<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_11_1822225</id>
	<title>Feds Push For Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265913420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"An article at CNET is reporting on the Obama administration's <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578\_3-10451518-38.html">push for warrantless tracking of the location of cell phones</a> (Verizon Wireless stores location data for one year, for instance). The Justice Department says no warrant is necessary: 'Because wireless carriers regularly generate and retain the records at issue, and because these records provide only a very general indication of a user's whereabouts at certain times in the past, the requested cell-site records do not implicate a Fourth Amendment privacy interest.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " An article at CNET is reporting on the Obama administration 's push for warrantless tracking of the location of cell phones ( Verizon Wireless stores location data for one year , for instance ) .
The Justice Department says no warrant is necessary : 'Because wireless carriers regularly generate and retain the records at issue , and because these records provide only a very general indication of a user 's whereabouts at certain times in the past , the requested cell-site records do not implicate a Fourth Amendment privacy interest .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "An article at CNET is reporting on the Obama administration's push for warrantless tracking of the location of cell phones (Verizon Wireless stores location data for one year, for instance).
The Justice Department says no warrant is necessary: 'Because wireless carriers regularly generate and retain the records at issue, and because these records provide only a very general indication of a user's whereabouts at certain times in the past, the requested cell-site records do not implicate a Fourth Amendment privacy interest.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103936</id>
	<title>Interesting Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265878980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's say they were able to exclude your residence; maybe the tower(s) nearest thereto.</p><p>Wouldn't your location be "in public" and thus you would have no reasonable expectation of privacy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say they were able to exclude your residence ; maybe the tower ( s ) nearest thereto.Would n't your location be " in public " and thus you would have no reasonable expectation of privacy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say they were able to exclude your residence; maybe the tower(s) nearest thereto.Wouldn't your location be "in public" and thus you would have no reasonable expectation of privacy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105514</id>
	<title>Re:Obama must first guarantee no abuse</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1265885100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Along with his defense of Bush wiretapping, it sure looks like we got the hope and change we were promised, eh?<br></i></p><p>Wait, somebody believed a politician?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:palm to forehead:</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Along with his defense of Bush wiretapping , it sure looks like we got the hope and change we were promised , eh ? Wait , somebody believed a politician ?
: palm to forehead :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Along with his defense of Bush wiretapping, it sure looks like we got the hope and change we were promised, eh?Wait, somebody believed a politician?
:palm to forehead:</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102532</id>
	<title>The more things "Change"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the more they stay the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the more they stay the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the more they stay the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104362</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1265880780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Carriers already hand over call history without a warrant, as do credit card companies, banks, and more.  The courts even rules that placing a tracking device on someone was technically NO DIFFERENT than an officer following them, and was thus considered completely acceptable.</p><p>Who you associate with, and where you go are PUBLIC INFORMATION.  What you say or do (out of earshot and eyesight) is all that's private.</p><p>This does not mean there is not a requirement for DUE PROCESS, and does not mean that if you;re searched WITHOUT CAUSE, that you can't sue, it simply means they don't have to get a warrant to get simple, otherwise considered available to a perusing officer, information.</p><p>Further, this access COSTS MONEY, PER TRANSACTION.  A cop who pulls your history, for a time period, is going to have to backfill that to an active investigation and case number, otherwise they'll get in depp shit with the department, possibly get fired, and if you find out, you sue.</p><p>DUE PROCESS is simply a lesser level of a warrant.  All a warrant is really is a 3rd party validation of due process.</p><p>A cop with probable cause can search your car, and there's nothing you can do about it.  Refuse and they simply impound, do the paperwork, and search anyway, then give you a nasty bill for the trouble in addition to punishment for anything they find.  Even if the find nothing, and let you go, you STILL have to pay the impound fee in most states, and you can not sue as probable cause rules in public.  However, get pulled over for no reason, the cop logs no ticket or you have witnesses proving no wrongdoing, and he searches anyway?  he's busted.</p><p>they can't search your house, they can't TAP you line and record calls, but they CAN know where and when you were.  That is NOT private, and NOT protected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Carriers already hand over call history without a warrant , as do credit card companies , banks , and more .
The courts even rules that placing a tracking device on someone was technically NO DIFFERENT than an officer following them , and was thus considered completely acceptable.Who you associate with , and where you go are PUBLIC INFORMATION .
What you say or do ( out of earshot and eyesight ) is all that 's private.This does not mean there is not a requirement for DUE PROCESS , and does not mean that if you ; re searched WITHOUT CAUSE , that you ca n't sue , it simply means they do n't have to get a warrant to get simple , otherwise considered available to a perusing officer , information.Further , this access COSTS MONEY , PER TRANSACTION .
A cop who pulls your history , for a time period , is going to have to backfill that to an active investigation and case number , otherwise they 'll get in depp shit with the department , possibly get fired , and if you find out , you sue.DUE PROCESS is simply a lesser level of a warrant .
All a warrant is really is a 3rd party validation of due process.A cop with probable cause can search your car , and there 's nothing you can do about it .
Refuse and they simply impound , do the paperwork , and search anyway , then give you a nasty bill for the trouble in addition to punishment for anything they find .
Even if the find nothing , and let you go , you STILL have to pay the impound fee in most states , and you can not sue as probable cause rules in public .
However , get pulled over for no reason , the cop logs no ticket or you have witnesses proving no wrongdoing , and he searches anyway ?
he 's busted.they ca n't search your house , they ca n't TAP you line and record calls , but they CAN know where and when you were .
That is NOT private , and NOT protected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carriers already hand over call history without a warrant, as do credit card companies, banks, and more.
The courts even rules that placing a tracking device on someone was technically NO DIFFERENT than an officer following them, and was thus considered completely acceptable.Who you associate with, and where you go are PUBLIC INFORMATION.
What you say or do (out of earshot and eyesight) is all that's private.This does not mean there is not a requirement for DUE PROCESS, and does not mean that if you;re searched WITHOUT CAUSE, that you can't sue, it simply means they don't have to get a warrant to get simple, otherwise considered available to a perusing officer, information.Further, this access COSTS MONEY, PER TRANSACTION.
A cop who pulls your history, for a time period, is going to have to backfill that to an active investigation and case number, otherwise they'll get in depp shit with the department, possibly get fired, and if you find out, you sue.DUE PROCESS is simply a lesser level of a warrant.
All a warrant is really is a 3rd party validation of due process.A cop with probable cause can search your car, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Refuse and they simply impound, do the paperwork, and search anyway, then give you a nasty bill for the trouble in addition to punishment for anything they find.
Even if the find nothing, and let you go, you STILL have to pay the impound fee in most states, and you can not sue as probable cause rules in public.
However, get pulled over for no reason, the cop logs no ticket or you have witnesses proving no wrongdoing, and he searches anyway?
he's busted.they can't search your house, they can't TAP you line and record calls, but they CAN know where and when you were.
That is NOT private, and NOT protected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104404</id>
	<title>Re:Cell phone tower data</title>
	<author>Nukenbar</author>
	<datestamp>1265880900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure they are just talking about cell phone tower data.  For most carriers in the US anyway, that tower data is only stored when you make or receive a call.</p><p>I'm not sure how I feel about this.  I don't think this is 4th Amendment violation because your phone is telling the cell phone company where you are, and then the company is telling the government.  If I told my friend Bob where I was and he told the government, should I be mad?  Maybe at Bob, but I think I lost my privacy concern when I told him.  I think more people should be upset at the cell phone carriers for keeping this information for so long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure they are just talking about cell phone tower data .
For most carriers in the US anyway , that tower data is only stored when you make or receive a call.I 'm not sure how I feel about this .
I do n't think this is 4th Amendment violation because your phone is telling the cell phone company where you are , and then the company is telling the government .
If I told my friend Bob where I was and he told the government , should I be mad ?
Maybe at Bob , but I think I lost my privacy concern when I told him .
I think more people should be upset at the cell phone carriers for keeping this information for so long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure they are just talking about cell phone tower data.
For most carriers in the US anyway, that tower data is only stored when you make or receive a call.I'm not sure how I feel about this.
I don't think this is 4th Amendment violation because your phone is telling the cell phone company where you are, and then the company is telling the government.
If I told my friend Bob where I was and he told the government, should I be mad?
Maybe at Bob, but I think I lost my privacy concern when I told him.
I think more people should be upset at the cell phone carriers for keeping this information for so long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103232</id>
	<title>I do not have a cell phone...</title>
	<author>dwiget001</author>
	<datestamp>1265919540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and I never will.</p><p>Reason: I have quite a bit of training in radio and satellite communications, radio frequency radiation and the like.</p><p>I know what such radiation does to a body, short and long term.</p><p>As a result, I have an aversion to carrying a transmitter on my person.</p><p>And, it looks like, as an added bonus, "someones" will not be able to track me (or attempt to do so) by my non-existent cell phone.</p><p>Note: In an emergency, there are probably 20 people in a four square block area with cell phones (if not more).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and I never will.Reason : I have quite a bit of training in radio and satellite communications , radio frequency radiation and the like.I know what such radiation does to a body , short and long term.As a result , I have an aversion to carrying a transmitter on my person.And , it looks like , as an added bonus , " someones " will not be able to track me ( or attempt to do so ) by my non-existent cell phone.Note : In an emergency , there are probably 20 people in a four square block area with cell phones ( if not more ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and I never will.Reason: I have quite a bit of training in radio and satellite communications, radio frequency radiation and the like.I know what such radiation does to a body, short and long term.As a result, I have an aversion to carrying a transmitter on my person.And, it looks like, as an added bonus, "someones" will not be able to track me (or attempt to do so) by my non-existent cell phone.Note: In an emergency, there are probably 20 people in a four square block area with cell phones (if not more).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103508</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>unix1</author>
	<datestamp>1265920620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What about the spirit of the 4th amendment?  Sure, it <b>may</b> not violate the amendment as it's worded, but was that the intent of it when it was put in?</p></div><p>But it DOES violate. From their own argument:</p><p>"a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records"</p><p>Just because there's a 3rd party (phone company) involved doesn't mean 4th amendment goes out the window. The 4th amendment doesn't have an asterisk that says "(*) doesn't apply when facilitated by a 3rd party." The right is there to protect people from government's abuse of power. The issue is what the government can and cannot do, regardless of whether they are able to hire/convince a 3rd party to do it for them.</p><p>In fact, if the above argument stands as is, we can freely plug in other variables in that statement:</p><p>a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when:</p><p>- phone company reveals to the government its own customer call detail records<br>- hotels reveal to the government their guest check-in/out records<br>- credit card companies reveal to the government their customer purchase records<br>- libraries reveal to the government their book lending records<br>- dry cleaners reveal to the government their customer records<br>- etc.</p><p>Where does it stop? And all this without a warrant or a probable cause? How does it not violate?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the spirit of the 4th amendment ?
Sure , it may not violate the amendment as it 's worded , but was that the intent of it when it was put in ? But it DOES violate .
From their own argument : " a customer 's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records " Just because there 's a 3rd party ( phone company ) involved does n't mean 4th amendment goes out the window .
The 4th amendment does n't have an asterisk that says " ( * ) does n't apply when facilitated by a 3rd party .
" The right is there to protect people from government 's abuse of power .
The issue is what the government can and can not do , regardless of whether they are able to hire/convince a 3rd party to do it for them.In fact , if the above argument stands as is , we can freely plug in other variables in that statement : a customer 's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when : - phone company reveals to the government its own customer call detail records- hotels reveal to the government their guest check-in/out records- credit card companies reveal to the government their customer purchase records- libraries reveal to the government their book lending records- dry cleaners reveal to the government their customer records- etc.Where does it stop ?
And all this without a warrant or a probable cause ?
How does it not violate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the spirit of the 4th amendment?
Sure, it may not violate the amendment as it's worded, but was that the intent of it when it was put in?But it DOES violate.
From their own argument:"a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records"Just because there's a 3rd party (phone company) involved doesn't mean 4th amendment goes out the window.
The 4th amendment doesn't have an asterisk that says "(*) doesn't apply when facilitated by a 3rd party.
" The right is there to protect people from government's abuse of power.
The issue is what the government can and cannot do, regardless of whether they are able to hire/convince a 3rd party to do it for them.In fact, if the above argument stands as is, we can freely plug in other variables in that statement:a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when:- phone company reveals to the government its own customer call detail records- hotels reveal to the government their guest check-in/out records- credit card companies reveal to the government their customer purchase records- libraries reveal to the government their book lending records- dry cleaners reveal to the government their customer records- etc.Where does it stop?
And all this without a warrant or a probable cause?
How does it not violate?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31107136</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1265891640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more you pay attention to the party game, the more crap they get to float by you because "your guy" did it.  It's a beautiful con that no less a person than George Washington warned us about.  Good job listening, fools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more you pay attention to the party game , the more crap they get to float by you because " your guy " did it .
It 's a beautiful con that no less a person than George Washington warned us about .
Good job listening , fools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more you pay attention to the party game, the more crap they get to float by you because "your guy" did it.
It's a beautiful con that no less a person than George Washington warned us about.
Good job listening, fools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106980</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>JesseMcDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1265891040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact, I think that such a convention should be mandatory about every 50 years and there should be very clear rules that each iteration must always err in favor of the rights of the people and never increase the power of government.</p></div><p>One way to accomplish this would be to require the government to abide by <em>every</em> version of the Constitution (incl. amendments), not just the latest version. Any action which is any version of the Constitution does not permit would thus be unconstitutional. In this way no amendment or Convention could grant the government additional powers.</p><p>There's still the issue of loose interpretation, unfortunately. That's where the original Constitution mostly went wrong&mdash;they seem to have assumed that their successors would share their ideals, or at least refrain from deliberately twisting their words. In retrospect that was a very poor assumption.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , I think that such a convention should be mandatory about every 50 years and there should be very clear rules that each iteration must always err in favor of the rights of the people and never increase the power of government.One way to accomplish this would be to require the government to abide by every version of the Constitution ( incl .
amendments ) , not just the latest version .
Any action which is any version of the Constitution does not permit would thus be unconstitutional .
In this way no amendment or Convention could grant the government additional powers.There 's still the issue of loose interpretation , unfortunately .
That 's where the original Constitution mostly went wrong    they seem to have assumed that their successors would share their ideals , or at least refrain from deliberately twisting their words .
In retrospect that was a very poor assumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, I think that such a convention should be mandatory about every 50 years and there should be very clear rules that each iteration must always err in favor of the rights of the people and never increase the power of government.One way to accomplish this would be to require the government to abide by every version of the Constitution (incl.
amendments), not just the latest version.
Any action which is any version of the Constitution does not permit would thus be unconstitutional.
In this way no amendment or Convention could grant the government additional powers.There's still the issue of loose interpretation, unfortunately.
That's where the original Constitution mostly went wrong—they seem to have assumed that their successors would share their ideals, or at least refrain from deliberately twisting their words.
In retrospect that was a very poor assumption.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104132</id>
	<title>You know... I'm okay with that... Feds first!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265879760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ie - if they want to do it, make it publicly available, on a nice, oh I don't know, google earth map.</p><p>First people on the plot, as a test to make sure it works, all politicians and federal employees - up to and including the president, and all FBI/CIA/NSA agents.</p><p>Oh.. that's a problem?   Need their privacy to protect security?   No shit?  Really?  So do WE!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ie - if they want to do it , make it publicly available , on a nice , oh I do n't know , google earth map.First people on the plot , as a test to make sure it works , all politicians and federal employees - up to and including the president , and all FBI/CIA/NSA agents.Oh.. that 's a problem ?
Need their privacy to protect security ?
No shit ?
Really ? So do WE ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ie - if they want to do it, make it publicly available, on a nice, oh I don't know, google earth map.First people on the plot, as a test to make sure it works, all politicians and federal employees - up to and including the president, and all FBI/CIA/NSA agents.Oh.. that's a problem?
Need their privacy to protect security?
No shit?
Really?  So do WE!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104918</id>
	<title>Re:Obama must first guarantee no abuse</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1265883000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a late lunch so I'm in a serious lunch coma, I'm too out of it to write a smart ass comment that goes on to describe warrants in a round about way.<br>Basically that scene in Family Guy, where the Judge wants to remove peter from society for a predetermined amount of time, blah blah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a late lunch so I 'm in a serious lunch coma , I 'm too out of it to write a smart ass comment that goes on to describe warrants in a round about way.Basically that scene in Family Guy , where the Judge wants to remove peter from society for a predetermined amount of time , blah blah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a late lunch so I'm in a serious lunch coma, I'm too out of it to write a smart ass comment that goes on to describe warrants in a round about way.Basically that scene in Family Guy, where the Judge wants to remove peter from society for a predetermined amount of time, blah blah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106248</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265887920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not as USian</p></div><p>Clearly, or you wouldn't use such a retarded word that no one in the North or South American continents actually uses because they don't care one whit about the nomenclature and usage of the word "American".  I stopped reading right there.</p></div><p>So because you don't use the same terminology as someone within Northern, Southern and Central America your opinion is null and void?</p><p>I guess i should stop listening to Australians because they call me a Limey. No one in Britain uses that term.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not as USianClearly , or you would n't use such a retarded word that no one in the North or South American continents actually uses because they do n't care one whit about the nomenclature and usage of the word " American " .
I stopped reading right there.So because you do n't use the same terminology as someone within Northern , Southern and Central America your opinion is null and void ? I guess i should stop listening to Australians because they call me a Limey .
No one in Britain uses that term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not as USianClearly, or you wouldn't use such a retarded word that no one in the North or South American continents actually uses because they don't care one whit about the nomenclature and usage of the word "American".
I stopped reading right there.So because you don't use the same terminology as someone within Northern, Southern and Central America your opinion is null and void?I guess i should stop listening to Australians because they call me a Limey.
No one in Britain uses that term.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105800</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265886060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not as USian</p></div><p>Clearly, or you wouldn't use such a retarded word that no one in the North or South American continents actually uses because they don't care one whit about the nomenclature and usage of the word "American".  I stopped reading right there.</p></div><p>What? I prefer the word Americese. Mainly because it describes my ethnic background as well as my language!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not as USianClearly , or you would n't use such a retarded word that no one in the North or South American continents actually uses because they do n't care one whit about the nomenclature and usage of the word " American " .
I stopped reading right there.What ?
I prefer the word Americese .
Mainly because it describes my ethnic background as well as my language !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not as USianClearly, or you wouldn't use such a retarded word that no one in the North or South American continents actually uses because they don't care one whit about the nomenclature and usage of the word "American".
I stopped reading right there.What?
I prefer the word Americese.
Mainly because it describes my ethnic background as well as my language!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31111672</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265982300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this modded +5 insightful? I know most slashdot readers are Americans (I am too), but this was a very angry reply. Love the American-centric view of the world always..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this modded + 5 insightful ?
I know most slashdot readers are Americans ( I am too ) , but this was a very angry reply .
Love the American-centric view of the world always. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this modded +5 insightful?
I know most slashdot readers are Americans (I am too), but this was a very angry reply.
Love the American-centric view of the world always..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102722</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>teeloo</author>
	<datestamp>1265917860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...or at least switch the phone off for god's sake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...or at least switch the phone off for god 's sake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or at least switch the phone off for god's sake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104142</id>
	<title>Fourth Amendment Litmus Test</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1265879820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the privacy provisions of the 4th Amendment don't apply to some records, then nobody should have any objections to allowing Verizon (or other operators) to sell this data on the open market. To anyone.
</p><p>We went down this path at one time with telephone call records. The telcos claimed that these were their property and that making records of calls (source, destination, and time, not content) didn't constitute eavsdropping or compromise customers privacy. Law enforcement loved this. Until it bacame clear that the telcos were selling these records to (overseas) firms that did link analysis and other assorted data mining. Traffic analysis based upon this kind of data is valuable to marketers in that it can identify people with similar interests, who engage in similar activities or work for the same employers. When our intelligence agencies discovered that exposing a single CIA employee (for example) could reveal the identities of hundreds of others using such analysis, they shit bricks.
</p><p>So, if law enforcement believes that location data isn't private, then they'll be OK with wireless operators handing it over to anyone. I'm sure there are a number of groups who would like to have a list of cellphones that apear from time to time in Langley, VA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the privacy provisions of the 4th Amendment do n't apply to some records , then nobody should have any objections to allowing Verizon ( or other operators ) to sell this data on the open market .
To anyone .
We went down this path at one time with telephone call records .
The telcos claimed that these were their property and that making records of calls ( source , destination , and time , not content ) did n't constitute eavsdropping or compromise customers privacy .
Law enforcement loved this .
Until it bacame clear that the telcos were selling these records to ( overseas ) firms that did link analysis and other assorted data mining .
Traffic analysis based upon this kind of data is valuable to marketers in that it can identify people with similar interests , who engage in similar activities or work for the same employers .
When our intelligence agencies discovered that exposing a single CIA employee ( for example ) could reveal the identities of hundreds of others using such analysis , they shit bricks .
So , if law enforcement believes that location data is n't private , then they 'll be OK with wireless operators handing it over to anyone .
I 'm sure there are a number of groups who would like to have a list of cellphones that apear from time to time in Langley , VA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the privacy provisions of the 4th Amendment don't apply to some records, then nobody should have any objections to allowing Verizon (or other operators) to sell this data on the open market.
To anyone.
We went down this path at one time with telephone call records.
The telcos claimed that these were their property and that making records of calls (source, destination, and time, not content) didn't constitute eavsdropping or compromise customers privacy.
Law enforcement loved this.
Until it bacame clear that the telcos were selling these records to (overseas) firms that did link analysis and other assorted data mining.
Traffic analysis based upon this kind of data is valuable to marketers in that it can identify people with similar interests, who engage in similar activities or work for the same employers.
When our intelligence agencies discovered that exposing a single CIA employee (for example) could reveal the identities of hundreds of others using such analysis, they shit bricks.
So, if law enforcement believes that location data isn't private, then they'll be OK with wireless operators handing it over to anyone.
I'm sure there are a number of groups who would like to have a list of cellphones that apear from time to time in Langley, VA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105556</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265885220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And in any case, people further away usually call people in the US "Yankees"... I suspect OP is not from Earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And in any case , people further away usually call people in the US " Yankees " ... I suspect OP is not from Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in any case, people further away usually call people in the US "Yankees"... I suspect OP is not from Earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102650</id>
	<title>Re:What happened to warrants?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And why do you think they are keeping that data? Could it be because the Justice Department made an unofficial request to do so? The claim that Verizon just happens to be keeping the data around so it should be fair game, sounds awfully suspicious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And why do you think they are keeping that data ?
Could it be because the Justice Department made an unofficial request to do so ?
The claim that Verizon just happens to be keeping the data around so it should be fair game , sounds awfully suspicious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why do you think they are keeping that data?
Could it be because the Justice Department made an unofficial request to do so?
The claim that Verizon just happens to be keeping the data around so it should be fair game, sounds awfully suspicious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103592</id>
	<title>Re:Is this GPS, or Tower data?</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1265920920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>i bet there are ALOT of phones where that isn't an option - and ALOT more phones where people have no idea it is even in there.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Not to be the grammar/spelling police, but since you used it twice - IN ALL CAPS - please, Please, PLEASE be advised that "a lot" is two fucking words.
</p><p>Good job on the the rest of your post though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i bet there are ALOT of phones where that is n't an option - and ALOT more phones where people have no idea it is even in there .
Not to be the grammar/spelling police , but since you used it twice - IN ALL CAPS - please , Please , PLEASE be advised that " a lot " is two fucking words .
Good job on the the rest of your post though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i bet there are ALOT of phones where that isn't an option - and ALOT more phones where people have no idea it is even in there.
Not to be the grammar/spelling police, but since you used it twice - IN ALL CAPS - please, Please, PLEASE be advised that "a lot" is two fucking words.
Good job on the the rest of your post though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102504</id>
	<title>hope and change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still glad you voted for Obama, fucknuts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still glad you voted for Obama , fucknuts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still glad you voted for Obama, fucknuts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104524</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1265881440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What we need to do is to call a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the thing with a clearer and MUCH expanded Bill of Rights.</p></div><p>Oh HELL no. I can tell you what that leads to: the abomination that is the EU constitution. About 200 pages in small print.</p><p>No, No, and No.</p><p>I love the US Constitution because it is short and specific. Everyone can read it over a lunch break. It covers broad areas and puts lower (or upper) limits on what can be implemented, but doesn't spell out the legalistic details. Please don't touch it. There are a few issues with it, but nothing that requires a wholesale rewrite. And for the record - the issues I refer to are not the second amendment, but much more so the Bill of Rights, because suddenly people think that those are all the rights there are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What we need to do is to call a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the thing with a clearer and MUCH expanded Bill of Rights.Oh HELL no .
I can tell you what that leads to : the abomination that is the EU constitution .
About 200 pages in small print.No , No , and No.I love the US Constitution because it is short and specific .
Everyone can read it over a lunch break .
It covers broad areas and puts lower ( or upper ) limits on what can be implemented , but does n't spell out the legalistic details .
Please do n't touch it .
There are a few issues with it , but nothing that requires a wholesale rewrite .
And for the record - the issues I refer to are not the second amendment , but much more so the Bill of Rights , because suddenly people think that those are all the rights there are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we need to do is to call a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the thing with a clearer and MUCH expanded Bill of Rights.Oh HELL no.
I can tell you what that leads to: the abomination that is the EU constitution.
About 200 pages in small print.No, No, and No.I love the US Constitution because it is short and specific.
Everyone can read it over a lunch break.
It covers broad areas and puts lower (or upper) limits on what can be implemented, but doesn't spell out the legalistic details.
Please don't touch it.
There are a few issues with it, but nothing that requires a wholesale rewrite.
And for the record - the issues I refer to are not the second amendment, but much more so the Bill of Rights, because suddenly people think that those are all the rights there are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31109368</id>
	<title>The real thing here is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265907840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... that warrantless means that anyone can do it. Think insurance companies, you own company, you "potential" future employer... Your competitor, your girlfriend ex-lover... etc...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... that warrantless means that anyone can do it .
Think insurance companies , you own company , you " potential " future employer... Your competitor , your girlfriend ex-lover... etc.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that warrantless means that anyone can do it.
Think insurance companies, you own company, you "potential" future employer... Your competitor, your girlfriend ex-lover... etc...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106852</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1265890500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If you don't want anyone to know where you are, you shouldn't go there."</p><p>If you don't want anyone to know where you are, manipulate what they "know" about you by playing with what they track. Their comfort in default reliance on technology can be a dandy weapon against them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you do n't want anyone to know where you are , you should n't go there .
" If you do n't want anyone to know where you are , manipulate what they " know " about you by playing with what they track .
Their comfort in default reliance on technology can be a dandy weapon against them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you don't want anyone to know where you are, you shouldn't go there.
"If you don't want anyone to know where you are, manipulate what they "know" about you by playing with what they track.
Their comfort in default reliance on technology can be a dandy weapon against them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102856</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265918280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? After Guantanomo? A prison camp established in blatant violation of the spirit of the constitution, that is regularly defended as being O.K. because it's not in violation of the letter?<br>Sorry, I don't see that happening anytime soon. You Americans are screwed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
After Guantanomo ?
A prison camp established in blatant violation of the spirit of the constitution , that is regularly defended as being O.K .
because it 's not in violation of the letter ? Sorry , I do n't see that happening anytime soon .
You Americans are screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
After Guantanomo?
A prison camp established in blatant violation of the spirit of the constitution, that is regularly defended as being O.K.
because it's not in violation of the letter?Sorry, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
You Americans are screwed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104670</id>
	<title>I must confesss...</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1265881980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...that I underestimated (by a bunch) the speed at which "our" government has gone about dismantling The Constitution and The Bill of Rights since outlining the process in the "Patriot Act". While the Patriot Act was bad, and while I knew it was a sign of things to come, I really rather expected it to take a generation or two for people to get used to the ass-raping being given to their civil rights in the name of security. That this suggestion isn't being greeted, in every quarter, with torches and pitchforks is deeply troubling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...that I underestimated ( by a bunch ) the speed at which " our " government has gone about dismantling The Constitution and The Bill of Rights since outlining the process in the " Patriot Act " .
While the Patriot Act was bad , and while I knew it was a sign of things to come , I really rather expected it to take a generation or two for people to get used to the ass-raping being given to their civil rights in the name of security .
That this suggestion is n't being greeted , in every quarter , with torches and pitchforks is deeply troubling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that I underestimated (by a bunch) the speed at which "our" government has gone about dismantling The Constitution and The Bill of Rights since outlining the process in the "Patriot Act".
While the Patriot Act was bad, and while I knew it was a sign of things to come, I really rather expected it to take a generation or two for people to get used to the ass-raping being given to their civil rights in the name of security.
That this suggestion isn't being greeted, in every quarter, with torches and pitchforks is deeply troubling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104624</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1265881800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This data helps cops, who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE, </p></div><p>Then what is the problem with getting a warrant?  The threshold for a warrant only requires probable cause.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This data helps cops , who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE , Then what is the problem with getting a warrant ?
The threshold for a warrant only requires probable cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This data helps cops, who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE, Then what is the problem with getting a warrant?
The threshold for a warrant only requires probable cause.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104330</id>
	<title>Re:Obama must first guarantee no abuse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265880600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why you moved to Canada too, eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why you moved to Canada too , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why you moved to Canada too, eh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102760</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>ComputerGeek01</author>
	<datestamp>1265917980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree, isn't the warrent at least supposed to be served to the wireless carrier? They are not the government, you would think of all the things that big business butts heads with the Obamastation about they could stand up for us at least this once!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , is n't the warrent at least supposed to be served to the wireless carrier ?
They are not the government , you would think of all the things that big business butts heads with the Obamastation about they could stand up for us at least this once !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, isn't the warrent at least supposed to be served to the wireless carrier?
They are not the government, you would think of all the things that big business butts heads with the Obamastation about they could stand up for us at least this once!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103530</id>
	<title>Meet the new Boss!</title>
	<author>cs668</author>
	<datestamp>1265920680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same as the old boss!</p><p>I guess "The Who" had it right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same as the old boss ! I guess " The Who " had it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same as the old boss!I guess "The Who" had it right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106218</id>
