<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_23_157200</id>
	<title>Newspaper "Hacks Into" Aussie Gov't Website By Guessing URL</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1266940680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faZwLEn4DZo&amp;hd=1" rel="nofollow">thelamecamel</a> writes <i>"According to the New South Wales state government, the Sydney Morning Herald, a local newspaper, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/23/2828024.htm">attacked the government's 'website firewall security' for two days</a> to research <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/revealed-keneallys-transport-blueprint-20100219-olzc.html">a recent story</a>.  The affected government minister said that the website was accessed 3,727 times, and that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to pick the lock of a secure office and take highly confidential documents.' The matter has been referred to the police, who are now investigating.  But how did the paper 'hack' the website?  They <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/minister-a--monkey-could-have-hacked--secret-transport-site-20100223-p085.html">entered the unannounced URL</a>.  Security by obscurity at its finest."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>thelamecamel writes " According to the New South Wales state government , the Sydney Morning Herald , a local newspaper , attacked the government 's 'website firewall security ' for two days to research a recent story .
The affected government minister said that the website was accessed 3,727 times , and that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to pick the lock of a secure office and take highly confidential documents .
' The matter has been referred to the police , who are now investigating .
But how did the paper 'hack ' the website ?
They entered the unannounced URL .
Security by obscurity at its finest .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thelamecamel writes "According to the New South Wales state government, the Sydney Morning Herald, a local newspaper, attacked the government's 'website firewall security' for two days to research a recent story.
The affected government minister said that the website was accessed 3,727 times, and that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to pick the lock of a secure office and take highly confidential documents.
' The matter has been referred to the police, who are now investigating.
But how did the paper 'hack' the website?
They entered the unannounced URL.
Security by obscurity at its finest.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31266108</id>
	<title>Re:Deja vu again once more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265112000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This also happened with the california state government a few years back; something about arnold but I can't remember what it was exactly. It was an unprotected file of some kind (video or photos?).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This also happened with the california state government a few years back ; something about arnold but I ca n't remember what it was exactly .
It was an unprotected file of some kind ( video or photos ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This also happened with the california state government a few years back; something about arnold but I can't remember what it was exactly.
It was an unprotected file of some kind (video or photos?
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31267182</id>
	<title>trespass analogy</title>
	<author>GregNorc</author>
	<datestamp>1265118840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my state, if an area is not obviously private land, you have to post a "No Trespassing" sign. (Similarly, a business/gov't agency would have to mark an area "Restricted" or "Employees Only".</p><p>If no sign is posted, and the police are called, the police inform you you're trespassing, give you a little paper to this effect, and if you come back, you're arrested. But if the property owner tells you to leave, and you do, you have committed no trespass.</p><p>I see this access of the Australian Government's documents analogous to a hiker who was exploring public land, and wandered into a private field. Without a fence, or a posted sign, they had no way to know they were trespassing, and any charges to that effect would be easily overturned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my state , if an area is not obviously private land , you have to post a " No Trespassing " sign .
( Similarly , a business/gov't agency would have to mark an area " Restricted " or " Employees Only " .If no sign is posted , and the police are called , the police inform you you 're trespassing , give you a little paper to this effect , and if you come back , you 're arrested .
But if the property owner tells you to leave , and you do , you have committed no trespass.I see this access of the Australian Government 's documents analogous to a hiker who was exploring public land , and wandered into a private field .
Without a fence , or a posted sign , they had no way to know they were trespassing , and any charges to that effect would be easily overturned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my state, if an area is not obviously private land, you have to post a "No Trespassing" sign.
(Similarly, a business/gov't agency would have to mark an area "Restricted" or "Employees Only".If no sign is posted, and the police are called, the police inform you you're trespassing, give you a little paper to this effect, and if you come back, you're arrested.
But if the property owner tells you to leave, and you do, you have committed no trespass.I see this access of the Australian Government's documents analogous to a hiker who was exploring public land, and wandered into a private field.
Without a fence, or a posted sign, they had no way to know they were trespassing, and any charges to that effect would be easily overturned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246164</id>
	<title>Media like this never prosecuted</title>
	<author>DVD9</author>
	<datestamp>1266948180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If an unemployed blogger had done this he would get many years in prison (perhaps, I'm American so maybe this does not apply in Australia). Not only that, but the "newspaper" involved here would pay no attention to the blogger's rights and report the story the way the government prosecutors wished it to be written. The editor of this paper is laughing about the "controversy" and enjoying the attention as he is part of the club who run the country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If an unemployed blogger had done this he would get many years in prison ( perhaps , I 'm American so maybe this does not apply in Australia ) .
