have apparently used sigint to aid US corporations in the past, whats to stop them now.I feel  no guarantee that the NSA is going to be any more careful about using personal information than the Chinese will be.
I am opposed to both of them knowing my personal details.
Really the only defense I have is the fact that I am undoubtedly of little interest to either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037190</id>
	<title>There is no comparison!</title>
	<author>Remus Shepherd</author>
	<datestamp>1265397900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm amazed at the number of responses saying, 'Well, the US spies on its citizens too.'</p><p>Folks, there are laws in the US that restrict surveillance of US citizens.  They are allowed to collect aggregate data, and they have far-reaching powers when a subpoena exists due to suspected crime or terrorism.  But just spying on regular citizens as a normal function of government -- that should never happen in the US.</p><p>I say 'should' because it's possible it does happen in some black project somewhere.  But I guarantee you it's much, much smaller and more benevolent than how China spies on its citizens.</p><p>If you're comparing Big Brothers, the US one has one eye closed and only sneaks a peek when the cops aren't watching.  The Chinese practically live in a panopticon; their government probably keeps track of what color underwear they have on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm amazed at the number of responses saying , 'Well , the US spies on its citizens too .
'Folks , there are laws in the US that restrict surveillance of US citizens .
They are allowed to collect aggregate data , and they have far-reaching powers when a subpoena exists due to suspected crime or terrorism .
But just spying on regular citizens as a normal function of government -- that should never happen in the US.I say 'should ' because it 's possible it does happen in some black project somewhere .
But I guarantee you it 's much , much smaller and more benevolent than how China spies on its citizens.If you 're comparing Big Brothers , the US one has one eye closed and only sneaks a peek when the cops are n't watching .
The Chinese practically live in a panopticon ; their government probably keeps track of what color underwear they have on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm amazed at the number of responses saying, 'Well, the US spies on its citizens too.
'Folks, there are laws in the US that restrict surveillance of US citizens.
They are allowed to collect aggregate data, and they have far-reaching powers when a subpoena exists due to suspected crime or terrorism.
But just spying on regular citizens as a normal function of government -- that should never happen in the US.I say 'should' because it's possible it does happen in some black project somewhere.
But I guarantee you it's much, much smaller and more benevolent than how China spies on its citizens.If you're comparing Big Brothers, the US one has one eye closed and only sneaks a peek when the cops aren't watching.
The Chinese practically live in a panopticon; their government probably keeps track of what color underwear they have on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036344</id>
	<title>Re:Programmers vs. Users</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265394240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sadly, the way people are wired only a very few are going to be Programmers.</p></div><p>Complete nonsense. Being a good programmer/coder has nothing to do with the way people are "wired".</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The rest simply do not have the skills or the mental faculties.</p></div><p>Uh huh. You really think highly of yourself don't you? I've been coding for more then 20 years and have run into/worked with many people where this is completely untrue.</p><p>You'd think by now we'd have gotten past the, "us coderz are leet and we rule over lamerz" attitudes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , the way people are wired only a very few are going to be Programmers.Complete nonsense .
Being a good programmer/coder has nothing to do with the way people are " wired " .The rest simply do not have the skills or the mental faculties.Uh huh .
You really think highly of yourself do n't you ?
I 've been coding for more then 20 years and have run into/worked with many people where this is completely untrue.You 'd think by now we 'd have gotten past the , " us coderz are leet and we rule over lamerz " attitudes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, the way people are wired only a very few are going to be Programmers.Complete nonsense.
Being a good programmer/coder has nothing to do with the way people are "wired".The rest simply do not have the skills or the mental faculties.Uh huh.
You really think highly of yourself don't you?
I've been coding for more then 20 years and have run into/worked with many people where this is completely untrue.You'd think by now we'd have gotten past the, "us coderz are leet and we rule over lamerz" attitudes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31039552</id>
	<title>Makes you wonder..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265365080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. if God is a communist, after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. if God is a communist , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. if God is a communist, after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035966</id>
	<title>Back doors in hardware</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1265392680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
DoD is really worried about this. They're trying to develop ways to efficiently examine ICs to check for unexpected "features".  Right now, it's necessary to open up the IC and put it under a scanning electron microscope, then use software that can extract the logic diagram from the scan.
</p><p>
One of the obvious places to put in a "back door" is in Ethernet controllers.  Many used in servers already have logic for hardware "remote administration" (turn machine off, reboot, load code, etc.). It is supposed to be disabled by default, and work only when initialized with keys during hardware installation.  Just build a set of default remote administration keys into the chip, and everyone using that chip is 0wned.  Send the right UDP packets, and you can take over the machine.  This would be completely invisible until activated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DoD is really worried about this .
They 're trying to develop ways to efficiently examine ICs to check for unexpected " features " .
Right now , it 's necessary to open up the IC and put it under a scanning electron microscope , then use software that can extract the logic diagram from the scan .
One of the obvious places to put in a " back door " is in Ethernet controllers .
Many used in servers already have logic for hardware " remote administration " ( turn machine off , reboot , load code , etc. ) .
It is supposed to be disabled by default , and work only when initialized with keys during hardware installation .
Just build a set of default remote administration keys into the chip , and everyone using that chip is 0wned .
Send the right UDP packets , and you can take over the machine .
This would be completely invisible until activated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
DoD is really worried about this.
They're trying to develop ways to efficiently examine ICs to check for unexpected "features".
Right now, it's necessary to open up the IC and put it under a scanning electron microscope, then use software that can extract the logic diagram from the scan.
One of the obvious places to put in a "back door" is in Ethernet controllers.
Many used in servers already have logic for hardware "remote administration" (turn machine off, reboot, load code, etc.).
It is supposed to be disabled by default, and work only when initialized with keys during hardware installation.
Just build a set of default remote administration keys into the chip, and everyone using that chip is 0wned.
Send the right UDP packets, and you can take over the machine.
This would be completely invisible until activated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31040958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31040020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31043938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31047324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31039192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31041422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31041086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31040088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31054162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31041686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31040842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31053450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_1548226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31045468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1548226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1548226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1548226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31040842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1548226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31044782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1548226.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31040088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31039192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31054162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1548226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31047324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31040020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1548226.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1548226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1548226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1548226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31041086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1548226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1548226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31041686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31041422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1548226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31045468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31038256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1548226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1548226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1548226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_1548226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31040958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31043938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31053450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31036672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31037130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_1548226.31035900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