	<title>Re:hope and change</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1265887800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really.</p><p>It would seem that both the republicans and democrats are hell bent on destroying America...</p><p>But perhaps its because we the people are hell bent on destroying America. Perhaps we just dont really get what America is... We've grown into this "NEW America"... where we think selfishly rather than thoughtfully with respect to our own freedoms and others.</p><p>I think both political parties are full of shit and need to be burned off the planet, but I fear that entire country itself is just as careless with the original ideals of America.</p><p>We're fucking doomed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really.It would seem that both the republicans and democrats are hell bent on destroying America...But perhaps its because we the people are hell bent on destroying America .
Perhaps we just dont really get what America is... We 've grown into this " NEW America " ... where we think selfishly rather than thoughtfully with respect to our own freedoms and others.I think both political parties are full of shit and need to be burned off the planet , but I fear that entire country itself is just as careless with the original ideals of America.We 're fucking doomed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.It would seem that both the republicans and democrats are hell bent on destroying America...But perhaps its because we the people are hell bent on destroying America.
Perhaps we just dont really get what America is... We've grown into this "NEW America"... where we think selfishly rather than thoughtfully with respect to our own freedoms and others.I think both political parties are full of shit and need to be burned off the planet, but I fear that entire country itself is just as careless with the original ideals of America.We're fucking doomed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104694</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1265882040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about the spirit of the 5th amendment???  You know, the clause where taking your life, liberty, or property simple requires DUE PROCESS?</p><p>The description of a warrant in Am4 defines what it must include, but not when it must be issued.  Due process based on an active case, reasonable suspicion, and/or probable cause is enough to search your person, possessions, and question you.  They can not enter your home without a warrant, but in public, that's a different story...</p><p>Anywhere you go not on your own property, you are in public, including entering and leaving someone else's property, and any officer so dispatched could follow you and collect this information contained in your GPS records.  Further, the supreme court also rules that a tracking device, not an officer, could equally be used in the efforts to follow a suspect, following due process, without warrant.</p><p>This request by the administration is simply an extention of existing, upheld law to a centralized system.</p><p>you have every right to disable the location service in your personal device, with the exception of when communicating with 911 services, or, if BY WARRANT, it is remotely activated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about the spirit of the 5th amendment ? ? ?
You know , the clause where taking your life , liberty , or property simple requires DUE PROCESS ? The description of a warrant in Am4 defines what it must include , but not when it must be issued .
Due process based on an active case , reasonable suspicion , and/or probable cause is enough to search your person , possessions , and question you .
They can not enter your home without a warrant , but in public , that 's a different story...Anywhere you go not on your own property , you are in public , including entering and leaving someone else 's property , and any officer so dispatched could follow you and collect this information contained in your GPS records .
Further , the supreme court also rules that a tracking device , not an officer , could equally be used in the efforts to follow a suspect , following due process , without warrant.This request by the administration is simply an extention of existing , upheld law to a centralized system.you have every right to disable the location service in your personal device , with the exception of when communicating with 911 services , or , if BY WARRANT , it is remotely activated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about the spirit of the 5th amendment???
You know, the clause where taking your life, liberty, or property simple requires DUE PROCESS?The description of a warrant in Am4 defines what it must include, but not when it must be issued.
Due process based on an active case, reasonable suspicion, and/or probable cause is enough to search your person, possessions, and question you.
They can not enter your home without a warrant, but in public, that's a different story...Anywhere you go not on your own property, you are in public, including entering and leaving someone else's property, and any officer so dispatched could follow you and collect this information contained in your GPS records.
Further, the supreme court also rules that a tracking device, not an officer, could equally be used in the efforts to follow a suspect, following due process, without warrant.This request by the administration is simply an extention of existing, upheld law to a centralized system.you have every right to disable the location service in your personal device, with the exception of when communicating with 911 services, or, if BY WARRANT, it is remotely activated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103146</id>
	<title>When the speach becomes more complex</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1265919240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you can bet they are violating the intent.  As the government has expanded so has the explanation for everything they do.  The write long winded justifications all so that by the time you get done reading it you forget what it was about.  It almost as if they hope that people opposed will just throw up their hands and give up.</p><p>Remember, those who clutch to their Constitution are now the radicals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you can bet they are violating the intent .
As the government has expanded so has the explanation for everything they do .
The write long winded justifications all so that by the time you get done reading it you forget what it was about .
It almost as if they hope that people opposed will just throw up their hands and give up.Remember , those who clutch to their Constitution are now the radicals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can bet they are violating the intent.
As the government has expanded so has the explanation for everything they do.
The write long winded justifications all so that by the time you get done reading it you forget what it was about.
It almost as if they hope that people opposed will just throw up their hands and give up.Remember, those who clutch to their Constitution are now the radicals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31113832</id>
	<title>Re:hope and change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265993760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YEAH LIKE MCCUNT wouldve been BETTER<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:d</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YEAH LIKE MCCUNT wouldve been BETTER : d</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YEAH LIKE MCCUNT wouldve been BETTER :d</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104634</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>edrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1265881800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes and we'll send the corporations as our representatives at the convention.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and we 'll send the corporations as our representatives at the convention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and we'll send the corporations as our representatives at the convention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103158</id>
	<title>Cell phone tower data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265919240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>They must be talking about the location based on cell phone tower data.  The GPS on my phone can locate me to within a couple of meters and using google I can create a freaky accurate maptrail of my location over a period of weeks.
<br> <br>
Having said that, even just the cell tower method can locate me, often, to within 500 meters.  To argue that this is too general to know my whereabouts at all times is absurd.  I think the only way you could claim that location data is not a 4th Amendment violation is if it only tracked you at the state level.  And even then it may be a violation.  To argue that 500 meters is not enough resolution to infringein my right to unreasonable search is pretty crazy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They must be talking about the location based on cell phone tower data .
The GPS on my phone can locate me to within a couple of meters and using google I can create a freaky accurate maptrail of my location over a period of weeks .
Having said that , even just the cell tower method can locate me , often , to within 500 meters .
To argue that this is too general to know my whereabouts at all times is absurd .
I think the only way you could claim that location data is not a 4th Amendment violation is if it only tracked you at the state level .
And even then it may be a violation .
To argue that 500 meters is not enough resolution to infringein my right to unreasonable search is pretty crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They must be talking about the location based on cell phone tower data.
The GPS on my phone can locate me to within a couple of meters and using google I can create a freaky accurate maptrail of my location over a period of weeks.
Having said that, even just the cell tower method can locate me, often, to within 500 meters.
To argue that this is too general to know my whereabouts at all times is absurd.
I think the only way you could claim that location data is not a 4th Amendment violation is if it only tracked you at the state level.
And even then it may be a violation.
To argue that 500 meters is not enough resolution to infringein my right to unreasonable search is pretty crazy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103832</id>
	<title>They thought they were free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265921820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What no one seemed to notice... was the ever widening gap... between the government and the people.  The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway... and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that... one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. But the one great shocking occasion... never comes. That's the difficulty." - Milton Mayer (1908-1986) journalist and educator, writing about the Nazi takeover of Germany from the point of view of the average citizen, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1938-45</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What no one seemed to notice... was the ever widening gap... between the government and the people .
The dictatorship , and the whole process of its coming into being , was above all diverting .
It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway... and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises ' and so fascinated , yes , fascinated , by the machinations of the 'national enemies, ' without and within , that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing , little by little , all around us .
Each step was so small , so inconsequential , so well explained or , on occasion , 'regretted, ' that... one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing .
One day it is over his head .
Each act , each occasion , is worse than the last , but only a little worse .
You wait for the one great shocking occasion , thinking that others , when such a shock comes , will join with you in resisting somehow .
But the one great shocking occasion... never comes .
That 's the difficulty .
" - Milton Mayer ( 1908-1986 ) journalist and educator , writing about the Nazi takeover of Germany from the point of view of the average citizen , They Thought They Were Free : The Germans , 1938-45</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What no one seemed to notice... was the ever widening gap... between the government and the people.
The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting.
It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway... and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us.
Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that... one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing.
One day it is over his head.
Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse.
You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow.
But the one great shocking occasion... never comes.
That's the difficulty.
" - Milton Mayer (1908-1986) journalist and educator, writing about the Nazi takeover of Germany from the point of view of the average citizen, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1938-45</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104818</id>
	<title>Re:Shocked by Obama? This is who he is...</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1265882580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.</i></p><p>Your surety is mistaken. I hated Bush (maybe hate is too strong -- I found him to be an abject failure as President), and I voted for Obama. I find his about-face on defending The Constitution to be loathsome. Sufficiently so that barring a fantastic reverse in course and taking genuine action to restore The Constitution, I will vote against him.</p><p><i>"[...T]he Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you,"</i></p><p>That is exactly correct. The Constitution has some very specific rules about what the government is not allowed to do. Those rules are the most important part of The Constitution, and the only persuasive argument against them at the time was that enumerating them could lead down a path where people would argue that those were the only restrictions on government (we have done that, and gone further to positing that other portions of The Constitution supercede the limitations, which is absolute folly).</p><p>But the above statement, tortured though the term "negative liberties" is, is exactly correct. The liberties guaranteed by The Constitution are so guaranteed by negating the government's authority to infringe them.</p><p><i>"but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted."</i></p><p>The second statement above seems to be explaining that The Constitution grants no explicit authority to the government, and certainly nothing that could grant it power beyond the circumscriptions mentioned in the first quote. That is precisely the sort of interpretation that I (a little 'l' libertarian) would like the President to hold.</p><p>Is the point of invoking the Odyssey quote to point out that he does not adhere to his stated beliefs (a point on which I wholeheartedly agree), or is there a supposition that the Odyssey quote itself betrays a conflict with The Constitution? If the latter, could you elaborate please? I am not following, but I am deeply interested.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.Your surety is mistaken .
I hated Bush ( maybe hate is too strong -- I found him to be an abject failure as President ) , and I voted for Obama .
I find his about-face on defending The Constitution to be loathsome .
Sufficiently so that barring a fantastic reverse in course and taking genuine action to restore The Constitution , I will vote against him .
" [ ...T ] he Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states ca n't do to you , says what the federal government ca n't do to you , " That is exactly correct .
The Constitution has some very specific rules about what the government is not allowed to do .
Those rules are the most important part of The Constitution , and the only persuasive argument against them at the time was that enumerating them could lead down a path where people would argue that those were the only restrictions on government ( we have done that , and gone further to positing that other portions of The Constitution supercede the limitations , which is absolute folly ) .But the above statement , tortured though the term " negative liberties " is , is exactly correct .
The liberties guaranteed by The Constitution are so guaranteed by negating the government 's authority to infringe them .
" but it does n't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf , and that has n't shifted .
" The second statement above seems to be explaining that The Constitution grants no explicit authority to the government , and certainly nothing that could grant it power beyond the circumscriptions mentioned in the first quote .
That is precisely the sort of interpretation that I ( a little 'l ' libertarian ) would like the President to hold.Is the point of invoking the Odyssey quote to point out that he does not adhere to his stated beliefs ( a point on which I wholeheartedly agree ) , or is there a supposition that the Odyssey quote itself betrays a conflict with The Constitution ?
If the latter , could you elaborate please ?
I am not following , but I am deeply interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.Your surety is mistaken.
I hated Bush (maybe hate is too strong -- I found him to be an abject failure as President), and I voted for Obama.
I find his about-face on defending The Constitution to be loathsome.
Sufficiently so that barring a fantastic reverse in course and taking genuine action to restore The Constitution, I will vote against him.
"[...T]he Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you,"That is exactly correct.
The Constitution has some very specific rules about what the government is not allowed to do.
Those rules are the most important part of The Constitution, and the only persuasive argument against them at the time was that enumerating them could lead down a path where people would argue that those were the only restrictions on government (we have done that, and gone further to positing that other portions of The Constitution supercede the limitations, which is absolute folly).But the above statement, tortured though the term "negative liberties" is, is exactly correct.
The liberties guaranteed by The Constitution are so guaranteed by negating the government's authority to infringe them.
"but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.
"The second statement above seems to be explaining that The Constitution grants no explicit authority to the government, and certainly nothing that could grant it power beyond the circumscriptions mentioned in the first quote.
That is precisely the sort of interpretation that I (a little 'l' libertarian) would like the President to hold.Is the point of invoking the Odyssey quote to point out that he does not adhere to his stated beliefs (a point on which I wholeheartedly agree), or is there a supposition that the Odyssey quote itself betrays a conflict with The Constitution?
If the latter, could you elaborate please?
I am not following, but I am deeply interested.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104286</id>
	<title>Bullshit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265880360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an obvious violation of privacy.  If a private citizen isn't entitled to look up this data, then the government's not entitled to do it without a warrant.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an obvious violation of privacy .
If a private citizen is n't entitled to look up this data , then the government 's not entitled to do it without a warrant.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an obvious violation of privacy.
If a private citizen isn't entitled to look up this data, then the government's not entitled to do it without a warrant.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106426</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265888640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once three years ago, I was at (my girlfriend at the time)'s place until around 2:00 AM. She lived in the busiest street in the city, if you take my meaning. I pulled out of the apartment complex just before turning on my headlights, and was pulled over within half a block, badgered time and again for over a half hour about why I was there and how much I paid for coke and pussy.</p><p>"I was at my girlfriend's," I said.</p><p>"How long have you been known her? Did you meet her tonight?" This shit went on and on, until they relented when I offered to escort them up to her damned apartment door.</p><p>They searched my car and found --shockingly, of course-- jack shit. I've never touched an illegal substance (aside from underage drinking) in my life. The last thing I would have wanted was to be investigated by the FBI for driving to my girlfriend's, which was within a block of a highly suspected coke house (repeatedly busted, of course). She was a devout Christian and a med student, either oblivious the the area or felt protected. Either way, she lived where she lived, you know? There wasn't much I could do about where my girlfriend lived.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once three years ago , I was at ( my girlfriend at the time ) 's place until around 2 : 00 AM .
She lived in the busiest street in the city , if you take my meaning .
I pulled out of the apartment complex just before turning on my headlights , and was pulled over within half a block , badgered time and again for over a half hour about why I was there and how much I paid for coke and pussy .
" I was at my girlfriend 's , " I said .
" How long have you been known her ?
Did you meet her tonight ?
" This shit went on and on , until they relented when I offered to escort them up to her damned apartment door.They searched my car and found --shockingly , of course-- jack shit .
I 've never touched an illegal substance ( aside from underage drinking ) in my life .
The last thing I would have wanted was to be investigated by the FBI for driving to my girlfriend 's , which was within a block of a highly suspected coke house ( repeatedly busted , of course ) .
She was a devout Christian and a med student , either oblivious the the area or felt protected .
Either way , she lived where she lived , you know ?
There was n't much I could do about where my girlfriend lived .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once three years ago, I was at (my girlfriend at the time)'s place until around 2:00 AM.
She lived in the busiest street in the city, if you take my meaning.
I pulled out of the apartment complex just before turning on my headlights, and was pulled over within half a block, badgered time and again for over a half hour about why I was there and how much I paid for coke and pussy.
"I was at my girlfriend's," I said.
"How long have you been known her?
Did you meet her tonight?
" This shit went on and on, until they relented when I offered to escort them up to her damned apartment door.They searched my car and found --shockingly, of course-- jack shit.
I've never touched an illegal substance (aside from underage drinking) in my life.
The last thing I would have wanted was to be investigated by the FBI for driving to my girlfriend's, which was within a block of a highly suspected coke house (repeatedly busted, of course).
She was a devout Christian and a med student, either oblivious the the area or felt protected.
Either way, she lived where she lived, you know?
There wasn't much I could do about where my girlfriend lived.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104272</id>
	<title>Re:Is this GPS, or Tower data?</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1265880300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  PLEASE be advised that "a lot" is two fucking words.</p> </div><p>Out of all the piddly ass shit that spelling nazis complain about I would have to say that bitching about alot has got to be up there.</p><p>It is used enough in popular culture that it might as well be its own word at this point, just because you can break it in to two words doesn't mean its has to be that way.  Are you going to complain about into also?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>PLEASE be advised that " a lot " is two fucking words .
Out of all the piddly ass shit that spelling nazis complain about I would have to say that bitching about alot has got to be up there.It is used enough in popular culture that it might as well be its own word at this point , just because you can break it in to two words does n't mean its has to be that way .
Are you going to complain about into also ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  PLEASE be advised that "a lot" is two fucking words.
Out of all the piddly ass shit that spelling nazis complain about I would have to say that bitching about alot has got to be up there.It is used enough in popular culture that it might as well be its own word at this point, just because you can break it in to two words doesn't mean its has to be that way.
Are you going to complain about into also?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102968</id>
	<title>With Enumerated powers ignored, what does anyone..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265918640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Constitution WAS a document of enumerated powers for the Feds, but that has been ignored with the Commerce Clause rulings and ignoring the 9th and 10th Amendments, what does anyone expect?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Constitution WAS a document of enumerated powers for the Feds , but that has been ignored with the Commerce Clause rulings and ignoring the 9th and 10th Amendments , what does anyone expect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Constitution WAS a document of enumerated powers for the Feds, but that has been ignored with the Commerce Clause rulings and ignoring the 9th and 10th Amendments, what does anyone expect?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105444</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>Ozric</author>
	<datestamp>1265884860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Should you now be subject to have your possessions searched while the claim you're a drug-dealing prostitute for a half hour because you obviously weren't supposed to be on THAT public street?</p></div><p>I have a question for you.....<br>
&nbsp; Does the "drug-dealing prostitute" need to be subjected to that type of treatment any more or less then you do?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should you now be subject to have your possessions searched while the claim you 're a drug-dealing prostitute for a half hour because you obviously were n't supposed to be on THAT public street ? I have a question for you.... .   Does the " drug-dealing prostitute " need to be subjected to that type of treatment any more or less then you do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should you now be subject to have your possessions searched while the claim you're a drug-dealing prostitute for a half hour because you obviously weren't supposed to be on THAT public street?I have a question for you.....
  Does the "drug-dealing prostitute" need to be subjected to that type of treatment any more or less then you do?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31107190</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1265891880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sucks, because I really do think of myself as a civil libertarian and I want to improve everyone's privacy.  But I'm going to have to disagree with you.</p><p>The problem is that they're not invasively violating you to get this information.  You <em>broadcast</em> the data.  If we try to set policies where the government is not allowed to use information that has been already physically and voluntarily surrendered, then those policies are <strong>ALL</strong> we'll have which protects our privacy.  Anyone (government, common criminals, whatever) who is willing to break the law, will get what they want.  And we'll never know it's happening.  We lose.</p><p>I really think we shouldn't extend legal privacy protection to data that is shouted or carelessly tossed into the wind.  That can only provide the <em>illusion</em> of privacy(*).  Instead, we ought to make the law fairly nasty and scary on this kind of thing, and say that if you broadcast your position to the world, if you send unencrypted emails through countless other peoples' systems, then it is fair game. I don't want to read in the paper that this information is protected and can only be read by criminals and people with warrants.  I want to read in the paper that all my unencrypted email is available on a bulletin board in the town square, and that my cell phone's location information is being sold to the Coca Cola company and the Church of Scientology and the Aryan Nation.  And I want everyone to read the same thing, and be scared.</p><p>Because <em>then</em> we'll have the motivation to provide <em>real</em> privacy. Technology is on our side, and if we really want our remote communications to be private, we don't need the law for that anymore. Keep the 4th amendment's application 18th century, because the scenarios that the framers had in mind, are pretty much the only ones where we still really <em>need</em> that protection.  Any modern extensions or analogies, turn out to be things that we can handle on our own (and win!), whether the attacker happens to have a warrant or not.</p><p>Start taking reasonable steps to protect privacy, because really, we just aren't doing that right now.  Don't listen to what a lawyer says is "reasonable"; listen to what a paranoid cypherpunk says is reasonable.</p><p>Worry about thugs breaking down your door and shooting your dog.  You can spend millions of dollars on fortifications and guns and still not be safe, which is why we need a law for that. <em>Don't</em> worry about them trying to crack AES; that's something to giggle about instead, where you can beat a multibillion dollar attacker with a hundred dollars worth of equipment.  Don't worry about them trying to figure out which connection to a proxy is from <em>your</em> phone; worry about designing a protocol that makes it a hard problem for even the proxy itself.</p><p>(*) And actually it's even worse than just providing a false illusion.  If we start acting like some sorts of careless broadcast as sacrosanct, but some aren't, then there's going to be a shitload of gray area in between.  You'll <em>never</em> codify all that stuff correctly, and no citizen is going to be able to keep up with the case law.  Eventually you're going to carelessly broadcast a secret with the intent of storing it unencrypted on some random server with no accountability to you, and not only will your data be unprotected, but you <em>won't even know</em> its legal status.  Nor will most judges.  It's easier to encrypt than spend money on lawyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sucks , because I really do think of myself as a civil libertarian and I want to improve everyone 's privacy .
But I 'm going to have to disagree with you.The problem is that they 're not invasively violating you to get this information .
You broadcast the data .
If we try to set policies where the government is not allowed to use information that has been already physically and voluntarily surrendered , then those policies are ALL we 'll have which protects our privacy .
Anyone ( government , common criminals , whatever ) who is willing to break the law , will get what they want .
And we 'll never know it 's happening .
We lose.I really think we should n't extend legal privacy protection to data that is shouted or carelessly tossed into the wind .
That can only provide the illusion of privacy ( * ) .
Instead , we ought to make the law fairly nasty and scary on this kind of thing , and say that if you broadcast your position to the world , if you send unencrypted emails through countless other peoples ' systems , then it is fair game .
I do n't want to read in the paper that this information is protected and can only be read by criminals and people with warrants .
I want to read in the paper that all my unencrypted email is available on a bulletin board in the town square , and that my cell phone 's location information is being sold to the Coca Cola company and the Church of Scientology and the Aryan Nation .
And I want everyone to read the same thing , and be scared.Because then we 'll have the motivation to provide real privacy .
Technology is on our side , and if we really want our remote communications to be private , we do n't need the law for that anymore .
Keep the 4th amendment 's application 18th century , because the scenarios that the framers had in mind , are pretty much the only ones where we still really need that protection .
Any modern extensions or analogies , turn out to be things that we can handle on our own ( and win !
) , whether the attacker happens to have a warrant or not.Start taking reasonable steps to protect privacy , because really , we just are n't doing that right now .
Do n't listen to what a lawyer says is " reasonable " ; listen to what a paranoid cypherpunk says is reasonable.Worry about thugs breaking down your door and shooting your dog .
You can spend millions of dollars on fortifications and guns and still not be safe , which is why we need a law for that .
Do n't worry about them trying to crack AES ; that 's something to giggle about instead , where you can beat a multibillion dollar attacker with a hundred dollars worth of equipment .
Do n't worry about them trying to figure out which connection to a proxy is from your phone ; worry about designing a protocol that makes it a hard problem for even the proxy itself .
( * ) And actually it 's even worse than just providing a false illusion .
If we start acting like some sorts of careless broadcast as sacrosanct , but some are n't , then there 's going to be a shitload of gray area in between .
You 'll never codify all that stuff correctly , and no citizen is going to be able to keep up with the case law .
Eventually you 're going to carelessly broadcast a secret with the intent of storing it unencrypted on some random server with no accountability to you , and not only will your data be unprotected , but you wo n't even know its legal status .
Nor will most judges .
It 's easier to encrypt than spend money on lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sucks, because I really do think of myself as a civil libertarian and I want to improve everyone's privacy.
But I'm going to have to disagree with you.The problem is that they're not invasively violating you to get this information.
You broadcast the data.
If we try to set policies where the government is not allowed to use information that has been already physically and voluntarily surrendered, then those policies are ALL we'll have which protects our privacy.
Anyone (government, common criminals, whatever) who is willing to break the law, will get what they want.
And we'll never know it's happening.
We lose.I really think we shouldn't extend legal privacy protection to data that is shouted or carelessly tossed into the wind.
That can only provide the illusion of privacy(*).
Instead, we ought to make the law fairly nasty and scary on this kind of thing, and say that if you broadcast your position to the world, if you send unencrypted emails through countless other peoples' systems, then it is fair game.
I don't want to read in the paper that this information is protected and can only be read by criminals and people with warrants.
I want to read in the paper that all my unencrypted email is available on a bulletin board in the town square, and that my cell phone's location information is being sold to the Coca Cola company and the Church of Scientology and the Aryan Nation.
And I want everyone to read the same thing, and be scared.Because then we'll have the motivation to provide real privacy.
Technology is on our side, and if we really want our remote communications to be private, we don't need the law for that anymore.
Keep the 4th amendment's application 18th century, because the scenarios that the framers had in mind, are pretty much the only ones where we still really need that protection.
Any modern extensions or analogies, turn out to be things that we can handle on our own (and win!
), whether the attacker happens to have a warrant or not.Start taking reasonable steps to protect privacy, because really, we just aren't doing that right now.
Don't listen to what a lawyer says is "reasonable"; listen to what a paranoid cypherpunk says is reasonable.Worry about thugs breaking down your door and shooting your dog.
You can spend millions of dollars on fortifications and guns and still not be safe, which is why we need a law for that.
Don't worry about them trying to crack AES; that's something to giggle about instead, where you can beat a multibillion dollar attacker with a hundred dollars worth of equipment.
Don't worry about them trying to figure out which connection to a proxy is from your phone; worry about designing a protocol that makes it a hard problem for even the proxy itself.
(*) And actually it's even worse than just providing a false illusion.
If we start acting like some sorts of careless broadcast as sacrosanct, but some aren't, then there's going to be a shitload of gray area in between.
You'll never codify all that stuff correctly, and no citizen is going to be able to keep up with the case law.
Eventually you're going to carelessly broadcast a secret with the intent of storing it unencrypted on some random server with no accountability to you, and not only will your data be unprotected, but you won't even know its legal status.
Nor will most judges.
It's easier to encrypt than spend money on lawyers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31108510</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1265899620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In fact, I think that such a convention should be mandatory about every 50 years</p></div></blockquote><p>To this, I would like to respond not just no, but <b>HELL NO</b>. The Constitution has done a relatively good job of preserving the vision of our founding fathers for more than 200 years precisely because its terms are plain and very, very static. This was a deliberate choice by the writers of the constitution. They wanted this document to be the concrete law of the land to prevent future generations of politicians and judges from mucking it up for their own agendas, against the general interest of the people. They knew they had only one shot at getting the foundations of the country's law right, that's why they made the Constitution's provisions permanent. Even though certain individuals, agencies, and organizations manage to subvert the spirit of the Constitution from time to time, it's simply amazing that the overall structure of our government and legal system as a whole has not changed dramatically since the country was founded.</p><p>Who exactly do you think is going to rewrite the Constitution? If something as mundane as health care reform can end up so wildly out of control with conflicting interests, special favors for lobbyists, and sausage making, what do you think is going to happen when they try to rewrite the document that forms the basis of our entire country? The primary purpose of the Constitution is explicitly give rights to the people and limit the power of the government, why on earth would you want to even risk having such an important foundation taken away?</p><p>Finally, rewriting the Constitution would be simply, well, unconstitutional.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , I think that such a convention should be mandatory about every 50 yearsTo this , I would like to respond not just no , but HELL NO .
The Constitution has done a relatively good job of preserving the vision of our founding fathers for more than 200 years precisely because its terms are plain and very , very static .
This was a deliberate choice by the writers of the constitution .
They wanted this document to be the concrete law of the land to prevent future generations of politicians and judges from mucking it up for their own agendas , against the general interest of the people .
They knew they had only one shot at getting the foundations of the country 's law right , that 's why they made the Constitution 's provisions permanent .
Even though certain individuals , agencies , and organizations manage to subvert the spirit of the Constitution from time to time , it 's simply amazing that the overall structure of our government and legal system as a whole has not changed dramatically since the country was founded.Who exactly do you think is going to rewrite the Constitution ?
If something as mundane as health care reform can end up so wildly out of control with conflicting interests , special favors for lobbyists , and sausage making , what do you think is going to happen when they try to rewrite the document that forms the basis of our entire country ?
The primary purpose of the Constitution is explicitly give rights to the people and limit the power of the government , why on earth would you want to even risk having such an important foundation taken away ? Finally , rewriting the Constitution would be simply , well , unconstitutional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, I think that such a convention should be mandatory about every 50 yearsTo this, I would like to respond not just no, but HELL NO.
The Constitution has done a relatively good job of preserving the vision of our founding fathers for more than 200 years precisely because its terms are plain and very, very static.
This was a deliberate choice by the writers of the constitution.
They wanted this document to be the concrete law of the land to prevent future generations of politicians and judges from mucking it up for their own agendas, against the general interest of the people.
They knew they had only one shot at getting the foundations of the country's law right, that's why they made the Constitution's provisions permanent.
Even though certain individuals, agencies, and organizations manage to subvert the spirit of the Constitution from time to time, it's simply amazing that the overall structure of our government and legal system as a whole has not changed dramatically since the country was founded.Who exactly do you think is going to rewrite the Constitution?
If something as mundane as health care reform can end up so wildly out of control with conflicting interests, special favors for lobbyists, and sausage making, what do you think is going to happen when they try to rewrite the document that forms the basis of our entire country?
The primary purpose of the Constitution is explicitly give rights to the people and limit the power of the government, why on earth would you want to even risk having such an important foundation taken away?Finally, rewriting the Constitution would be simply, well, unconstitutional.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104560</id>
	<title>Bill of Rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265881620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties</p></div><p>The constitution was meant to restrict the government from taking more and more control.</p></div><p>Obama (and you) are thinking of the Bill of Rights.</p><p>The Constitution assigns powers to the government.<br>The Bill of Rights restricts those powers.</p><p>"We, the people" retain all rights not assigned to Congress by the Constitution:<br><i>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.</i><br>- <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth\_Amendment\_to\_the\_United\_States\_Constitution" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">9th amendment</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Of course it's been flipped to be interpreted as the government having all powers not restricted by the BoR.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Obama's vision is a constitution that has limitless government so said government can 'do things on your behalf', as though the government knew best.</p></div><p>QFT, he wants a nanny/police-state.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Constitution is a charter of negative libertiesThe constitution was meant to restrict the government from taking more and more control.Obama ( and you ) are thinking of the Bill of Rights.The Constitution assigns powers to the government.The Bill of Rights restricts those powers .
" We , the people " retain all rights not assigned to Congress by the Constitution : The enumeration in the Constitution , of certain rights , shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.- 9th amendment [ wikipedia.org ] Of course it 's been flipped to be interpreted as the government having all powers not restricted by the BoR.Obama 's vision is a constitution that has limitless government so said government can 'do things on your behalf ' , as though the government knew best.QFT , he wants a nanny/police-state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Constitution is a charter of negative libertiesThe constitution was meant to restrict the government from taking more and more control.Obama (and you) are thinking of the Bill of Rights.The Constitution assigns powers to the government.The Bill of Rights restricts those powers.
"We, the people" retain all rights not assigned to Congress by the Constitution:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.- 9th amendment [wikipedia.org]Of course it's been flipped to be interpreted as the government having all powers not restricted by the BoR.Obama's vision is a constitution that has limitless government so said government can 'do things on your behalf', as though the government knew best.QFT, he wants a nanny/police-state.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104598</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>DutchUncle</author>
	<datestamp>1265881740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No parallel.  This location data they're requesting is HISTORICAL, not real time tracking and location information.  This is NO DIFFERENT than the lack of a warrant it takes to acquire your calling records, to scan your e-mail headers (not message content), to pull credit card receipts, and more.</p><p>This data helps cops, who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE, and how FILE A FORM, and go through DUE PROCESS...</p></div><p>1. That information should take a warrant as well.<br>
2. Document cause? File a form? Due process?  Which part of "warrantless" are you contradicting?  "Warrantless" means "without a warrant", which means "without having to convince a judge, even one already sympathetic to police action, and without having to prove anything, and without having to go through any process."<br> <br>

Your argument seems to come down to the usual "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".  Tell me:  When you go to the bathroom, do you close the door?  I'm betting yes, even when you're the only one home.  Are you trying to hide something?  Of course not - societal norms suggest some degree of privacy, both for you and for others who don't particularly need to look.  And that's the point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No parallel .
This location data they 're requesting is HISTORICAL , not real time tracking and location information .
This is NO DIFFERENT than the lack of a warrant it takes to acquire your calling records , to scan your e-mail headers ( not message content ) , to pull credit card receipts , and more.This data helps cops , who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE , and how FILE A FORM , and go through DUE PROCESS...1 .
That information should take a warrant as well .
2. Document cause ?
File a form ?
Due process ?
Which part of " warrantless " are you contradicting ?
" Warrantless " means " without a warrant " , which means " without having to convince a judge , even one already sympathetic to police action , and without having to prove anything , and without having to go through any process .
" Your argument seems to come down to the usual " if you have nothing to hide , you have nothing to fear " .
Tell me : When you go to the bathroom , do you close the door ?
I 'm betting yes , even when you 're the only one home .
Are you trying to hide something ?
Of course not - societal norms suggest some degree of privacy , both for you and for others who do n't particularly need to look .
And that 's the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No parallel.
This location data they're requesting is HISTORICAL, not real time tracking and location information.
This is NO DIFFERENT than the lack of a warrant it takes to acquire your calling records, to scan your e-mail headers (not message content), to pull credit card receipts, and more.This data helps cops, who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE, and how FILE A FORM, and go through DUE PROCESS...1.
That information should take a warrant as well.
2. Document cause?
File a form?
Due process?
Which part of "warrantless" are you contradicting?
"Warrantless" means "without a warrant", which means "without having to convince a judge, even one already sympathetic to police action, and without having to prove anything, and without having to go through any process.
" 

Your argument seems to come down to the usual "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".
Tell me:  When you go to the bathroom, do you close the door?
I'm betting yes, even when you're the only one home.
Are you trying to hide something?
Of course not - societal norms suggest some degree of privacy, both for you and for others who don't particularly need to look.
And that's the point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103860</id>
	<title>Not exactly</title>
	<author>joeyblades</author>
	<datestamp>1265921940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; these records provide only a very general indication of a user's whereabouts</p><p>These records provide only a very general indication of a user's cell phone whereabouts...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; these records provide only a very general indication of a user 's whereaboutsThese records provide only a very general indication of a user 's cell phone whereabouts.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; these records provide only a very general indication of a user's whereaboutsThese records provide only a very general indication of a user's cell phone whereabouts...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31108638</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1265900760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you 100\%, but the government has been flouting the spirit of the 4th amendment for quite some time. For example, it's illegal for a government agency (say, the CIA) to collect detailed dossiers on citizens without any suspicion of wrong-doing. However, it's not illegal for a company to do it. So when the government takes a sudden interest in you, they just buy your file (containing everything from physical addresses to magazine subscriptions) for $30. The end result is the same, but the process skirts the wording of the law.</p><blockquote><div><p>Just because there's a 3rd party (phone company) involved doesn't mean 4th amendment goes out the window.</p></div></blockquote><p>They probably think that they're in the clear now since a judge recently dismissed <a href="http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/01/21" title="eff.org">EFF's</a> [eff.org] case against the NSA for its warrantless wiretapping program. If this decision holds, there's really not much that can be done about companies simply offering up their records on citizens to the government of their own free will.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you 100 \ % , but the government has been flouting the spirit of the 4th amendment for quite some time .
For example , it 's illegal for a government agency ( say , the CIA ) to collect detailed dossiers on citizens without any suspicion of wrong-doing .
However , it 's not illegal for a company to do it .
So when the government takes a sudden interest in you , they just buy your file ( containing everything from physical addresses to magazine subscriptions ) for $ 30 .
The end result is the same , but the process skirts the wording of the law.Just because there 's a 3rd party ( phone company ) involved does n't mean 4th amendment goes out the window.They probably think that they 're in the clear now since a judge recently dismissed EFF 's [ eff.org ] case against the NSA for its warrantless wiretapping program .
If this decision holds , there 's really not much that can be done about companies simply offering up their records on citizens to the government of their own free will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you 100\%, but the government has been flouting the spirit of the 4th amendment for quite some time.
For example, it's illegal for a government agency (say, the CIA) to collect detailed dossiers on citizens without any suspicion of wrong-doing.
However, it's not illegal for a company to do it.
So when the government takes a sudden interest in you, they just buy your file (containing everything from physical addresses to magazine subscriptions) for $30.
The end result is the same, but the process skirts the wording of the law.Just because there's a 3rd party (phone company) involved doesn't mean 4th amendment goes out the window.They probably think that they're in the clear now since a judge recently dismissed EFF's [eff.org] case against the NSA for its warrantless wiretapping program.
If this decision holds, there's really not much that can be done about companies simply offering up their records on citizens to the government of their own free will.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472</id>
	<title>Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't want anyone to know where you are, you shouldn't go there.</p><p>[[/TROLL]]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't want anyone to know where you are , you should n't go there .
[ [ /TROLL ] ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't want anyone to know where you are, you shouldn't go there.
[[/TROLL]]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105056</id>
	<title>Re:Obama must first guarantee no abuse</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1265883480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>His administration flat-out says in the article that Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy." </i></p><p>No reasonable expectation of privacy <i>regarding the location of their phone</i>.  And in part because it's only a "general" indication of location.</p><p>Which is still complete bullshit -- thank God the meat of the article is about a Magistrate denying them this ability.  But they're not denying expectation of privacy ever exists.</p><p>No, no, this is just another case of the Obama DoJ defending actions taken by the federal government during the Bush administration, using the fucked-up arguments required to do so.  I mean, okay, so we aren't going to prosecute federal agents who were acting in accordance with the retarded legal opinions of AG Gonzalez.  Fine.  And if they didn't argue that the FBI's actions were legitimate, if they admitted that the evidence was illegally obtained, then the conviction of the Scarecrow Gang could be overturned.</p><p>Well you know what?  Maybe that's what has to happen.  There has to be <i>some</i> consequence for violating the Constitution, even if your boss at the time assured you that you weren't, and if having the perps walk free is the only consequence we can get, then so be it.  So yeah, fuck this argument, fuck this case, and may the sanity shown by Magistrate Judge Lenihan spread throughout the Judiciary (as the phrase from TFA "Only a minority [of Judges] has sided with the Justice Department, however." gives me some hope for).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His administration flat-out says in the article that Americans enjoy no " reasonable expectation of privacy .
" No reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the location of their phone .
And in part because it 's only a " general " indication of location.Which is still complete bullshit -- thank God the meat of the article is about a Magistrate denying them this ability .
But they 're not denying expectation of privacy ever exists.No , no , this is just another case of the Obama DoJ defending actions taken by the federal government during the Bush administration , using the fucked-up arguments required to do so .
I mean , okay , so we are n't going to prosecute federal agents who were acting in accordance with the retarded legal opinions of AG Gonzalez .
Fine. And if they did n't argue that the FBI 's actions were legitimate , if they admitted that the evidence was illegally obtained , then the conviction of the Scarecrow Gang could be overturned.Well you know what ?
Maybe that 's what has to happen .
There has to be some consequence for violating the Constitution , even if your boss at the time assured you that you were n't , and if having the perps walk free is the only consequence we can get , then so be it .
So yeah , fuck this argument , fuck this case , and may the sanity shown by Magistrate Judge Lenihan spread throughout the Judiciary ( as the phrase from TFA " Only a minority [ of Judges ] has sided with the Justice Department , however .
" gives me some hope for ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His administration flat-out says in the article that Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy.
" No reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the location of their phone.
And in part because it's only a "general" indication of location.Which is still complete bullshit -- thank God the meat of the article is about a Magistrate denying them this ability.
But they're not denying expectation of privacy ever exists.No, no, this is just another case of the Obama DoJ defending actions taken by the federal government during the Bush administration, using the fucked-up arguments required to do so.
I mean, okay, so we aren't going to prosecute federal agents who were acting in accordance with the retarded legal opinions of AG Gonzalez.
Fine.  And if they didn't argue that the FBI's actions were legitimate, if they admitted that the evidence was illegally obtained, then the conviction of the Scarecrow Gang could be overturned.Well you know what?
Maybe that's what has to happen.
There has to be some consequence for violating the Constitution, even if your boss at the time assured you that you weren't, and if having the perps walk free is the only consequence we can get, then so be it.
So yeah, fuck this argument, fuck this case, and may the sanity shown by Magistrate Judge Lenihan spread throughout the Judiciary (as the phrase from TFA "Only a minority [of Judges] has sided with the Justice Department, however.
" gives me some hope for).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103686</id>
	<title>Re:Have a problem with this?</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1265921220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for being part of the precipitate.</p><p>There are more than two parties...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for being part of the precipitate.There are more than two parties.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for being part of the precipitate.There are more than two parties...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31107224</id>
	<title>Re:Shocked by Obama? This is who he is...</title>
	<author>evil\_aar0n</author>
	<datestamp>1265891940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hated Bush, and I voted for Obama.  But, at the same time, this is wrong, just Obama's support for warrant-less wiretaps was wrong, and the fact that Obama didn't pursue Bush's other illegal actions while in office was wrong.  Just because my guy - Obama - is doing this doesn't make it right.  Those of us who voted for and supported Obama are not above questioning him when he does something wrong.  But where was the questioning by his supporters when Bush did wrong?  And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between the "left" and "right" in this country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hated Bush , and I voted for Obama .
But , at the same time , this is wrong , just Obama 's support for warrant-less wiretaps was wrong , and the fact that Obama did n't pursue Bush 's other illegal actions while in office was wrong .
Just because my guy - Obama - is doing this does n't make it right .
Those of us who voted for and supported Obama are not above questioning him when he does something wrong .
But where was the questioning by his supporters when Bush did wrong ?
And that , in a nutshell , is the difference between the " left " and " right " in this country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hated Bush, and I voted for Obama.
But, at the same time, this is wrong, just Obama's support for warrant-less wiretaps was wrong, and the fact that Obama didn't pursue Bush's other illegal actions while in office was wrong.
Just because my guy - Obama - is doing this doesn't make it right.
Those of us who voted for and supported Obama are not above questioning him when he does something wrong.
But where was the questioning by his supporters when Bush did wrong?
And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between the "left" and "right" in this country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104616</id>
	<title>Re:Cell phone tower data</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1265881800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention that the accuracy is on occasion pin-point - true, you don't know when a location is within a few meters of the actual location, but even a limited time series can demonstrate where someone was accurately, and how they were moving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that the accuracy is on occasion pin-point - true , you do n't know when a location is within a few meters of the actual location , but even a limited time series can demonstrate where someone was accurately , and how they were moving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that the accuracy is on occasion pin-point - true, you don't know when a location is within a few meters of the actual location, but even a limited time series can demonstrate where someone was accurately, and how they were moving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104914</id>
	<title>How about a 3-strikes rule?</title>
	<author>nightfire-unique</author>
	<datestamp>1265883000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a proposal.</p><p>If a public servant uses illegally obtained information (ie. warrantless wiretap), all evidence derived from that is "poisoned."  That is, during the trial, if any information can be linked with illegal surveillance, violation of the 5th amendment, etc., it is "poisoned fruit" and must be discarded.</p><p>If a case is declared a mistrial, everyone responsible for poisoning the evidence is given a warning.</p><p>On the third warning, the servant(s) are permanently released from their position(s), and cannot re-apply for 2 years.</p><p>Everyone wins - the guilty are more likely to be found and convicted (higher standard of evidence), the innocent are spared, and revolution is postponed (the constitution is obeyed).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a proposal.If a public servant uses illegally obtained information ( ie .
warrantless wiretap ) , all evidence derived from that is " poisoned .
" That is , during the trial , if any information can be linked with illegal surveillance , violation of the 5th amendment , etc. , it is " poisoned fruit " and must be discarded.If a case is declared a mistrial , everyone responsible for poisoning the evidence is given a warning.On the third warning , the servant ( s ) are permanently released from their position ( s ) , and can not re-apply for 2 years.Everyone wins - the guilty are more likely to be found and convicted ( higher standard of evidence ) , the innocent are spared , and revolution is postponed ( the constitution is obeyed ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a proposal.If a public servant uses illegally obtained information (ie.
warrantless wiretap), all evidence derived from that is "poisoned.
"  That is, during the trial, if any information can be linked with illegal surveillance, violation of the 5th amendment, etc., it is "poisoned fruit" and must be discarded.If a case is declared a mistrial, everyone responsible for poisoning the evidence is given a warning.On the third warning, the servant(s) are permanently released from their position(s), and cannot re-apply for 2 years.Everyone wins - the guilty are more likely to be found and convicted (higher standard of evidence), the innocent are spared, and revolution is postponed (the constitution is obeyed).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102732</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, the guy even said "[[/TROLL]]" at the end and he still caught someone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , the guy even said " [ [ /TROLL ] ] " at the end and he still caught someone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, the guy even said "[[/TROLL]]" at the end and he still caught someone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104434</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265881080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not as USian</p></div><p>Clearly, or you wouldn't use such a retarded word that no one in the North or South American continents actually uses because they don't care one whit about the nomenclature and usage of the word "American".  I stopped reading right there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not as USianClearly , or you would n't use such a retarded word that no one in the North or South American continents actually uses because they do n't care one whit about the nomenclature and usage of the word " American " .
I stopped reading right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not as USianClearly, or you wouldn't use such a retarded word that no one in the North or South American continents actually uses because they don't care one whit about the nomenclature and usage of the word "American".
I stopped reading right there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104152</id>
	<title>Re:Is this GPS, or Tower data?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265879820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with the tower data is that this data can be quite precise.  In order to be able to manage signal strengths, the towers and phones keep track of each other (i.e. how many towers can the phone hear signals from, what is the received signal strength from each tower, and the reverse).  Cell providers keep the detailed tower information (what were all the towers that a given ESSID was heard on, what was the received signal strength for each tower, what antenna received the signal, and what was the angle of incidence for the received signal).  In areas with decent tower density (i.e. cities), this detailed data can be enough to pinpoint the phone location to within 40 feet or so.</p><p>Providers keep less detailed information longer (I think Verizon keeps it for around a year), such as only recording the towers that saw a given ESSID, but without the RSS, antenna, and angle information.  While this information will only show the location with the accuracy of a given cell (measured in miles rather than feet), it can be used to throw an alibi into doubt if the phone was used on the other end of town from where the person claimed they were.</p><p>If interested, there are companies that will sell you the tools and provide training in how to analyze this data.  I do cell phone forensics as a part of my day job, and have attended such classes, which is how I gained the above knowledge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the tower data is that this data can be quite precise .
In order to be able to manage signal strengths , the towers and phones keep track of each other ( i.e .
how many towers can the phone hear signals from , what is the received signal strength from each tower , and the reverse ) .
Cell providers keep the detailed tower information ( what were all the towers that a given ESSID was heard on , what was the received signal strength for each tower , what antenna received the signal , and what was the angle of incidence for the received signal ) .
In areas with decent tower density ( i.e .
cities ) , this detailed data can be enough to pinpoint the phone location to within 40 feet or so.Providers keep less detailed information longer ( I think Verizon keeps it for around a year ) , such as only recording the towers that saw a given ESSID , but without the RSS , antenna , and angle information .
While this information will only show the location with the accuracy of a given cell ( measured in miles rather than feet ) , it can be used to throw an alibi into doubt if the phone was used on the other end of town from where the person claimed they were.If interested , there are companies that will sell you the tools and provide training in how to analyze this data .
I do cell phone forensics as a part of my day job , and have attended such classes , which is how I gained the above knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with the tower data is that this data can be quite precise.
In order to be able to manage signal strengths, the towers and phones keep track of each other (i.e.
how many towers can the phone hear signals from, what is the received signal strength from each tower, and the reverse).
Cell providers keep the detailed tower information (what were all the towers that a given ESSID was heard on, what was the received signal strength for each tower, what antenna received the signal, and what was the angle of incidence for the received signal).
In areas with decent tower density (i.e.
cities), this detailed data can be enough to pinpoint the phone location to within 40 feet or so.Providers keep less detailed information longer (I think Verizon keeps it for around a year), such as only recording the towers that saw a given ESSID, but without the RSS, antenna, and angle information.
While this information will only show the location with the accuracy of a given cell (measured in miles rather than feet), it can be used to throw an alibi into doubt if the phone was used on the other end of town from where the person claimed they were.If interested, there are companies that will sell you the tools and provide training in how to analyze this data.
I do cell phone forensics as a part of my day job, and have attended such classes, which is how I gained the above knowledge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31112858</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265989500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These are must reads for every American:</p><p>"When you enter a court room and come before the judge and the U.S. flag with the yellow fringe flying, you are put on notice of the law you are in. American's aren't aware of this, so they continue to claim Constitutional rights. In the Admiralty setting the constitution does not apply and the judge, if pushed, will inform you of this by placing you under contempt for continuing to bring it up. If the judge is pressed, his name for this hidden law is statuary law. Where are the rules and regulations for statutory law kept? They don't exist. If statuary law existed, there would be rules and regulations governing it's procedures and court rules. They do not exist!!! "</p><p>Source: http://barefootsworld.net/admiralty.html</p><p>http://supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman5.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These are must reads for every American : " When you enter a court room and come before the judge and the U.S. flag with the yellow fringe flying , you are put on notice of the law you are in .
American 's are n't aware of this , so they continue to claim Constitutional rights .
In the Admiralty setting the constitution does not apply and the judge , if pushed , will inform you of this by placing you under contempt for continuing to bring it up .
If the judge is pressed , his name for this hidden law is statuary law .
Where are the rules and regulations for statutory law kept ?
They do n't exist .
If statuary law existed , there would be rules and regulations governing it 's procedures and court rules .
They do not exist ! ! !
" Source : http : //barefootsworld.net/admiralty.htmlhttp : //supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman5.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are must reads for every American:"When you enter a court room and come before the judge and the U.S. flag with the yellow fringe flying, you are put on notice of the law you are in.
American's aren't aware of this, so they continue to claim Constitutional rights.
In the Admiralty setting the constitution does not apply and the judge, if pushed, will inform you of this by placing you under contempt for continuing to bring it up.
If the judge is pressed, his name for this hidden law is statuary law.
Where are the rules and regulations for statutory law kept?
They don't exist.
If statuary law existed, there would be rules and regulations governing it's procedures and court rules.
They do not exist!!!
"Source: http://barefootsworld.net/admiralty.htmlhttp://supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman5.htm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105062</id>
	<title>I don't have a problem with it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265883480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Let them monitor my phone's camera, microphone and USB port too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let them monitor my phone 's camera , microphone and USB port too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Let them monitor my phone's camera, microphone and USB port too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104788</id>
	<title>Try getting these records for your stolen phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265882460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've lost my phone twice and neither Sprint the first time nor AT&amp;T the second time would give me any location information about it due to privacy concerns.  I understand that they do not want the stalker being able to call them up and find out where someone is, but they don't have a problem believing that you are who you say you are when you drop the money on a new phone to replace the old one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've lost my phone twice and neither Sprint the first time nor AT&amp;T the second time would give me any location information about it due to privacy concerns .
I understand that they do not want the stalker being able to call them up and find out where someone is , but they do n't have a problem believing that you are who you say you are when you drop the money on a new phone to replace the old one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've lost my phone twice and neither Sprint the first time nor AT&amp;T the second time would give me any location information about it due to privacy concerns.
I understand that they do not want the stalker being able to call them up and find out where someone is, but they don't have a problem believing that you are who you say you are when you drop the money on a new phone to replace the old one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103970</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>jofny</author>
	<datestamp>1265879160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Constitution is perfectly fine. At any point in time, we could elect other people than the farktards we elect now (over and over again).  It's a brilliant document that assures we all get the government we deserve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Constitution is perfectly fine .
At any point in time , we could elect other people than the farktards we elect now ( over and over again ) .
It 's a brilliant document that assures we all get the government we deserve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Constitution is perfectly fine.
At any point in time, we could elect other people than the farktards we elect now (over and over again).
It's a brilliant document that assures we all get the government we deserve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105258</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>infinite9</author>
	<datestamp>1265884200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not as USian but as an outside observer it seems to me you need a new amendment for the digital age to finally codify the limits on police powers that apply to modern technology.</p><p>If we've learnt anything so far, it's that you can't rely on those in charge to care about the spirit of the law.</p></div><p>Who would write the amendment?  Politicians?  Lobbyists?  Or would large corporations just write it and hand it to congress Paulson-style?  Regardless, I'm certain that the people wouldn't be writing the amendment.  You may as well ask the fox guarding the hen house to design a security system to keep the hens safe.</p><p>It's too late for that.  The only options that are left are fascism or revolution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not as USian but as an outside observer it seems to me you need a new amendment for the digital age to finally codify the limits on police powers that apply to modern technology.If we 've learnt anything so far , it 's that you ca n't rely on those in charge to care about the spirit of the law.Who would write the amendment ?
Politicians ? Lobbyists ?
Or would large corporations just write it and hand it to congress Paulson-style ?
Regardless , I 'm certain that the people would n't be writing the amendment .
You may as well ask the fox guarding the hen house to design a security system to keep the hens safe.It 's too late for that .
The only options that are left are fascism or revolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not as USian but as an outside observer it seems to me you need a new amendment for the digital age to finally codify the limits on police powers that apply to modern technology.If we've learnt anything so far, it's that you can't rely on those in charge to care about the spirit of the law.Who would write the amendment?
Politicians?  Lobbyists?
Or would large corporations just write it and hand it to congress Paulson-style?
Regardless, I'm certain that the people wouldn't be writing the amendment.
You may as well ask the fox guarding the hen house to design a security system to keep the hens safe.It's too late for that.
The only options that are left are fascism or revolution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103318</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1265919840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not though, unless they only obtain information for the specific suspect named in the warrant.  Using mass cell phone data as some kind of suspect sieve is definitely not within the scope of the fourth amendment (there will necessarily be <em>thousands</em> of records obtained for people who are not suspects and never will be) but is also a very dangerous investigative tactic: there can be both false positives <em>and</em> false negatives.</p><p>That data doesn't belong to the phone companies, and even if it did, the phone companies would almost certainly not be legitimate targets of a bank robbery investigation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not though , unless they only obtain information for the specific suspect named in the warrant .
Using mass cell phone data as some kind of suspect sieve is definitely not within the scope of the fourth amendment ( there will necessarily be thousands of records obtained for people who are not suspects and never will be ) but is also a very dangerous investigative tactic : there can be both false positives and false negatives.That data does n't belong to the phone companies , and even if it did , the phone companies would almost certainly not be legitimate targets of a bank robbery investigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not though, unless they only obtain information for the specific suspect named in the warrant.
Using mass cell phone data as some kind of suspect sieve is definitely not within the scope of the fourth amendment (there will necessarily be thousands of records obtained for people who are not suspects and never will be) but is also a very dangerous investigative tactic: there can be both false positives and false negatives.That data doesn't belong to the phone companies, and even if it did, the phone companies would almost certainly not be legitimate targets of a bank robbery investigation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105232</id>
	<title>Obama isn't even a good liberal</title>
	<author>amiga3D</author>
	<datestamp>1265884080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a bill of goods our last two presidents have been.  One calls himself a conservative and grows the government like crazy and the next calls himself a liberal and continues the ridiculous war on liberty.  I had hoped that at least with Obama that along with the usual democrat silliness we'd at least get rid of some of the crazy Bush policies against individual liberty but noooooo!  He continues right along.  More and more it looks like there's really only one party in Washington.  The stuff about gay rights and abortion is just smoke screen issues used to divide the people so they can be bilked by the Money Party that runs both sides in DC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a bill of goods our last two presidents have been .
One calls himself a conservative and grows the government like crazy and the next calls himself a liberal and continues the ridiculous war on liberty .
I had hoped that at least with Obama that along with the usual democrat silliness we 'd at least get rid of some of the crazy Bush policies against individual liberty but noooooo !
He continues right along .
More and more it looks like there 's really only one party in Washington .
The stuff about gay rights and abortion is just smoke screen issues used to divide the people so they can be bilked by the Money Party that runs both sides in DC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a bill of goods our last two presidents have been.
One calls himself a conservative and grows the government like crazy and the next calls himself a liberal and continues the ridiculous war on liberty.
I had hoped that at least with Obama that along with the usual democrat silliness we'd at least get rid of some of the crazy Bush policies against individual liberty but noooooo!
He continues right along.
More and more it looks like there's really only one party in Washington.
The stuff about gay rights and abortion is just smoke screen issues used to divide the people so they can be bilked by the Money Party that runs both sides in DC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104532</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>houstonbofh</author>
	<datestamp>1265881500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I have nothing to hide, I shouldn't mind being searched every time I enter or leave a building?</p></div><p>You shop at Fry's too?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I have nothing to hide , I should n't mind being searched every time I enter or leave a building ? You shop at Fry 's too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I have nothing to hide, I shouldn't mind being searched every time I enter or leave a building?You shop at Fry's too?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104000</id>
	<title>Re:Obama must first guarantee no abuse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265879220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it's exactly what we were promised.  Those of us who pay attention to politics outside of 4 months before a presidential election, anyway.  The only outrage here is that the mainstream media dutifully played down stories about what a vain, totalitarian nut Obama is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it 's exactly what we were promised .
Those of us who pay attention to politics outside of 4 months before a presidential election , anyway .
The only outrage here is that the mainstream media dutifully played down stories about what a vain , totalitarian nut Obama is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it's exactly what we were promised.
Those of us who pay attention to politics outside of 4 months before a presidential election, anyway.
The only outrage here is that the mainstream media dutifully played down stories about what a vain, totalitarian nut Obama is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103440</id>
	<title>This violates our WA State Constitution</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1265920380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlike some other states, we have strong protections for privacy in our state, and you can't even install a GPS tracking device on a car here without a warrant, or enable that On*Star tracking feature without written permission from the vehicle owner.</p><p>Thus, anyone tracking cell phones in our state - except in federal waterways or on a federal base or in a federal park, would still need a warrant.</p><p>Anyone.</p><p>Including the feds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike some other states , we have strong protections for privacy in our state , and you ca n't even install a GPS tracking device on a car here without a warrant , or enable that On * Star tracking feature without written permission from the vehicle owner.Thus , anyone tracking cell phones in our state - except in federal waterways or on a federal base or in a federal park , would still need a warrant.Anyone.Including the feds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike some other states, we have strong protections for privacy in our state, and you can't even install a GPS tracking device on a car here without a warrant, or enable that On*Star tracking feature without written permission from the vehicle owner.Thus, anyone tracking cell phones in our state - except in federal waterways or on a federal base or in a federal park, would still need a warrant.Anyone.Including the feds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31107186</id>
	<title>I agree</title>
	<author>barakn</author>
	<datestamp>1265891820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Because wireless carriers regularly generate and retain the records at issue, and because these records provide only a very general indication of a user's whereabouts at certain times in the past, the requested cell-site records do not implicate a Fourth Amendment privacy interest,"  and thus the cell-site records of Federal agents should be available upon request.  Start filing your FOIA papers right away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Because wireless carriers regularly generate and retain the records at issue , and because these records provide only a very general indication of a user 's whereabouts at certain times in the past , the requested cell-site records do not implicate a Fourth Amendment privacy interest , " and thus the cell-site records of Federal agents should be available upon request .
Start filing your FOIA papers right away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Because wireless carriers regularly generate and retain the records at issue, and because these records provide only a very general indication of a user's whereabouts at certain times in the past, the requested cell-site records do not implicate a Fourth Amendment privacy interest,"  and thus the cell-site records of Federal agents should be available upon request.
Start filing your FOIA papers right away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102852</id>
	<title>Meet the new boss</title>
	<author>esocid</author>
	<datestamp>1265918280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same as the old boss. I'm getting sick of this constant push to roll back privacy. No matter what the government may say, 9/11 was the best thing to happen to give them such blanket authority.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same as the old boss .
I 'm getting sick of this constant push to roll back privacy .
No matter what the government may say , 9/11 was the best thing to happen to give them such blanket authority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same as the old boss.
I'm getting sick of this constant push to roll back privacy.
No matter what the government may say, 9/11 was the best thing to happen to give them such blanket authority.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103658</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>AthleteMusicianNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1265921160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is not outdated.  Politicians take an oath to uphold the constitution, but don't.  They should be thrown in jail.  There is no interpretation of it, it's very easy to read and understand.  The Founding Fathers were well aware of the consequences of the actions we're taking in government now because they lived through it in Britain.  That's why you hear quotes from very smart men such as Benjamin Franklin saying "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."  We've seen that actually play out since Sept. 11th.  Or other ones like "Remember that time is money."  which also continues to hold true.

<br>

Just because there is new technology, does not change the ways laws should be enforced.  A cell phone conversation is no different from a land line conversation which is no different from sending a letter.  If you intercept a letter, it's a violation of privacy just as it would be to listen to someone's cell phone conversation.  The government would like people to believe that there's a difference so they can continue on their malicious ways of fascism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not outdated .
Politicians take an oath to uphold the constitution , but do n't .
They should be thrown in jail .
There is no interpretation of it , it 's very easy to read and understand .
The Founding Fathers were well aware of the consequences of the actions we 're taking in government now because they lived through it in Britain .
That 's why you hear quotes from very smart men such as Benjamin Franklin saying " If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both .
" We 've seen that actually play out since Sept. 11th. Or other ones like " Remember that time is money .
" which also continues to hold true .
Just because there is new technology , does not change the ways laws should be enforced .
A cell phone conversation is no different from a land line conversation which is no different from sending a letter .
If you intercept a letter , it 's a violation of privacy just as it would be to listen to someone 's cell phone conversation .
The government would like people to believe that there 's a difference so they can continue on their malicious ways of fascism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not outdated.
Politicians take an oath to uphold the constitution, but don't.
They should be thrown in jail.
There is no interpretation of it, it's very easy to read and understand.
The Founding Fathers were well aware of the consequences of the actions we're taking in government now because they lived through it in Britain.
That's why you hear quotes from very smart men such as Benjamin Franklin saying "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
"  We've seen that actually play out since Sept. 11th.  Or other ones like "Remember that time is money.
"  which also continues to hold true.
Just because there is new technology, does not change the ways laws should be enforced.
A cell phone conversation is no different from a land line conversation which is no different from sending a letter.
If you intercept a letter, it's a violation of privacy just as it would be to listen to someone's cell phone conversation.
The government would like people to believe that there's a difference so they can continue on their malicious ways of fascism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31108960</id>
	<title>Patriot Act renewal in new "jobs" bill - Kill it!!</title>
	<author>sjs132</author>
	<datestamp>1265903700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like the 'Patriot Act' is due to be renewed.  Or parts of it..  I guess they are gonna cram it into the "jobs" bill along with a lot of other payoffs.    If you don't like this invation of our privacy, and you blamed Bush for the patriot act, etc, this is your chance to call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office or your local senator.  We expected change, not pushing the same-ol'-same-ol'.   KILL THE PATRIOT ACT NOW!  We CAN do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like the 'Patriot Act ' is due to be renewed .
Or parts of it.. I guess they are gon na cram it into the " jobs " bill along with a lot of other payoffs .
If you do n't like this invation of our privacy , and you blamed Bush for the patriot act , etc , this is your chance to call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid 's office or your local senator .
We expected change , not pushing the same-ol'-same-ol' .
KILL THE PATRIOT ACT NOW !
We CAN do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like the 'Patriot Act' is due to be renewed.
Or parts of it..  I guess they are gonna cram it into the "jobs" bill along with a lot of other payoffs.
If you don't like this invation of our privacy, and you blamed Bush for the patriot act, etc, this is your chance to call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office or your local senator.
We expected change, not pushing the same-ol'-same-ol'.
KILL THE PATRIOT ACT NOW!
We CAN do this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102624</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>venom85</author>
	<datestamp>1265917560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So then I assume you also would say that if I have nothing to hide, I shouldn't mind the police tearing my house apart looking for something that may or may not be there? If I have nothing to hide, I shouldn't mind being searched every time I enter or leave a building? I shouldn't mind being spied on at all times during my daily life? That's all ridiculous. Just because I don't want the Feds to know where I am every waking second doesn't mean I'm doing anything wrong. I just like my privacy, and they're interfering with that. It's not like it's anything new in this country (USA), but it's still wrong. Plain and simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So then I assume you also would say that if I have nothing to hide , I should n't mind the police tearing my house apart looking for something that may or may not be there ?
If I have nothing to hide , I should n't mind being searched every time I enter or leave a building ?
I should n't mind being spied on at all times during my daily life ?
That 's all ridiculous .
Just because I do n't want the Feds to know where I am every waking second does n't mean I 'm doing anything wrong .
I just like my privacy , and they 're interfering with that .
It 's not like it 's anything new in this country ( USA ) , but it 's still wrong .
Plain and simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So then I assume you also would say that if I have nothing to hide, I shouldn't mind the police tearing my house apart looking for something that may or may not be there?
If I have nothing to hide, I shouldn't mind being searched every time I enter or leave a building?
I shouldn't mind being spied on at all times during my daily life?
That's all ridiculous.
Just because I don't want the Feds to know where I am every waking second doesn't mean I'm doing anything wrong.
I just like my privacy, and they're interfering with that.
It's not like it's anything new in this country (USA), but it's still wrong.
Plain and simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105602</id>
	<title>Re:Shocked by Obama? This is who he is...</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1265885400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And "healthcare reform" isn't the same shenanigans?<br>TARP funds aren't the same shenanigans?<br>We don't want to let them know where we are any time they desire, but we should let them have control of 1/6th of our economy?</p><p>People, control is control.  If they have a noose around a leg, they can get one around an arm.  And in all cases, the goal is to get the noose around your neck.  Your "protector" is and always will be your "master".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And " healthcare reform " is n't the same shenanigans ? TARP funds are n't the same shenanigans ? We do n't want to let them know where we are any time they desire , but we should let them have control of 1/6th of our economy ? People , control is control .
If they have a noose around a leg , they can get one around an arm .
And in all cases , the goal is to get the noose around your neck .
Your " protector " is and always will be your " master " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And "healthcare reform" isn't the same shenanigans?TARP funds aren't the same shenanigans?We don't want to let them know where we are any time they desire, but we should let them have control of 1/6th of our economy?People, control is control.
If they have a noose around a leg, they can get one around an arm.
And in all cases, the goal is to get the noose around your neck.
Your "protector" is and always will be your "master".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105048</id>
	<title>Re:I do not have a cell phone...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265883480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ego on this one.  The government doesn't know you exist.  Pull your fucking head out of your ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ego on this one .
The government does n't know you exist .
Pull your fucking head out of your ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ego on this one.
The government doesn't know you exist.
Pull your fucking head out of your ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31107838</id>
	<title>Amendment!</title>
	<author>sam0737</author>
	<datestamp>1265894940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Feds push for amending the Fourth Amendment!</p><p>More on 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Feds push for amending the Fourth Amendment ! More on 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feds push for amending the Fourth Amendment!More on 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102700</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Sir\_Dill</author>
	<datestamp>1265917800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>

Mod Parent Up.

Seriously, this argument could be said about ALL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION.

OBVIOUSLY its available, because when you get a warrant, they look it up and provide it. DUH.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod Parent Up .
Seriously , this argument could be said about ALL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION .
OBVIOUSLY its available , because when you get a warrant , they look it up and provide it .
DUH .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Mod Parent Up.
Seriously, this argument could be said about ALL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION.
OBVIOUSLY its available, because when you get a warrant, they look it up and provide it.
DUH.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102954</id>
	<title>Letter of the Law vs. Spirit of the Law</title>
	<author>Ngarrang</author>
	<datestamp>1265918640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government logic being used here reminds of the incredible leaps of logic my 4-yr makes to defend himself from punishment.</p><p>Is very simple, my location at any given moment of any given day is none of the government's business.  You want to know, get a warrant.  None of this loop-hole business.  Makes me happy to not own a cell phone, since I am absolutely certain they are ALREADY tracking innocent citizens in this manner on a regular basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government logic being used here reminds of the incredible leaps of logic my 4-yr makes to defend himself from punishment.Is very simple , my location at any given moment of any given day is none of the government 's business .
You want to know , get a warrant .
None of this loop-hole business .
Makes me happy to not own a cell phone , since I am absolutely certain they are ALREADY tracking innocent citizens in this manner on a regular basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government logic being used here reminds of the incredible leaps of logic my 4-yr makes to defend himself from punishment.Is very simple, my location at any given moment of any given day is none of the government's business.
You want to know, get a warrant.
None of this loop-hole business.
Makes me happy to not own a cell phone, since I am absolutely certain they are ALREADY tracking innocent citizens in this manner on a regular basis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106846</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1265890440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where is this fantasy land where cops are held to laws and act humanely towards mere citizens?  It sounds lovely, and if it actually exists outside of your head I'd like to find out what it takes to immigrate there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is this fantasy land where cops are held to laws and act humanely towards mere citizens ?
It sounds lovely , and if it actually exists outside of your head I 'd like to find out what it takes to immigrate there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is this fantasy land where cops are held to laws and act humanely towards mere citizens?
It sounds lovely, and if it actually exists outside of your head I'd like to find out what it takes to immigrate there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31141156</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266174300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do I not be anywhere? Hmm I think that is illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do I not be anywhere ?
Hmm I think that is illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do I not be anywhere?
Hmm I think that is illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104588</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1265881680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The cops and the government don;t give a FUCK about you or your habits unless you;re already on their radar.</p></div><p>And how do you get on their radar?  Maybe you had a cop for a boyfriend and dumped him?  Maybe you're the head of the homeowner's association, and sent the cop a letter to clean up her yard?  Maybe you were on the way home from your oldest son's graduation ceremony following the directions given to you by the GPS, when you find yourself at a police roadblock, having forgotten your driver's license in the rush to get to said ceremony?  Should you now be subject to have your possessions searched while the claim you're a drug-dealing prostitute for a half hour because you obviously weren't supposed to be on THAT public street?</p><p>(The last didn't happen to me, but it did happen to my wife.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cops and the government don ; t give a FUCK about you or your habits unless you ; re already on their radar.And how do you get on their radar ?
Maybe you had a cop for a boyfriend and dumped him ?
Maybe you 're the head of the homeowner 's association , and sent the cop a letter to clean up her yard ?
Maybe you were on the way home from your oldest son 's graduation ceremony following the directions given to you by the GPS , when you find yourself at a police roadblock , having forgotten your driver 's license in the rush to get to said ceremony ?
Should you now be subject to have your possessions searched while the claim you 're a drug-dealing prostitute for a half hour because you obviously were n't supposed to be on THAT public street ?
( The last did n't happen to me , but it did happen to my wife .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cops and the government don;t give a FUCK about you or your habits unless you;re already on their radar.And how do you get on their radar?
Maybe you had a cop for a boyfriend and dumped him?
Maybe you're the head of the homeowner's association, and sent the cop a letter to clean up her yard?
Maybe you were on the way home from your oldest son's graduation ceremony following the directions given to you by the GPS, when you find yourself at a police roadblock, having forgotten your driver's license in the rush to get to said ceremony?
Should you now be subject to have your possessions searched while the claim you're a drug-dealing prostitute for a half hour because you obviously weren't supposed to be on THAT public street?
(The last didn't happen to me, but it did happen to my wife.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104810</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265882520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...continue on their malicious ways of fascism.</p><p>You fucking read my mind man.</p><p>K0Z4M</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...continue on their malicious ways of fascism.You fucking read my mind man.K0Z4M</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...continue on their malicious ways of fascism.You fucking read my mind man.K0Z4M</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105826</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>DM9290</author>
	<datestamp>1265886120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No parallel.  This location data they're requesting is HISTROICAL, not real time tracking and location information.  This is NO DIFFERENT than the lack of a warrant it takes to acquire your calling records, to scan your e-mail headers (not message content), to pull credit card receipts, and more.</p><p>This data helps cops, who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE, and how FILE A FORM, and go through DUE PROCESS, to find a criminal or suspect, or interested 3rd party they seek on an ACTIVE CASE.</p></div><p>there is no impartial validation of whether or not the probable cause is in fact probable cause.  no affidavit and therefore no threat of perjury charges for wrong information. and the only person authenticating the probable cause is another cop.  The cops can't be the ones trying to protect your rights simultaneously as the ones trying to infringe your rights. It is a conflict of interest. In your world we could do away with juries and judges and merely have cops and prosecutors.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This does NOT give cops the ability to simply search this data when ever they want, for anyone.  Why not?  verizon and otherc charge a FEE for the access, EACH TIME it's accessed.  Those charges have to be billed back to an active case file, or justified, otherwise, without the due process, a) the officer gets fired, or best case eats the charges out of his personal payroll, and likely faces sanctions and administrative punishments,</p></div><p>like no officer would ever be able to afford to pony up the $40 fee or whatever the phone company is charging for a look up.  That's sound reasoning.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>b) the person, when notified of this access without due process, DOES have a legal case against the cop who illegally pulled this information.</p></div><p>its not illegal to pull the information because according to the government there is NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.. therefore the phone company can sell the information to whoever the hell it wants, and you have no recourse.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>just because there is no warrant required does NOT mean there's no probable cause and due process required.</p></div><p>no. but if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy then there is no probable cause or due process required. The government is arguing no expectation of privacy.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A cop can search your car if you're pulled over for a speeding ticket, based on a number of reasons or suspicions.</p></div><p>only based on reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime is in progress and a warrant is impractical, or if they are arresting you and the search is carried out incidentally to the arrest. It's already been decided that when you are being lawfully arrested the police are allowed to search the immediate vicinity for evidence, to secure your property, etc.   It's not a blanket authorization to search your trunk simply to give you a speeding ticket.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> If you refuse a search, it only requires some paperwork, and a supervisor to arrive on scene to force a search anyway (or they impound your car).</p></div><p>supervisors have the power to take away rights from subordinate officers, but they can't create rights that don't otherwise exist.<br>The right of an officer to search your vehicle still devolves from either a warrant, or a search incidental to an arrest, or reasonable grounds to suspect that the search is necessary to stop a crime in progress and that it would be impractical to obtain a warrant.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>However, if a cop pulls you over, without cause or charge, and asks to search your car, he has no cause and can not.</p></div><p>true. but with all that said, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with compelling third parties to turn over records about your car which are not located inside your car.  and goes not give the officer the right to take you back to your home and search the car which you weren't driving at the time.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>  Neither case requires a warrant, but you DO have levels of protection.  The fact there's a financial penalty to the department to make this access makes it that much less liely it will be done without being tied to an actual case file.</p></div><p>it's not a penalty. its a user fee. and user fees are just as much of a deterrent to legitimate as well as illegitimate investigations. It does not protect your privacy.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Think about it, tracking history for known criminals (lets say we ARREST a drug dealer, and he won;t reveal his source), now they make a request, pay verizon, download his location history, and dispatch a few officers with warrents to search a few of his frequent stops (other suspected dealer homes).  Bamb, gotcha.</p></div><p>if they had any scrap of evidence that the drug dealer made a single drug transaction using his phone, they could get the phone records with a search warrant anyway, as the phone records would be evidence of him using his phone during the alleged transaction.</p><p>
&nbsp; once there is no expectation of privacy, verizon is free to sell the information to anybody and everybody including rival gangs. they can make a request, pay verizon, download his location history and go murder him.</p><p>not to mention his friends and associates who have absolutely NOTHING TO DO with his criminal activities.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The cops and the government don;t give a FUCK about you or your habits unless you;re already on their radar.  This is simply one additional tool. if they don;t have it, they'll just scope out your house or work and follow you the old fashioned way.  That is expensive, inaccurate, and a waste of manpower better spent keeping drugs away from my kids, tracking down wanted suspects, and cross validating false alibis.</p></div><p>yeah.. because there have never been any corrupt government officials.  a commander in the Canadian Air Force is currently suspected of being a SERIAL MURDERER.</p><p>As the law has been up until today they could just get a warrant and comply with the requirements of the Constitution.  I have not heard 1 iota of justification for why this is such a hurdle for any investigation with any legitimate evidence to back it up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No parallel .
This location data they 're requesting is HISTROICAL , not real time tracking and location information .
This is NO DIFFERENT than the lack of a warrant it takes to acquire your calling records , to scan your e-mail headers ( not message content ) , to pull credit card receipts , and more.This data helps cops , who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE , and how FILE A FORM , and go through DUE PROCESS , to find a criminal or suspect , or interested 3rd party they seek on an ACTIVE CASE.there is no impartial validation of whether or not the probable cause is in fact probable cause .
no affidavit and therefore no threat of perjury charges for wrong information .
and the only person authenticating the probable cause is another cop .
The cops ca n't be the ones trying to protect your rights simultaneously as the ones trying to infringe your rights .
It is a conflict of interest .
In your world we could do away with juries and judges and merely have cops and prosecutors.This does NOT give cops the ability to simply search this data when ever they want , for anyone .
Why not ?
verizon and otherc charge a FEE for the access , EACH TIME it 's accessed .
Those charges have to be billed back to an active case file , or justified , otherwise , without the due process , a ) the officer gets fired , or best case eats the charges out of his personal payroll , and likely faces sanctions and administrative punishments,like no officer would ever be able to afford to pony up the $ 40 fee or whatever the phone company is charging for a look up .
That 's sound reasoning.b ) the person , when notified of this access without due process , DOES have a legal case against the cop who illegally pulled this information.its not illegal to pull the information because according to the government there is NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.. therefore the phone company can sell the information to whoever the hell it wants , and you have no recourse.just because there is no warrant required does NOT mean there 's no probable cause and due process required.no .
but if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy then there is no probable cause or due process required .
The government is arguing no expectation of privacy.A cop can search your car if you 're pulled over for a speeding ticket , based on a number of reasons or suspicions.only based on reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime is in progress and a warrant is impractical , or if they are arresting you and the search is carried out incidentally to the arrest .
It 's already been decided that when you are being lawfully arrested the police are allowed to search the immediate vicinity for evidence , to secure your property , etc .
It 's not a blanket authorization to search your trunk simply to give you a speeding ticket .
If you refuse a search , it only requires some paperwork , and a supervisor to arrive on scene to force a search anyway ( or they impound your car ) .supervisors have the power to take away rights from subordinate officers , but they ca n't create rights that do n't otherwise exist.The right of an officer to search your vehicle still devolves from either a warrant , or a search incidental to an arrest , or reasonable grounds to suspect that the search is necessary to stop a crime in progress and that it would be impractical to obtain a warrant.However , if a cop pulls you over , without cause or charge , and asks to search your car , he has no cause and can not.true .
but with all that said , this has absolutely NOTHING to do with compelling third parties to turn over records about your car which are not located inside your car .
and goes not give the officer the right to take you back to your home and search the car which you were n't driving at the time .
Neither case requires a warrant , but you DO have levels of protection .
The fact there 's a financial penalty to the department to make this access makes it that much less liely it will be done without being tied to an actual case file.it 's not a penalty .
its a user fee .
and user fees are just as much of a deterrent to legitimate as well as illegitimate investigations .
It does not protect your privacy.Think about it , tracking history for known criminals ( lets say we ARREST a drug dealer , and he won ; t reveal his source ) , now they make a request , pay verizon , download his location history , and dispatch a few officers with warrents to search a few of his frequent stops ( other suspected dealer homes ) .
Bamb , gotcha.if they had any scrap of evidence that the drug dealer made a single drug transaction using his phone , they could get the phone records with a search warrant anyway , as the phone records would be evidence of him using his phone during the alleged transaction .
  once there is no expectation of privacy , verizon is free to sell the information to anybody and everybody including rival gangs .
they can make a request , pay verizon , download his location history and go murder him.not to mention his friends and associates who have absolutely NOTHING TO DO with his criminal activities.The cops and the government don ; t give a FUCK about you or your habits unless you ; re already on their radar .
This is simply one additional tool .
if they don ; t have it , they 'll just scope out your house or work and follow you the old fashioned way .
That is expensive , inaccurate , and a waste of manpower better spent keeping drugs away from my kids , tracking down wanted suspects , and cross validating false alibis.yeah.. because there have never been any corrupt government officials .
a commander in the Canadian Air Force is currently suspected of being a SERIAL MURDERER.As the law has been up until today they could just get a warrant and comply with the requirements of the Constitution .
I have not heard 1 iota of justification for why this is such a hurdle for any investigation with any legitimate evidence to back it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No parallel.
This location data they're requesting is HISTROICAL, not real time tracking and location information.
This is NO DIFFERENT than the lack of a warrant it takes to acquire your calling records, to scan your e-mail headers (not message content), to pull credit card receipts, and more.This data helps cops, who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE, and how FILE A FORM, and go through DUE PROCESS, to find a criminal or suspect, or interested 3rd party they seek on an ACTIVE CASE.there is no impartial validation of whether or not the probable cause is in fact probable cause.
no affidavit and therefore no threat of perjury charges for wrong information.
and the only person authenticating the probable cause is another cop.
The cops can't be the ones trying to protect your rights simultaneously as the ones trying to infringe your rights.
It is a conflict of interest.
In your world we could do away with juries and judges and merely have cops and prosecutors.This does NOT give cops the ability to simply search this data when ever they want, for anyone.
Why not?
verizon and otherc charge a FEE for the access, EACH TIME it's accessed.
Those charges have to be billed back to an active case file, or justified, otherwise, without the due process, a) the officer gets fired, or best case eats the charges out of his personal payroll, and likely faces sanctions and administrative punishments,like no officer would ever be able to afford to pony up the $40 fee or whatever the phone company is charging for a look up.
That's sound reasoning.b) the person, when notified of this access without due process, DOES have a legal case against the cop who illegally pulled this information.its not illegal to pull the information because according to the government there is NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.. therefore the phone company can sell the information to whoever the hell it wants, and you have no recourse.just because there is no warrant required does NOT mean there's no probable cause and due process required.no.
but if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy then there is no probable cause or due process required.
The government is arguing no expectation of privacy.A cop can search your car if you're pulled over for a speeding ticket, based on a number of reasons or suspicions.only based on reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime is in progress and a warrant is impractical, or if they are arresting you and the search is carried out incidentally to the arrest.
It's already been decided that when you are being lawfully arrested the police are allowed to search the immediate vicinity for evidence, to secure your property, etc.
It's not a blanket authorization to search your trunk simply to give you a speeding ticket.
If you refuse a search, it only requires some paperwork, and a supervisor to arrive on scene to force a search anyway (or they impound your car).supervisors have the power to take away rights from subordinate officers, but they can't create rights that don't otherwise exist.The right of an officer to search your vehicle still devolves from either a warrant, or a search incidental to an arrest, or reasonable grounds to suspect that the search is necessary to stop a crime in progress and that it would be impractical to obtain a warrant.However, if a cop pulls you over, without cause or charge, and asks to search your car, he has no cause and can not.true.
but with all that said, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with compelling third parties to turn over records about your car which are not located inside your car.
and goes not give the officer the right to take you back to your home and search the car which you weren't driving at the time.
Neither case requires a warrant, but you DO have levels of protection.
The fact there's a financial penalty to the department to make this access makes it that much less liely it will be done without being tied to an actual case file.it's not a penalty.
its a user fee.
and user fees are just as much of a deterrent to legitimate as well as illegitimate investigations.
It does not protect your privacy.Think about it, tracking history for known criminals (lets say we ARREST a drug dealer, and he won;t reveal his source), now they make a request, pay verizon, download his location history, and dispatch a few officers with warrents to search a few of his frequent stops (other suspected dealer homes).
Bamb, gotcha.if they had any scrap of evidence that the drug dealer made a single drug transaction using his phone, they could get the phone records with a search warrant anyway, as the phone records would be evidence of him using his phone during the alleged transaction.
  once there is no expectation of privacy, verizon is free to sell the information to anybody and everybody including rival gangs.
they can make a request, pay verizon, download his location history and go murder him.not to mention his friends and associates who have absolutely NOTHING TO DO with his criminal activities.The cops and the government don;t give a FUCK about you or your habits unless you;re already on their radar.
This is simply one additional tool.
if they don;t have it, they'll just scope out your house or work and follow you the old fashioned way.
That is expensive, inaccurate, and a waste of manpower better spent keeping drugs away from my kids, tracking down wanted suspects, and cross validating false alibis.yeah.. because there have never been any corrupt government officials.
a commander in the Canadian Air Force is currently suspected of being a SERIAL MURDERER.As the law has been up until today they could just get a warrant and comply with the requirements of the Constitution.
I have not heard 1 iota of justification for why this is such a hurdle for any investigation with any legitimate evidence to back it up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102894</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>newcastlejon</author>
	<datestamp>1265918400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not as USian but as an outside observer it seems to me you need a new amendment for the digital age to finally codify the limits on police powers that apply to modern technology.</p><p>If we've learnt anything so far, it's that you can't rely on those in charge to care about the spirit of the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not as USian but as an outside observer it seems to me you need a new amendment for the digital age to finally codify the limits on police powers that apply to modern technology.If we 've learnt anything so far , it 's that you ca n't rely on those in charge to care about the spirit of the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not as USian but as an outside observer it seems to me you need a new amendment for the digital age to finally codify the limits on police powers that apply to modern technology.If we've learnt anything so far, it's that you can't rely on those in charge to care about the spirit of the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31110528</id>
	<title>Re:Shocked by Obama? This is who he is...</title>
	<author>rastoboy29</author>
	<datestamp>1265967300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>I think you're reading way, way, too much into his statement.<br><br>I read it simply that he's saying the government should do more for the people.<br><br>I do not read that as "government knows best" or "government should spy on you more".<br><br>I do disagree with this push, however.&nbsp; Personally, I suspect he has bought in, to an extent, to the previous administration's paranoia.&nbsp; And there are certain things in a big goverment that have consistency beyond administrations.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're reading way , way , too much into his statement.I read it simply that he 's saying the government should do more for the people.I do not read that as " government knows best " or " government should spy on you more " .I do disagree with this push , however.   Personally , I suspect he has bought in , to an extent , to the previous administration 's paranoia.   And there are certain things in a big goverment that have consistency beyond administrations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're reading way, way, too much into his statement.I read it simply that he's saying the government should do more for the people.I do not read that as "government knows best" or "government should spy on you more".I do disagree with this push, however.  Personally, I suspect he has bought in, to an extent, to the previous administration's paranoia.  And there are certain things in a big goverment that have consistency beyond administrations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31107292</id>
	<title>Re:I thought Bush was the fascist</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1265892180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heh, apparently <a href="http://news.google.com/news?q=\%22miss\%20me\%20yet\%22" title="google.com">someone put up a billboard</a> [google.com] saying, "Miss me yet?" with a picture of Bush.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , apparently someone put up a billboard [ google.com ] saying , " Miss me yet ?
" with a picture of Bush .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, apparently someone put up a billboard [google.com] saying, "Miss me yet?
" with a picture of Bush.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103218</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1265919480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No normal government will ever tie their own hands. Right after a revolution - be it a war of independence or civil war - is the only time when people wronged by the government will sit in government and have the power to do anything about it. The rest of the time, claw into what you have and don't let go - it's not coming back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No normal government will ever tie their own hands .
Right after a revolution - be it a war of independence or civil war - is the only time when people wronged by the government will sit in government and have the power to do anything about it .
The rest of the time , claw into what you have and do n't let go - it 's not coming back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No normal government will ever tie their own hands.
Right after a revolution - be it a war of independence or civil war - is the only time when people wronged by the government will sit in government and have the power to do anything about it.
The rest of the time, claw into what you have and don't let go - it's not coming back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31114786</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, that's ok....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265997240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My thoughts exactly.  Push to boycott and wireless providers that require and billing address.  This is fucking insane to think it doesn't violate the 4th amendment.  If this doesn't, then neither does watching your every move inside your home because there is heath movement sensor technology to do it well.  Same argument, really.<br>The PATRIOT act was somewhat acceptable, because it's use was limited to foreign intelligence gathering (that happens to pass through USA wires), AND NOT TO FUCKING SPY ON OUR OWN CITIZENS!  Fucking communist Obama is what this says to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My thoughts exactly .
Push to boycott and wireless providers that require and billing address .
This is fucking insane to think it does n't violate the 4th amendment .
If this does n't , then neither does watching your every move inside your home because there is heath movement sensor technology to do it well .
Same argument , really.The PATRIOT act was somewhat acceptable , because it 's use was limited to foreign intelligence gathering ( that happens to pass through USA wires ) , AND NOT TO FUCKING SPY ON OUR OWN CITIZENS !
Fucking communist Obama is what this says to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My thoughts exactly.
Push to boycott and wireless providers that require and billing address.
This is fucking insane to think it doesn't violate the 4th amendment.
If this doesn't, then neither does watching your every move inside your home because there is heath movement sensor technology to do it well.
Same argument, really.The PATRIOT act was somewhat acceptable, because it's use was limited to foreign intelligence gathering (that happens to pass through USA wires), AND NOT TO FUCKING SPY ON OUR OWN CITIZENS!
Fucking communist Obama is what this says to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586</id>
	<title>But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about the spirit of the 4th amendment?  Sure, it <b>may</b> not violate the amendment as it's worded, but was that the intent of it when it was put in?  <br> <br>We're getting into very precarious situations here.  With technology advancing, we're pushing the letter of the law as far as it can go, even when it isn't really applicable.  Don't forget, the Constitution was written over 200 years ago.  We need to stop looking how the letter of the laws apply to today's world, and start looking into the spirit of the laws.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the spirit of the 4th amendment ?
Sure , it may not violate the amendment as it 's worded , but was that the intent of it when it was put in ?
We 're getting into very precarious situations here .
With technology advancing , we 're pushing the letter of the law as far as it can go , even when it is n't really applicable .
Do n't forget , the Constitution was written over 200 years ago .
We need to stop looking how the letter of the laws apply to today 's world , and start looking into the spirit of the laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the spirit of the 4th amendment?
Sure, it may not violate the amendment as it's worded, but was that the intent of it when it was put in?
We're getting into very precarious situations here.
With technology advancing, we're pushing the letter of the law as far as it can go, even when it isn't really applicable.
Don't forget, the Constitution was written over 200 years ago.
We need to stop looking how the letter of the laws apply to today's world, and start looking into the spirit of the laws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103762</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>flaming error</author>
	<datestamp>1265921520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hearitly agree with what you're saying, except for the "MUCH expanded Bill of Rights".   The Constitution was not intended to be a blacklist of things the government can't do; it's a whitelist of things they can do.  If it's not in the whitelist, they can't do it.</p><p>So counter-intuitive though it may seem, if any list needs to be expanded it's the whitelist of things they can do, along with a generous helping of pounding it into their heads that if it's not enumerated as one of their powers, and they try it anyway, they will face an empowered and unsympathetic justice system, be they subcontracted goons or Presidents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hearitly agree with what you 're saying , except for the " MUCH expanded Bill of Rights " .
The Constitution was not intended to be a blacklist of things the government ca n't do ; it 's a whitelist of things they can do .
If it 's not in the whitelist , they ca n't do it.So counter-intuitive though it may seem , if any list needs to be expanded it 's the whitelist of things they can do , along with a generous helping of pounding it into their heads that if it 's not enumerated as one of their powers , and they try it anyway , they will face an empowered and unsympathetic justice system , be they subcontracted goons or Presidents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hearitly agree with what you're saying, except for the "MUCH expanded Bill of Rights".
The Constitution was not intended to be a blacklist of things the government can't do; it's a whitelist of things they can do.
If it's not in the whitelist, they can't do it.So counter-intuitive though it may seem, if any list needs to be expanded it's the whitelist of things they can do, along with a generous helping of pounding it into their heads that if it's not enumerated as one of their powers, and they try it anyway, they will face an empowered and unsympathetic justice system, be they subcontracted goons or Presidents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106268</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, eh?</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1265887980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IF this were Bushing wanting something similar... as you say...  He would have gotten it as well, despite how much the bloody murder the left screamed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IF this were Bushing wanting something similar... as you say... He would have gotten it as well , despite how much the bloody murder the left screamed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IF this were Bushing wanting something similar... as you say...  He would have gotten it as well, despite how much the bloody murder the left screamed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103774</id>
	<title>Are they on fucking crack?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265921580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Word.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Word.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103124</id>
	<title>Re:Obama must first guarantee no abuse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265919120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama doesn't care.  His administration flat-out says in the article that Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy."  Along with his defense of Bush wiretapping, it sure looks like we got the hope and change we were promised, eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama does n't care .
His administration flat-out says in the article that Americans enjoy no " reasonable expectation of privacy .
" Along with his defense of Bush wiretapping , it sure looks like we got the hope and change we were promised , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama doesn't care.
His administration flat-out says in the article that Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy.
"  Along with his defense of Bush wiretapping, it sure looks like we got the hope and change we were promised, eh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103190</id>
	<title>Re:Hope and Change, eh?</title>
	<author>Malk-a-mite</author>
	<datestamp>1265919420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anonymous Troll writes:<br>"<i>I guarantee if this were Bush wanting something similar, the left would be screaming bloody murder at the mere THOUGHT of it. </i>"</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... reading fundamentals works for me.</p><p>FTFA:<br>"<i>Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed. </i>"</p><p>Gasp! Shock!  Amazement!<br>People who don't like something under one administration - might also not like it under another!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymous Troll writes : " I guarantee if this were Bush wanting something similar , the left would be screaming bloody murder at the mere THOUGHT of it .
" ... reading fundamentals works for me.FTFA : " Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups , which have opposed the Justice Department 's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans ' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed .
" Gasp ! Shock !
Amazement ! People who do n't like something under one administration - might also not like it under another !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymous Troll writes:"I guarantee if this were Bush wanting something similar, the left would be screaming bloody murder at the mere THOUGHT of it.
" ... reading fundamentals works for me.FTFA:"Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.
"Gasp! Shock!
Amazement!People who don't like something under one administration - might also not like it under another!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31108908</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265903220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You stopped reading at the fourth word but apparently didn't notice that he's <b>not American</b>. Some people do care about the distinction, even - judging by the UID - a n00b. Maybe next time you should finish reading the whole comment and put something constructive in your reply instead of some petty technicality.</p><p>Oh, wait, I just remembered what site this...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You stopped reading at the fourth word but apparently did n't notice that he 's not American .
Some people do care about the distinction , even - judging by the UID - a n00b .
Maybe next time you should finish reading the whole comment and put something constructive in your reply instead of some petty technicality.Oh , wait , I just remembered what site this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You stopped reading at the fourth word but apparently didn't notice that he's not American.
Some people do care about the distinction, even - judging by the UID - a n00b.
Maybe next time you should finish reading the whole comment and put something constructive in your reply instead of some petty technicality.Oh, wait, I just remembered what site this...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103622</id>
	<title>Re:Shocked by Obama? This is who he is...</title>
	<author>goofyspouse</author>
	<datestamp>1265921040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.</p></div><p>Nope.  I hate this sort of nonsense no matter who is doing it.  Obama has a long ways to go to catch up the BushCo's level of shenanigans, but he seems intent on doing so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.Nope .
I hate this sort of nonsense no matter who is doing it .
Obama has a long ways to go to catch up the BushCo 's level of shenanigans , but he seems intent on doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.Nope.
I hate this sort of nonsense no matter who is doing it.
Obama has a long ways to go to catch up the BushCo's level of shenanigans, but he seems intent on doing so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102936</id>
	<title>Cell Phone Triangulation</title>
	<author>jamesyouwish</author>
	<datestamp>1265918520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait I have seen what Google Maps does with cell phone triangulation and it has never been more than a couple of meters off.  Then GPS kicks in.  That is way to close.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait I have seen what Google Maps does with cell phone triangulation and it has never been more than a couple of meters off .
Then GPS kicks in .
That is way to close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait I have seen what Google Maps does with cell phone triangulation and it has never been more than a couple of meters off.
Then GPS kicks in.
That is way to close.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102922</id>
	<title>Solution</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1265918520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) if the feds require the data retention, then a warrant is necessary to access the customer's information.<br>2a) if the feds do not require data retention, then a warrant is required to access the carrier's information.<br>2b) if the feds do not require data retention and there is not a reasonable business reason to retain the information, find a carrier that doesn't retain the information beyond what is needed for routine business use.</p><p>It's reasonable for businesses to keep statistical, summary information that cannot be traced back to a customer pretty much indefinitely, well, for years anyways.  It's useful for planning and the like.</p><p>It's reasonable for businesses to keep billing data until the billing is finalized.  This will normally be 60-90 days after the bill is paid unless they are subject to having the billing opened up at a later date and need the records to protect their interests.</p><p>Location data needs to be kept only for a few days until it is stripped of personal information UNLESS it is needed for billing, for example, off-network roaming, reconciling a bill with a 3rd party carrier, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) if the feds require the data retention , then a warrant is necessary to access the customer 's information.2a ) if the feds do not require data retention , then a warrant is required to access the carrier 's information.2b ) if the feds do not require data retention and there is not a reasonable business reason to retain the information , find a carrier that does n't retain the information beyond what is needed for routine business use.It 's reasonable for businesses to keep statistical , summary information that can not be traced back to a customer pretty much indefinitely , well , for years anyways .
It 's useful for planning and the like.It 's reasonable for businesses to keep billing data until the billing is finalized .
This will normally be 60-90 days after the bill is paid unless they are subject to having the billing opened up at a later date and need the records to protect their interests.Location data needs to be kept only for a few days until it is stripped of personal information UNLESS it is needed for billing , for example , off-network roaming , reconciling a bill with a 3rd party carrier , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) if the feds require the data retention, then a warrant is necessary to access the customer's information.2a) if the feds do not require data retention, then a warrant is required to access the carrier's information.2b) if the feds do not require data retention and there is not a reasonable business reason to retain the information, find a carrier that doesn't retain the information beyond what is needed for routine business use.It's reasonable for businesses to keep statistical, summary information that cannot be traced back to a customer pretty much indefinitely, well, for years anyways.
It's useful for planning and the like.It's reasonable for businesses to keep billing data until the billing is finalized.
This will normally be 60-90 days after the bill is paid unless they are subject to having the billing opened up at a later date and need the records to protect their interests.Location data needs to be kept only for a few days until it is stripped of personal information UNLESS it is needed for billing, for example, off-network roaming, reconciling a bill with a 3rd party carrier, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102784</id>
	<title>Where in the Constitution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265918100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question is not only a one of the 4th Amendment, one of GRANTED powers in the Constitution.  But since the Supreme Court has eviscerated the Constitution via the Commerce Clause rulings no one seems to even ask "wasn't this a document of ENUMERATED powers, and where is this enumerated?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is not only a one of the 4th Amendment , one of GRANTED powers in the Constitution .
But since the Supreme Court has eviscerated the Constitution via the Commerce Clause rulings no one seems to even ask " was n't this a document of ENUMERATED powers , and where is this enumerated ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is not only a one of the 4th Amendment, one of GRANTED powers in the Constitution.
But since the Supreme Court has eviscerated the Constitution via the Commerce Clause rulings no one seems to even ask "wasn't this a document of ENUMERATED powers, and where is this enumerated?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102466</id>
	<title>Yeah, that's ok....</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1265917200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess I didn't really need a cell phone anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I did n't really need a cell phone anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I didn't really need a cell phone anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104350</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265880720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can somebody tell me....and I really want to understand this... why law enforcement agencies have such a big problem with having to follow DUE PROCEDURE and getting a warrant?   If they want the information that bad, and they really do have a reason to get it, then they should have absolutely, positively no problem GETTING A GODDAMN WARRANT.</p><p>Law enforcement:  Stop trying to trample all over our Constitution just because you're too goddamn lazy to do your job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can somebody tell me....and I really want to understand this... why law enforcement agencies have such a big problem with having to follow DUE PROCEDURE and getting a warrant ?
If they want the information that bad , and they really do have a reason to get it , then they should have absolutely , positively no problem GETTING A GODDAMN WARRANT.Law enforcement : Stop trying to trample all over our Constitution just because you 're too goddamn lazy to do your job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can somebody tell me....and I really want to understand this... why law enforcement agencies have such a big problem with having to follow DUE PROCEDURE and getting a warrant?
If they want the information that bad, and they really do have a reason to get it, then they should have absolutely, positively no problem GETTING A GODDAMN WARRANT.Law enforcement:  Stop trying to trample all over our Constitution just because you're too goddamn lazy to do your job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104552</id>
	<title>Re:I thought Bush was the fascist</title>
	<author>ukyoCE</author>
	<datestamp>1265881560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Serious question:</p><p>Did the entire justice department get replaced in the past year?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Serious question : Did the entire justice department get replaced in the past year ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Serious question:Did the entire justice department get replaced in the past year?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106134</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Thoreauly Nuts</author>
	<datestamp>1265887440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is not outdated. Politicians take an oath to uphold the constitution, but don't. They should be thrown in jail. There is no interpretation of it, it's very easy to read and understand.</p></div><p>I agree with you in "spirit" (hehe), but they aren't being thrown in jail and there is quite a lot of arguing over interpretation so something needs to be done. Maybe my answer isn't the right one, but there still needs to be one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not outdated .
Politicians take an oath to uphold the constitution , but do n't .
They should be thrown in jail .
There is no interpretation of it , it 's very easy to read and understand.I agree with you in " spirit " ( hehe ) , but they are n't being thrown in jail and there is quite a lot of arguing over interpretation so something needs to be done .
Maybe my answer is n't the right one , but there still needs to be one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not outdated.
Politicians take an oath to uphold the constitution, but don't.
They should be thrown in jail.
There is no interpretation of it, it's very easy to read and understand.I agree with you in "spirit" (hehe), but they aren't being thrown in jail and there is quite a lot of arguing over interpretation so something needs to be done.
Maybe my answer isn't the right one, but there still needs to be one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104020</id>
	<title>Mu-Metal</title>
	<author>adipocere</author>
	<datestamp>1265879340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At this point, given how little I use my cell phone, anyway, I am strongly considering making a little box out of mu-metal.  I think (but have not run the numbers) that it would be more effective than simple copper at the given frequencies.  Whenever I want to use the phone, I will take it out of the box.  Seeing as how I have used no minutes or text messages this month (already a third over), there's an argument to be made for switching to a much cheaper service.</p><p>I might get a pager, in case work (or anyone else) needs to get ahold of me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At this point , given how little I use my cell phone , anyway , I am strongly considering making a little box out of mu-metal .
I think ( but have not run the numbers ) that it would be more effective than simple copper at the given frequencies .
Whenever I want to use the phone , I will take it out of the box .
Seeing as how I have used no minutes or text messages this month ( already a third over ) , there 's an argument to be made for switching to a much cheaper service.I might get a pager , in case work ( or anyone else ) needs to get ahold of me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this point, given how little I use my cell phone, anyway, I am strongly considering making a little box out of mu-metal.
I think (but have not run the numbers) that it would be more effective than simple copper at the given frequencies.
Whenever I want to use the phone, I will take it out of the box.
Seeing as how I have used no minutes or text messages this month (already a third over), there's an argument to be made for switching to a much cheaper service.I might get a pager, in case work (or anyone else) needs to get ahold of me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106168</id>
	<title>The Feds should re-read the bill of rights!!!!</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1265887560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop pushing for ways to destroy America...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop pushing for ways to destroy America.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop pushing for ways to destroy America...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31110022</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103570</id>
	<title>Highly Disturbing</title>
	<author>KharmaWidow</author>
	<datestamp>1265920800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... Or don't allow them to track you. In this case use a pay as you go phone or steal someone else's. And take the battery out when not in use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... Or do n't allow them to track you .
In this case use a pay as you go phone or steal someone else 's .
And take the battery out when not in use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Or don't allow them to track you.
In this case use a pay as you go phone or steal someone else's.
And take the battery out when not in use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105882</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265886360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Close.  If you don't want anyone to know where you are, don't **take a radio-tethered track and trace device** with you!</p><p>Or just turn off the radio.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/duh</p><p>A little checkbox next to "Mobile Network" gets cleared, and off the grid I go...</p><p>If you think you can give private data like your location to a company that's in cahoots with the Feds, and then expect it to STAY private... well, you are a sheeple, and there is no hope for you.</p><p>It would be nice if we followed the constitution and all that, agreed.  But don't act like we actually DO, or you will be in deep trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Close .
If you do n't want anyone to know where you are , do n't * * take a radio-tethered track and trace device * * with you ! Or just turn off the radio .
/duhA little checkbox next to " Mobile Network " gets cleared , and off the grid I go...If you think you can give private data like your location to a company that 's in cahoots with the Feds , and then expect it to STAY private... well , you are a sheeple , and there is no hope for you.It would be nice if we followed the constitution and all that , agreed .
But do n't act like we actually DO , or you will be in deep trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Close.
If you don't want anyone to know where you are, don't **take a radio-tethered track and trace device** with you!Or just turn off the radio.
/duhA little checkbox next to "Mobile Network" gets cleared, and off the grid I go...If you think you can give private data like your location to a company that's in cahoots with the Feds, and then expect it to STAY private... well, you are a sheeple, and there is no hope for you.It would be nice if we followed the constitution and all that, agreed.
But don't act like we actually DO, or you will be in deep trouble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31107858</id>
	<title>Write to the White House instead of slashdot</title>
	<author>DarkDigger</author>
	<datestamp>1265895060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These comments should be directed at the White House. Venting it here doesn't help anything.

<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact" title="whitehouse.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact</a> [whitehouse.gov]

I just finished writing them to complain and you should too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These comments should be directed at the White House .
Venting it here does n't help anything .
http : //www.whitehouse.gov/contact [ whitehouse.gov ] I just finished writing them to complain and you should too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These comments should be directed at the White House.
Venting it here doesn't help anything.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact [whitehouse.gov]

I just finished writing them to complain and you should too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31108388</id>
	<title>Re:hope and change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265898720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;  Still glad you voted for Obama, fucknuts?</p><p>I know the black people are glad they voted for him.   They pretty much ALL voted for him.  Every time I look at a black person, I say to myself, "Thanks alot for helping fuck up this country, ape."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Still glad you voted for Obama , fucknuts ? I know the black people are glad they voted for him .
They pretty much ALL voted for him .
Every time I look at a black person , I say to myself , " Thanks alot for helping fuck up this country , ape .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;  Still glad you voted for Obama, fucknuts?I know the black people are glad they voted for him.
They pretty much ALL voted for him.
Every time I look at a black person, I say to myself, "Thanks alot for helping fuck up this country, ape.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104246</id>
	<title>Let's apply that logic to a different set of info</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265880240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Because wireless carriers regularly generate and retain the records at issue, "</i><br>They also regularly record and retain things like credit card #'s. Should those be handed over without a warrant too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Because wireless carriers regularly generate and retain the records at issue , " They also regularly record and retain things like credit card # 's .
Should those be handed over without a warrant too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Because wireless carriers regularly generate and retain the records at issue, "They also regularly record and retain things like credit card #'s.
Should those be handed over without a warrant too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103128</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>TheNarrator</author>
	<datestamp>1265919180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.&rsquo;<br>- Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America&rsquo;s Role in the Technetronic Era, 1970</p></div></blockquote><p>They've got everything else in place, they're just working on the "instantaneous retrieval by the authorities" part.</p><p>FYI, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew\_Brzeziski" title="wikipedia.org">Zbigniew Brzezinski</a> [wikipedia.org] was carter's national security advisor and co-founder of the trilateral commission.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society .
Such a society would be dominated by an elite , unrestrained by traditional values .
Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen .
These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.    - Zbigniew Brzezinski , Between Two Ages : America    s Role in the Technetronic Era , 1970They 've got everything else in place , they 're just working on the " instantaneous retrieval by the authorities " part.FYI , Zbigniew Brzezinski [ wikipedia.org ] was carter 's national security advisor and co-founder of the trilateral commission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society.
Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.
Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen.
These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.’- Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, 1970They've got everything else in place, they're just working on the "instantaneous retrieval by the authorities" part.FYI, Zbigniew Brzezinski [wikipedia.org] was carter's national security advisor and co-founder of the trilateral commission.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31109196</id>
	<title>THis would be YOUR Political Hero</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265905920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All you Obama fanboys stand up and be counted! This is your hope and change. This is your "new tone". Yes, You Did elect this POS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All you Obama fanboys stand up and be counted !
This is your hope and change .
This is your " new tone " .
Yes , You Did elect this POS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you Obama fanboys stand up and be counted!
This is your hope and change.
This is your "new tone".
Yes, You Did elect this POS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104164</id>
	<title>Re:I thought Bush was the fascist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265879820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>After reading about positive and negative liberty, I'm not really sure what you are complaining about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading about positive and negative liberty , I 'm not really sure what you are complaining about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading about positive and negative liberty, I'm not really sure what you are complaining about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102998</id>
	<title>I thought Bush was the fascist</title>
	<author>WCMI92</author>
	<datestamp>1265918760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like the Obama administration is full of Hope and Change.</p><p>No way in hell, even under the patriot act that this is legal to do to US citizens.</p><p>Then again, Obama has little faith in the Constitution, he considers it a document of "negative liberty" (see his NPR interview) that unfortunately tells he and his government lots of stuff (like this) they aren't allowed to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like the Obama administration is full of Hope and Change.No way in hell , even under the patriot act that this is legal to do to US citizens.Then again , Obama has little faith in the Constitution , he considers it a document of " negative liberty " ( see his NPR interview ) that unfortunately tells he and his government lots of stuff ( like this ) they are n't allowed to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like the Obama administration is full of Hope and Change.No way in hell, even under the patriot act that this is legal to do to US citizens.Then again, Obama has little faith in the Constitution, he considers it a document of "negative liberty" (see his NPR interview) that unfortunately tells he and his government lots of stuff (like this) they aren't allowed to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104346</id>
	<title>Re:hope and change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265880720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, if only becasue it makes other fucknuts like you so pissed off all the time. That is worth it alone!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , if only becasue it makes other fucknuts like you so pissed off all the time .
That is worth it alone !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, if only becasue it makes other fucknuts like you so pissed off all the time.
That is worth it alone!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102516</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing for carriers to provide <b>UPON BEING SERVED WITH A WARRANT!</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing for carriers to provide UPON BEING SERVED WITH A WARRANT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing for carriers to provide UPON BEING SERVED WITH A WARRANT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102994</id>
	<title>Re:Is this GPS, or Tower data?</title>
	<author>Amouth</author>
	<datestamp>1265918700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>more than likely they are wanting the tower data - BUT depending on the phone - and the towers that may be "hey i was talking to him" or "hey the 3 of us where listening to him here is the strength so you can triangulate" or "yea that phone associated with me - here is it's header data - oh see the GPS info in it?"

either way - you may have a phone that only allows GPS data on 911 calls - i bet there are ALOT of phones where that isn't an option - and ALOT more phones where people have no idea it is even in there.  Most people have no idea about the e911 location information for emergency calls being added in after Sept.11th.. And if i remember correctly there was recently evidence that some carriers where having the location data on all the time not just for 911 by default.

if they can get it past that they don't need a warrant - then what they find in the records would be on the same level as seeing something in plain sight.  meaning that even if now it doesn't normally have GPS location - in 2 years it might be the norm.. and they already have a warrant waver..

as far as i'm concerned they should need a warrant to get it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>more than likely they are wanting the tower data - BUT depending on the phone - and the towers that may be " hey i was talking to him " or " hey the 3 of us where listening to him here is the strength so you can triangulate " or " yea that phone associated with me - here is it 's header data - oh see the GPS info in it ?
" either way - you may have a phone that only allows GPS data on 911 calls - i bet there are ALOT of phones where that is n't an option - and ALOT more phones where people have no idea it is even in there .
Most people have no idea about the e911 location information for emergency calls being added in after Sept.11th.. And if i remember correctly there was recently evidence that some carriers where having the location data on all the time not just for 911 by default .
if they can get it past that they do n't need a warrant - then what they find in the records would be on the same level as seeing something in plain sight .
meaning that even if now it does n't normally have GPS location - in 2 years it might be the norm.. and they already have a warrant waver. . as far as i 'm concerned they should need a warrant to get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more than likely they are wanting the tower data - BUT depending on the phone - and the towers that may be "hey i was talking to him" or "hey the 3 of us where listening to him here is the strength so you can triangulate" or "yea that phone associated with me - here is it's header data - oh see the GPS info in it?
"

either way - you may have a phone that only allows GPS data on 911 calls - i bet there are ALOT of phones where that isn't an option - and ALOT more phones where people have no idea it is even in there.
Most people have no idea about the e911 location information for emergency calls being added in after Sept.11th.. And if i remember correctly there was recently evidence that some carriers where having the location data on all the time not just for 911 by default.
if they can get it past that they don't need a warrant - then what they find in the records would be on the same level as seeing something in plain sight.
meaning that even if now it doesn't normally have GPS location - in 2 years it might be the norm.. and they already have a warrant waver..

as far as i'm concerned they should need a warrant to get it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104772</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>Parts09</author>
	<datestamp>1265882400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What happens when they run out of leads on a case and they decide to just "talk" to everyone who was in the area at the time of the burglary/shooting/rape. That is a net I would sure like to avoid being caught up in, even if completely innocent of any crimes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens when they run out of leads on a case and they decide to just " talk " to everyone who was in the area at the time of the burglary/shooting/rape .
That is a net I would sure like to avoid being caught up in , even if completely innocent of any crimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens when they run out of leads on a case and they decide to just "talk" to everyone who was in the area at the time of the burglary/shooting/rape.
That is a net I would sure like to avoid being caught up in, even if completely innocent of any crimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105320</id>
	<title>Lets turn this around!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265884440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the feds get to track citizens, why can't the citizens track the feds? For instance.. how about a geo-location accurate to 1m on every federal employee available on a google maps website available to every US Citizen whenever they feel like checking it? I mean why not.. it's our government right? Don't we have a say in how our money is spent? Next, I'd like to track how they spend our money too!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the feds get to track citizens , why ca n't the citizens track the feds ?
For instance.. how about a geo-location accurate to 1m on every federal employee available on a google maps website available to every US Citizen whenever they feel like checking it ?
I mean why not.. it 's our government right ?
Do n't we have a say in how our money is spent ?
Next , I 'd like to track how they spend our money too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the feds get to track citizens, why can't the citizens track the feds?
For instance.. how about a geo-location accurate to 1m on every federal employee available on a google maps website available to every US Citizen whenever they feel like checking it?
I mean why not.. it's our government right?
Don't we have a say in how our money is spent?
Next, I'd like to track how they spend our money too!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104718</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265882160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> That's why you hear quotes from very smart men such as Benjamin Franklin saying "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."  We've seen that actually play out since Sept. 11th.</p> </div><p>And which party was most of that done by, between 2001 and 2009?  The one that keeps insisting on *less* government intrusion . . . except when it suits them.  Not that I'm happy with the changed administration going along with much of the same.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why you hear quotes from very smart men such as Benjamin Franklin saying " If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both .
" We 've seen that actually play out since Sept. 11th. And which party was most of that done by , between 2001 and 2009 ?
The one that keeps insisting on * less * government intrusion .
. .
except when it suits them .
Not that I 'm happy with the changed administration going along with much of the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That's why you hear quotes from very smart men such as Benjamin Franklin saying "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
"  We've seen that actually play out since Sept. 11th. And which party was most of that done by, between 2001 and 2009?
The one that keeps insisting on *less* government intrusion .
. .
except when it suits them.
Not that I'm happy with the changed administration going along with much of the same.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103398</id>
	<title>Re:Have a problem with this?</title>
	<author>gfreeman</author>
	<datestamp>1265920200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because a republican administration would never suspend part of the constitution?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because a republican administration would never suspend part of the constitution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because a republican administration would never suspend part of the constitution?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31108574</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265900220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The cops and the government don;t give a FUCK about you or your habits unless you;re already on their radar.</p></div></blockquote><p>So the cops don't care about you, unless they do.  Great job, Captain Obvious.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cops and the government don ; t give a FUCK about you or your habits unless you ; re already on their radar.So the cops do n't care about you , unless they do .
Great job , Captain Obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cops and the government don;t give a FUCK about you or your habits unless you;re already on their radar.So the cops don't care about you, unless they do.
Great job, Captain Obvious.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102522</id>
	<title>Hope and Change, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So this comes with the same provisions for government officials, right? After all, the Obama administration was touting "transparency" when coming into office. Oh wait, by that, they meant everything the PEOPLE do has to be transparent to the GOVERNMENT. I guarantee if this were Bush wanting something similar, the left would be screaming bloody murder at the mere THOUGHT of it. $10 says Obama gets a free pass for being the "Savior of America", and because anyone who disagrees is now not only unpatriotic, but racist as well.
<br> <br>
How the hell is this clown still allowed to remain in office? Oh wait, good thing I'm not in South Carolina. Otherwise I might have to register as a subversive group....
<br> <br>
"Hope and Change", my ass. Same shit, different day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So this comes with the same provisions for government officials , right ?
After all , the Obama administration was touting " transparency " when coming into office .
Oh wait , by that , they meant everything the PEOPLE do has to be transparent to the GOVERNMENT .
I guarantee if this were Bush wanting something similar , the left would be screaming bloody murder at the mere THOUGHT of it .
$ 10 says Obama gets a free pass for being the " Savior of America " , and because anyone who disagrees is now not only unpatriotic , but racist as well .
How the hell is this clown still allowed to remain in office ?
Oh wait , good thing I 'm not in South Carolina .
Otherwise I might have to register as a subversive group... . " Hope and Change " , my ass .
Same shit , different day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this comes with the same provisions for government officials, right?
After all, the Obama administration was touting "transparency" when coming into office.
Oh wait, by that, they meant everything the PEOPLE do has to be transparent to the GOVERNMENT.
I guarantee if this were Bush wanting something similar, the left would be screaming bloody murder at the mere THOUGHT of it.
$10 says Obama gets a free pass for being the "Savior of America", and because anyone who disagrees is now not only unpatriotic, but racist as well.
How the hell is this clown still allowed to remain in office?
Oh wait, good thing I'm not in South Carolina.
Otherwise I might have to register as a subversive group....
 
"Hope and Change", my ass.
Same shit, different day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106216</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1265887800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you don't want anyone to know where you are, you shouldn't go there.</p><p>[[/TROLL]]</p></div><p>I know when I walk into public I could, technically, be watched and tracked and logged.... but it is because it doesn't happen that I'm not bothered about being in public.</p><p>We, the people, are fine with the current activity around being in public, but only because the things we hold dear (for example, the sum of our daily activities) are not regularly tracked and documented.  In the case that most people were being surveilled and recorded on an individual basis and to encompass a full day's activity, the people would democratically demand a regard to privacy while in public.</p><p>In short: we are cool with public being public, but only because the current act of being in public still has privacy tied to it.  Breach that privacy and we people will then be forced to define what we want to be kept private.</p><p>It amazes me that our government, which is staffed by people who enter public, does not have regard for these unsaid 'laws' (despite the fact that many of us would say the 4th amendment DOES apply).  It amazes me that people writing this shit up don't look at it, think of their own lives, and realize that it is something they would not want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't want anyone to know where you are , you should n't go there .
[ [ /TROLL ] ] I know when I walk into public I could , technically , be watched and tracked and logged.... but it is because it does n't happen that I 'm not bothered about being in public.We , the people , are fine with the current activity around being in public , but only because the things we hold dear ( for example , the sum of our daily activities ) are not regularly tracked and documented .
In the case that most people were being surveilled and recorded on an individual basis and to encompass a full day 's activity , the people would democratically demand a regard to privacy while in public.In short : we are cool with public being public , but only because the current act of being in public still has privacy tied to it .
Breach that privacy and we people will then be forced to define what we want to be kept private.It amazes me that our government , which is staffed by people who enter public , does not have regard for these unsaid 'laws ' ( despite the fact that many of us would say the 4th amendment DOES apply ) .
It amazes me that people writing this shit up do n't look at it , think of their own lives , and realize that it is something they would not want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't want anyone to know where you are, you shouldn't go there.
[[/TROLL]]I know when I walk into public I could, technically, be watched and tracked and logged.... but it is because it doesn't happen that I'm not bothered about being in public.We, the people, are fine with the current activity around being in public, but only because the things we hold dear (for example, the sum of our daily activities) are not regularly tracked and documented.
In the case that most people were being surveilled and recorded on an individual basis and to encompass a full day's activity, the people would democratically demand a regard to privacy while in public.In short: we are cool with public being public, but only because the current act of being in public still has privacy tied to it.
Breach that privacy and we people will then be forced to define what we want to be kept private.It amazes me that our government, which is staffed by people who enter public, does not have regard for these unsaid 'laws' (despite the fact that many of us would say the 4th amendment DOES apply).
It amazes me that people writing this shit up don't look at it, think of their own lives, and realize that it is something they would not want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102546</id>
	<title>What happened to warrants?</title>
	<author>acalltoreason</author>
	<datestamp>1265917440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even though they "keep and retain" those records, that's still data owned by the company, in this case Verizon. Don't they need a warrant or subpoena to look at that data? It's just like Google refusing to give out user data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though they " keep and retain " those records , that 's still data owned by the company , in this case Verizon .
Do n't they need a warrant or subpoena to look at that data ?
It 's just like Google refusing to give out user data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though they "keep and retain" those records, that's still data owned by the company, in this case Verizon.
Don't they need a warrant or subpoena to look at that data?
It's just like Google refusing to give out user data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102656</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get it, what was wrong with their post-it(tm) note approach? Not quick enough? Too much paperwork? Pesky paper-trail?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it , what was wrong with their post-it ( tm ) note approach ?
Not quick enough ?
Too much paperwork ?
Pesky paper-trail ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it, what was wrong with their post-it(tm) note approach?
Not quick enough?
Too much paperwork?
Pesky paper-trail?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31109644</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265911200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And how do you get on their radar?</p> </div><p>Insert into table Suspect'sCellphone<br>Select IMEI<br>From CellPhone<br>Where CellPhone.Location Near CrimeScene<br>And CellPhone.Time Between Crime.Time - buffertime And Crime.Time + buffertime</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how do you get on their radar ?
Insert into table Suspect'sCellphoneSelect IMEIFrom CellPhoneWhere CellPhone.Location Near CrimeSceneAnd CellPhone.Time Between Crime.Time - buffertime And Crime.Time + buffertime</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how do you get on their radar?
Insert into table Suspect'sCellphoneSelect IMEIFrom CellPhoneWhere CellPhone.Location Near CrimeSceneAnd CellPhone.Time Between Crime.Time - buffertime And Crime.Time + buffertime
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102826</id>
	<title>Obama must first guarantee no abuse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265918160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Police resources are abused by police for their own purposes on a regular basis.  An abusive spouse who is also a police officer would have unfettered access to information on the whereabouts of their victims. This scenario alone should be enough to can this proposal, but it probably won't be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Police resources are abused by police for their own purposes on a regular basis .
An abusive spouse who is also a police officer would have unfettered access to information on the whereabouts of their victims .
This scenario alone should be enough to can this proposal , but it probably wo n't be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Police resources are abused by police for their own purposes on a regular basis.
An abusive spouse who is also a police officer would have unfettered access to information on the whereabouts of their victims.
This scenario alone should be enough to can this proposal, but it probably won't be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105546</id>
	<title>How accurate is the data?</title>
	<author>fotbr</author>
	<datestamp>1265885220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not from a technological standpoint, though.</p><p>I don't carry my cellphone all the time, or even most of the time.  Half the time I want to have it around, I don't, because I'm not in the habit of carrying it with me.  So they pull the records, and see that my phone was somewhere in an area that happens to contain my house, for days at a time -- was I sick, was I working from home, did I leave my phone behind while on vacation, or was I just being me?</p><p>What about little johnny -- based on his demographics, his phone should be glued to his thumbs, but had it taken away by his parents or was grounded for a couple weeks for bad grades?  Is the location data accurate enough to say he was or was not somewhere?</p><p>Once they start using that data to convict people, then they're saying it's accurate enough.  Which means that leaving your phone somewhere else helps (but only helps) establish an alibi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not from a technological standpoint , though.I do n't carry my cellphone all the time , or even most of the time .
Half the time I want to have it around , I do n't , because I 'm not in the habit of carrying it with me .
So they pull the records , and see that my phone was somewhere in an area that happens to contain my house , for days at a time -- was I sick , was I working from home , did I leave my phone behind while on vacation , or was I just being me ? What about little johnny -- based on his demographics , his phone should be glued to his thumbs , but had it taken away by his parents or was grounded for a couple weeks for bad grades ?
Is the location data accurate enough to say he was or was not somewhere ? Once they start using that data to convict people , then they 're saying it 's accurate enough .
Which means that leaving your phone somewhere else helps ( but only helps ) establish an alibi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not from a technological standpoint, though.I don't carry my cellphone all the time, or even most of the time.
Half the time I want to have it around, I don't, because I'm not in the habit of carrying it with me.
So they pull the records, and see that my phone was somewhere in an area that happens to contain my house, for days at a time -- was I sick, was I working from home, did I leave my phone behind while on vacation, or was I just being me?What about little johnny -- based on his demographics, his phone should be glued to his thumbs, but had it taken away by his parents or was grounded for a couple weeks for bad grades?
Is the location data accurate enough to say he was or was not somewhere?Once they start using that data to convict people, then they're saying it's accurate enough.
Which means that leaving your phone somewhere else helps (but only helps) establish an alibi.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103206</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>EaglemanBSA</author>
	<datestamp>1265919480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=465" title="asofterworld.com">http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=465</a> [asofterworld.com]
<br> <br>
'If I have nothing to hide, then DON'T SEARCH ME'</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.asofterworld.com/index.php ? id = 465 [ asofterworld.com ] 'If I have nothing to hide , then DO N'T SEARCH ME'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=465 [asofterworld.com]
 
'If I have nothing to hide, then DON'T SEARCH ME'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102906</id>
	<title>More to the point,</title>
	<author>tombeard</author>
	<datestamp>1265918460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> just WHY are they retaining this information in the first place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just WHY are they retaining this information in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> just WHY are they retaining this information in the first place?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Thoreauly Nuts</author>
	<datestamp>1265918220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What about the spirit of the 4th amendment? Sure, it may not violate the amendment as it's worded, but was that the intent of it when it was put in?</p></div><p>The American Constitution is dead. It's an outdated document that has been viciously exploited  by the frauds who claim to represent us. What we need to do is to call a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the thing with a clearer and MUCH expanded Bill of Rights.</p><p>In fact, I think that such a convention should be mandatory about every 50 years and there should be very clear rules that each iteration must always err in favor of the rights of the people and never increase the power of government. In fact, it should be mandatory that any increases in power that have occurred in the interim be removed at each convention.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the spirit of the 4th amendment ?
Sure , it may not violate the amendment as it 's worded , but was that the intent of it when it was put in ? The American Constitution is dead .
It 's an outdated document that has been viciously exploited by the frauds who claim to represent us .
What we need to do is to call a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the thing with a clearer and MUCH expanded Bill of Rights.In fact , I think that such a convention should be mandatory about every 50 years and there should be very clear rules that each iteration must always err in favor of the rights of the people and never increase the power of government .
In fact , it should be mandatory that any increases in power that have occurred in the interim be removed at each convention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the spirit of the 4th amendment?
Sure, it may not violate the amendment as it's worded, but was that the intent of it when it was put in?The American Constitution is dead.
It's an outdated document that has been viciously exploited  by the frauds who claim to represent us.
What we need to do is to call a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the thing with a clearer and MUCH expanded Bill of Rights.In fact, I think that such a convention should be mandatory about every 50 years and there should be very clear rules that each iteration must always err in favor of the rights of the people and never increase the power of government.
In fact, it should be mandatory that any increases in power that have occurred in the interim be removed at each convention.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104994</id>
	<title>Did you get foolled again?</title>
	<author>charliemopps11</author>
	<datestamp>1265883240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Say hello to the new boss... same as the old boss.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Say hello to the new boss... same as the old boss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say hello to the new boss... same as the old boss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31113302</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265991660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IT IS OUTDATED for most:</p><p>"When you enter a court room and come before the judge and the U.S. flag with the yellow fringe flying, you are put on notice of the law [ADMIRALTY law] you are in. American's aren't aware of this, so they continue to claim Constitutional rights. In the Admiralty setting the constitution does not apply and the judge, if pushed, will inform you of this by placing you under contempt for continuing to bring it up. If the judge is pressed, his name for this hidden law is statuary law. Where are the rules and regulations for statutory law kept? They don't exist. If statuary law existed, there would be rules and regulations governing it's procedures and court rules. They do not exist!!! "</p><p>Source: http://barefootsworld.net/admiralty.html</p><p>http://supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman5.htm</p><p>http://www.reddit.com/r/CommonLaw/comments/7504v/welcome\_to\_the\_common\_law\_subreddit/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IT IS OUTDATED for most : " When you enter a court room and come before the judge and the U.S. flag with the yellow fringe flying , you are put on notice of the law [ ADMIRALTY law ] you are in .
American 's are n't aware of this , so they continue to claim Constitutional rights .
In the Admiralty setting the constitution does not apply and the judge , if pushed , will inform you of this by placing you under contempt for continuing to bring it up .
If the judge is pressed , his name for this hidden law is statuary law .
Where are the rules and regulations for statutory law kept ?
They do n't exist .
If statuary law existed , there would be rules and regulations governing it 's procedures and court rules .
They do not exist ! ! !
" Source : http : //barefootsworld.net/admiralty.htmlhttp : //supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman5.htmhttp : //www.reddit.com/r/CommonLaw/comments/7504v/welcome \ _to \ _the \ _common \ _law \ _subreddit/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT IS OUTDATED for most:"When you enter a court room and come before the judge and the U.S. flag with the yellow fringe flying, you are put on notice of the law [ADMIRALTY law] you are in.
American's aren't aware of this, so they continue to claim Constitutional rights.
In the Admiralty setting the constitution does not apply and the judge, if pushed, will inform you of this by placing you under contempt for continuing to bring it up.
If the judge is pressed, his name for this hidden law is statuary law.
Where are the rules and regulations for statutory law kept?
They don't exist.
If statuary law existed, there would be rules and regulations governing it's procedures and court rules.
They do not exist!!!
"Source: http://barefootsworld.net/admiralty.htmlhttp://supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman5.htmhttp://www.reddit.com/r/CommonLaw/comments/7504v/welcome\_to\_the\_common\_law\_subreddit/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105312</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265884440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want anyone to know where I am at any point on the planet.  Does that mean I should just leave planet earth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want anyone to know where I am at any point on the planet .
Does that mean I should just leave planet earth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want anyone to know where I am at any point on the planet.
Does that mean I should just leave planet earth?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104582</id>
	<title>Re:Shocked by Obama? This is who he is...</title>
	<author>ukyoCE</author>
	<datestamp>1265881680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.</p></div><p>No.  This is flagrantly wrong no matter what administration it's being done under.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.No .
This is flagrantly wrong no matter what administration it 's being done under .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.No.
This is flagrantly wrong no matter what administration it's being done under.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31112708</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>RNelson</author>
	<datestamp>1265988900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Estados Unidos (de Am&#233;rica)" = United States (of America)<br>"estadounidense" = citizen thereof</p><p>A rough translation of the word for a citizen of the US, Spanish to English, is "United Statesian."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Estados Unidos ( de Am   rica ) " = United States ( of America ) " estadounidense " = citizen thereofA rough translation of the word for a citizen of the US , Spanish to English , is " United Statesian .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Estados Unidos (de América)" = United States (of America)"estadounidense" = citizen thereofA rough translation of the word for a citizen of the US, Spanish to English, is "United Statesian.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104242</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>DigitAl56K</author>
	<datestamp>1265880240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are real risks associated with this. The biggest problem is data mining. By correlating my records against others you can see who is often in the same vicinity as me at the same time. Did I happen to be located near some suspects on more than one occasion? Maybe that implicates me as a risk, even if it was co-incidence. What if some statistician determines that the probability is too high to be co-incidence? Perhaps I know a suspect in some unrelated regard, yet I may still be put on some list somewhere depending on what is being investigated at the time. Afterall, all of this data is not going to be sifted through by hand - computers will be making decisions based on some statistics they've been programmed to look for.</p><p>Not only this, and I haven't read TFA yet, but if there is really a concept that it's fine to access my data without a warrant as long as it's not real time (i.e. "certain times in the past"), why couldn't you tap all my conversations today, and just wait until tomorrow to listen to them? It invades my privacy just as much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are real risks associated with this .
The biggest problem is data mining .
By correlating my records against others you can see who is often in the same vicinity as me at the same time .
Did I happen to be located near some suspects on more than one occasion ?
Maybe that implicates me as a risk , even if it was co-incidence .
What if some statistician determines that the probability is too high to be co-incidence ?
Perhaps I know a suspect in some unrelated regard , yet I may still be put on some list somewhere depending on what is being investigated at the time .
Afterall , all of this data is not going to be sifted through by hand - computers will be making decisions based on some statistics they 've been programmed to look for.Not only this , and I have n't read TFA yet , but if there is really a concept that it 's fine to access my data without a warrant as long as it 's not real time ( i.e .
" certain times in the past " ) , why could n't you tap all my conversations today , and just wait until tomorrow to listen to them ?
It invades my privacy just as much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are real risks associated with this.
The biggest problem is data mining.
By correlating my records against others you can see who is often in the same vicinity as me at the same time.
Did I happen to be located near some suspects on more than one occasion?
Maybe that implicates me as a risk, even if it was co-incidence.
What if some statistician determines that the probability is too high to be co-incidence?
Perhaps I know a suspect in some unrelated regard, yet I may still be put on some list somewhere depending on what is being investigated at the time.
Afterall, all of this data is not going to be sifted through by hand - computers will be making decisions based on some statistics they've been programmed to look for.Not only this, and I haven't read TFA yet, but if there is really a concept that it's fine to access my data without a warrant as long as it's not real time (i.e.
"certain times in the past"), why couldn't you tap all my conversations today, and just wait until tomorrow to listen to them?
It invades my privacy just as much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105630</id>
	<title>So, you claim they are not doing this now?</title>
	<author>Lost Penguin</author>
	<datestamp>1265885520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is old news, they had done this for many years before 9-11-2001.<br>They need a warrant?<br>Now that IS news to a lot of "convicted felons" who were caught using this data without a warrant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is old news , they had done this for many years before 9-11-2001.They need a warrant ? Now that IS news to a lot of " convicted felons " who were caught using this data without a warrant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is old news, they had done this for many years before 9-11-2001.They need a warrant?Now that IS news to a lot of "convicted felons" who were caught using this data without a warrant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31110920</id>
	<title>Re:But what about the spirit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265972760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does the Constitution even apply to Citizens (not Sovereigns!) when these Citizens fall under Admiralty Law?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the Constitution even apply to Citizens ( not Sovereigns !
) when these Citizens fall under Admiralty Law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the Constitution even apply to Citizens (not Sovereigns!
) when these Citizens fall under Admiralty Law?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102594</id>
	<title>Is this GPS, or Tower data?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have my phone to only give out GPS data on 911 calls.  Is that what they are interested in?  The exact location of people (within a hundred yards or whatever) without a warrant, or just which towers they pinged off of at a given time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have my phone to only give out GPS data on 911 calls .
Is that what they are interested in ?
The exact location of people ( within a hundred yards or whatever ) without a warrant , or just which towers they pinged off of at a given time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have my phone to only give out GPS data on 911 calls.
Is that what they are interested in?
The exact location of people (within a hundred yards or whatever) without a warrant, or just which towers they pinged off of at a given time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31109602</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265910660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So then I assume you also would say that if I have nothing to hide, I shouldn't mind the police tearing my house apart looking for something that may or may not be there? If I have nothing to hide, I shouldn't mind being searched every time I enter or leave a building? I shouldn't mind being spied on at all times</p></div><p>You just described an airport these days.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So then I assume you also would say that if I have nothing to hide , I should n't mind the police tearing my house apart looking for something that may or may not be there ?
If I have nothing to hide , I should n't mind being searched every time I enter or leave a building ?
I should n't mind being spied on at all timesYou just described an airport these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So then I assume you also would say that if I have nothing to hide, I shouldn't mind the police tearing my house apart looking for something that may or may not be there?
If I have nothing to hide, I shouldn't mind being searched every time I enter or leave a building?
I shouldn't mind being spied on at all timesYou just described an airport these days.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105666</id>
	<title>Re:I thought Bush was the fascist</title>
	<author>neurophil12</author>
	<datestamp>1265885640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I am certainly disappointed in Obama and his administration on this issue, this was not something he campaigned on. There were many other hints that his civil liberty creds weren't particularly strong prior to his election, and it always concerned me. On the other hand, no one else was running with any interest in civil liberties (except maybe Ron Paul), and Obama was probably the best bet among all of them. At least he's not doing all of this in secret (as far as we know at this point anyway). That is a step up from the Bush administration, and is a sign of marginal change. Of course anyone who expected a complete turnaround from all prior administrations is extremely naive. I hoped it might happen, but Obama always struck me as almost too much of a pragmatist at times. Balancing pragmatism and ideals can be challenging, particularly in seeing when they can both be met and where they truly conflict and what the long-term implications are. Right now we just have to hope that we can drum up enough opposition that Obama will back down. Unfortunately I don't see that happening given the current state of the nation economically and security-wise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I am certainly disappointed in Obama and his administration on this issue , this was not something he campaigned on .
There were many other hints that his civil liberty creds were n't particularly strong prior to his election , and it always concerned me .
On the other hand , no one else was running with any interest in civil liberties ( except maybe Ron Paul ) , and Obama was probably the best bet among all of them .
At least he 's not doing all of this in secret ( as far as we know at this point anyway ) .
That is a step up from the Bush administration , and is a sign of marginal change .
Of course anyone who expected a complete turnaround from all prior administrations is extremely naive .
I hoped it might happen , but Obama always struck me as almost too much of a pragmatist at times .
Balancing pragmatism and ideals can be challenging , particularly in seeing when they can both be met and where they truly conflict and what the long-term implications are .
Right now we just have to hope that we can drum up enough opposition that Obama will back down .
Unfortunately I do n't see that happening given the current state of the nation economically and security-wise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I am certainly disappointed in Obama and his administration on this issue, this was not something he campaigned on.
There were many other hints that his civil liberty creds weren't particularly strong prior to his election, and it always concerned me.
On the other hand, no one else was running with any interest in civil liberties (except maybe Ron Paul), and Obama was probably the best bet among all of them.
At least he's not doing all of this in secret (as far as we know at this point anyway).
That is a step up from the Bush administration, and is a sign of marginal change.
Of course anyone who expected a complete turnaround from all prior administrations is extremely naive.
I hoped it might happen, but Obama always struck me as almost too much of a pragmatist at times.
Balancing pragmatism and ideals can be challenging, particularly in seeing when they can both be met and where they truly conflict and what the long-term implications are.
Right now we just have to hope that we can drum up enough opposition that Obama will back down.
Unfortunately I don't see that happening given the current state of the nation economically and security-wise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103148</id>
	<title>Shocked by Obama?  This is who he is...</title>
	<author>inthealpine</author>
	<datestamp>1265919240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.  After all he is a kinder genteeler constitution shredder...

From the January 18, 2001, broadcast of the WBEZ's Odyssey program, "The Court and Civil Rights":
"[...T]he Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted." <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200810280021" title="mediamatters.org" rel="nofollow">http://mediamatters.org/research/200810280021</a> [mediamatters.org]

The constitution was meant to restrict the government from taking more and more control.  Obama's vision is a constitution that has limitless government so said government can 'do things on your behalf', as though the government knew best.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this .
After all he is a kinder genteeler constitution shredder.. . From the January 18 , 2001 , broadcast of the WBEZ 's Odyssey program , " The Court and Civil Rights " : " [ ...T ] he Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states ca n't do to you , says what the federal government ca n't do to you , but it does n't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf , and that has n't shifted .
" http : //mediamatters.org/research/200810280021 [ mediamatters.org ] The constitution was meant to restrict the government from taking more and more control .
Obama 's vision is a constitution that has limitless government so said government can 'do things on your behalf ' , as though the government knew best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.
After all he is a kinder genteeler constitution shredder...

From the January 18, 2001, broadcast of the WBEZ's Odyssey program, "The Court and Civil Rights":
"[...T]he Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.
" http://mediamatters.org/research/200810280021 [mediamatters.org]

The constitution was meant to restrict the government from taking more and more control.
Obama's vision is a constitution that has limitless government so said government can 'do things on your behalf', as though the government knew best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104266</id>
	<title>Re:Well, in fairness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265880300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No parallel.  This location data they're requesting is HISTROICAL, not real time tracking and location information.  This is NO DIFFERENT than the lack of a warrant it takes to acquire your calling records, to scan your e-mail headers (not message content), to pull credit card receipts, and more.</p><p>This data helps cops, who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE, and how FILE A FORM, and go through DUE PROCESS, to find a criminal or suspect, or interested 3rd party they seek on an ACTIVE CASE.</p><p>This does NOT give cops the ability to simply search this data when ever they want, for anyone.  Why not?  verizon and otherc charge a FEE for the access, EACH TIME it's accessed.  Those charges have to be billed back to an active case file, or justified, otherwise, without the due process, a) the officer gets fired, or best case eats the charges out of his personal payroll, and likely faces sanctions and administrative punishments, b) the person, when notified of this access without due process, DOES have a legal case against the cop who illegally pulled this information.</p><p>just because there is no warrant required does NOT mean there's no probable cause and due process required.  A cop can search your car if you're pulled over for a speeding ticket, based on a number of reasons or suspicions.  If you refuse a search, it only requires some paperwork, and a supervisor to arrive on scene to force a search anyway (or they impound your car).  However, if a cop pulls you over, without cause or charge, and asks to search your car, he has no cause and can not.  Neither case requires a warrant, but you DO have levels of protection.  The fact there's a financial penalty to the department to make this access makes it that much less liely it will be done without being tied to an actual case file.</p><p>Think about it, tracking history for known criminals (lets say we ARREST a drug dealer, and he won;t reveal his source), now they make a request, pay verizon, download his location history, and dispatch a few officers with warrents to search a few of his frequent stops (other suspected dealer homes).  Bamb, gotcha.</p><p>The cops and the government don;t give a FUCK about you or your habits unless you;re already on their radar.  This is simply one additional tool. if they don;t have it, they'll just scope out your house or work and follow you the old fashioned way.  That is expensive, inaccurate, and a waste of manpower better spent keeping drugs away from my kids, tracking down wanted suspects, and cross validating false alibis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No parallel .
This location data they 're requesting is HISTROICAL , not real time tracking and location information .
This is NO DIFFERENT than the lack of a warrant it takes to acquire your calling records , to scan your e-mail headers ( not message content ) , to pull credit card receipts , and more.This data helps cops , who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE , and how FILE A FORM , and go through DUE PROCESS , to find a criminal or suspect , or interested 3rd party they seek on an ACTIVE CASE.This does NOT give cops the ability to simply search this data when ever they want , for anyone .
Why not ?
verizon and otherc charge a FEE for the access , EACH TIME it 's accessed .
Those charges have to be billed back to an active case file , or justified , otherwise , without the due process , a ) the officer gets fired , or best case eats the charges out of his personal payroll , and likely faces sanctions and administrative punishments , b ) the person , when notified of this access without due process , DOES have a legal case against the cop who illegally pulled this information.just because there is no warrant required does NOT mean there 's no probable cause and due process required .
A cop can search your car if you 're pulled over for a speeding ticket , based on a number of reasons or suspicions .
If you refuse a search , it only requires some paperwork , and a supervisor to arrive on scene to force a search anyway ( or they impound your car ) .
However , if a cop pulls you over , without cause or charge , and asks to search your car , he has no cause and can not .
Neither case requires a warrant , but you DO have levels of protection .
The fact there 's a financial penalty to the department to make this access makes it that much less liely it will be done without being tied to an actual case file.Think about it , tracking history for known criminals ( lets say we ARREST a drug dealer , and he won ; t reveal his source ) , now they make a request , pay verizon , download his location history , and dispatch a few officers with warrents to search a few of his frequent stops ( other suspected dealer homes ) .
Bamb , gotcha.The cops and the government don ; t give a FUCK about you or your habits unless you ; re already on their radar .
This is simply one additional tool .
if they don ; t have it , they 'll just scope out your house or work and follow you the old fashioned way .
That is expensive , inaccurate , and a waste of manpower better spent keeping drugs away from my kids , tracking down wanted suspects , and cross validating false alibis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No parallel.
This location data they're requesting is HISTROICAL, not real time tracking and location information.
This is NO DIFFERENT than the lack of a warrant it takes to acquire your calling records, to scan your e-mail headers (not message content), to pull credit card receipts, and more.This data helps cops, who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE, and how FILE A FORM, and go through DUE PROCESS, to find a criminal or suspect, or interested 3rd party they seek on an ACTIVE CASE.This does NOT give cops the ability to simply search this data when ever they want, for anyone.
Why not?
verizon and otherc charge a FEE for the access, EACH TIME it's accessed.
Those charges have to be billed back to an active case file, or justified, otherwise, without the due process, a) the officer gets fired, or best case eats the charges out of his personal payroll, and likely faces sanctions and administrative punishments, b) the person, when notified of this access without due process, DOES have a legal case against the cop who illegally pulled this information.just because there is no warrant required does NOT mean there's no probable cause and due process required.
A cop can search your car if you're pulled over for a speeding ticket, based on a number of reasons or suspicions.
If you refuse a search, it only requires some paperwork, and a supervisor to arrive on scene to force a search anyway (or they impound your car).
However, if a cop pulls you over, without cause or charge, and asks to search your car, he has no cause and can not.
Neither case requires a warrant, but you DO have levels of protection.
The fact there's a financial penalty to the department to make this access makes it that much less liely it will be done without being tied to an actual case file.Think about it, tracking history for known criminals (lets say we ARREST a drug dealer, and he won;t reveal his source), now they make a request, pay verizon, download his location history, and dispatch a few officers with warrents to search a few of his frequent stops (other suspected dealer homes).
Bamb, gotcha.The cops and the government don;t give a FUCK about you or your habits unless you;re already on their radar.
This is simply one additional tool.
if they don;t have it, they'll just scope out your house or work and follow you the old fashioned way.
That is expensive, inaccurate, and a waste of manpower better spent keeping drugs away from my kids, tracking down wanted suspects, and cross validating false alibis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104878</id>
	<title>comes around, goes around</title>
	<author>harvey the nerd</author>
	<datestamp>1265882820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[sarcasm]  Sure, Obama.  Don't worry about the thousands of nutso, racist stalkers and cops that will be able to locate you 24x7, 3 years from now when you're still on the phone...</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ sarcasm ] Sure , Obama .
Do n't worry about the thousands of nutso , racist stalkers and cops that will be able to locate you 24x7 , 3 years from now when you 're still on the phone.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[sarcasm]  Sure, Obama.
Don't worry about the thousands of nutso, racist stalkers and cops that will be able to locate you 24x7, 3 years from now when you're still on the phone...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103044</id>
	<title>Have a problem with this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265918880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then vote republican...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then vote republican.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then vote republican...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102924</id>
	<title>requires some hacking activism</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1265918520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>publish the whereabouts going back a year of some government officials. especially let the wife see some of the more interesting locations</p><p>sounds unfair? no, it's epitome of turnaround and fairness</p><p>of course, it won't stop the assholes from going after the hacker and claiming that a crime was committed. fucking hypocrites</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>publish the whereabouts going back a year of some government officials .
especially let the wife see some of the more interesting locationssounds unfair ?
no , it 's epitome of turnaround and fairnessof course , it wo n't stop the assholes from going after the hacker and claiming that a crime was committed .
fucking hypocrites</tokentext>
<sentencetext>publish the whereabouts going back a year of some government officials.
especially let the wife see some of the more interesting locationssounds unfair?
no, it's epitome of turnaround and fairnessof course, it won't stop the assholes from going after the hacker and claiming that a crime was committed.
fucking hypocrites</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31110528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31108638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31110022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31113302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31109196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31112708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31114786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31107136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31108510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31111672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31108574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31141156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31107292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31109644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31108388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31110920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31107224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31112858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31109602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31107190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31113832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1822225_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31108908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1822225.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1822225.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1822225.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31107292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1822225.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1822225.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1822225.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1822225.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103592
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1822225.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1822225.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31109196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31114786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1822225.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31110528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31107224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1822225.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1822225.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31141156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104266
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31108574
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104588
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106426
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31109644
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105444
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104598
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104772
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105826
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31109602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1822225.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1822225.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31112858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103658
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104810
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106134
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104718
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31107136
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31113302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31110920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31108510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104434
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105556
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31112708
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31111672
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105800
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106248
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31108908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31108638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31110022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31107190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1822225.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1822225.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1822225.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31105048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1822225.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31104346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31108388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31113832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1822225.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31102522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31106268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1822225.31103190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