Not only that , but the " newspaper " involved here would pay no attention to the blogger 's rights and report the story the way the government prosecutors wished it to be written .
The editor of this paper is laughing about the " controversy " and enjoying the attention as he is part of the club who run the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If an unemployed blogger had done this he would get many years in prison (perhaps, I'm American so maybe this does not apply in Australia).
Not only that, but the "newspaper" involved here would pay no attention to the blogger's rights and report the story the way the government prosecutors wished it to be written.
The editor of this paper is laughing about the "controversy" and enjoying the attention as he is part of the club who run the country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246784</id>
	<title>A personal account.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266950460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A person on a discussion forum was being a general dick, skirting the line where you could say he was definitely being obnoxious but pulling back and acting hurt when anyone would address his dickishness.</p><p>So I noticed he posted images through a Photobucket account all the time. I took the URL of one image and simply removed the 'this\_image.jpg' part of it.</p><p>Photobucket itself changed the URL and showed he his contents... and it turned out he liked collecting some racist imagery. I don't just mean historical photos, I mean stuff with text added and stuff Photoshopped to appeal to his fellow racists.</p><p>I made sure I took plenty of screenshots first. I then sent personal messages to those he had rubbed the wrong way, supplying them with the screenshots.</p><p>The next time he tried playing internet tough guy, out came screenshots. He made a big song and dance about how HE was being oppressed and how he was going to sue everyone. He accused everyone of hacking him, which is where I stepped in. I told him that I was the one that had saw his Photobucket was wide open for anyone to view (I didn't tell him about passwording it... some people just need to learn the risks). I told him that if I wanted to be nasty, I could have sent him a personal message with an image attatched that would reveal his IP address to me when opened... and he left the forum. I guess the fear of even considering the prospect of his face and location emailed to his ideological targets called his bluff.</p><p>He turned up some time later as an alt. Someone else recognized the style, and sure enough he was linking to images on Photobucket. The same account. Still not password protected.</p><p>Good times followed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A person on a discussion forum was being a general dick , skirting the line where you could say he was definitely being obnoxious but pulling back and acting hurt when anyone would address his dickishness.So I noticed he posted images through a Photobucket account all the time .
I took the URL of one image and simply removed the 'this \ _image.jpg ' part of it.Photobucket itself changed the URL and showed he his contents... and it turned out he liked collecting some racist imagery .
I do n't just mean historical photos , I mean stuff with text added and stuff Photoshopped to appeal to his fellow racists.I made sure I took plenty of screenshots first .
I then sent personal messages to those he had rubbed the wrong way , supplying them with the screenshots.The next time he tried playing internet tough guy , out came screenshots .
He made a big song and dance about how HE was being oppressed and how he was going to sue everyone .
He accused everyone of hacking him , which is where I stepped in .
I told him that I was the one that had saw his Photobucket was wide open for anyone to view ( I did n't tell him about passwording it... some people just need to learn the risks ) .
I told him that if I wanted to be nasty , I could have sent him a personal message with an image attatched that would reveal his IP address to me when opened... and he left the forum .
I guess the fear of even considering the prospect of his face and location emailed to his ideological targets called his bluff.He turned up some time later as an alt .
Someone else recognized the style , and sure enough he was linking to images on Photobucket .
The same account .
Still not password protected.Good times followed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A person on a discussion forum was being a general dick, skirting the line where you could say he was definitely being obnoxious but pulling back and acting hurt when anyone would address his dickishness.So I noticed he posted images through a Photobucket account all the time.
I took the URL of one image and simply removed the 'this\_image.jpg' part of it.Photobucket itself changed the URL and showed he his contents... and it turned out he liked collecting some racist imagery.
I don't just mean historical photos, I mean stuff with text added and stuff Photoshopped to appeal to his fellow racists.I made sure I took plenty of screenshots first.
I then sent personal messages to those he had rubbed the wrong way, supplying them with the screenshots.The next time he tried playing internet tough guy, out came screenshots.
He made a big song and dance about how HE was being oppressed and how he was going to sue everyone.
He accused everyone of hacking him, which is where I stepped in.
I told him that I was the one that had saw his Photobucket was wide open for anyone to view (I didn't tell him about passwording it... some people just need to learn the risks).
I told him that if I wanted to be nasty, I could have sent him a personal message with an image attatched that would reveal his IP address to me when opened... and he left the forum.
I guess the fear of even considering the prospect of his face and location emailed to his ideological targets called his bluff.He turned up some time later as an alt.
Someone else recognized the style, and sure enough he was linking to images on Photobucket.
The same account.
Still not password protected.Good times followed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252004</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266925560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that there aren't IT pros that work for the government, it's that government moves <i>glacially</i>, and slowness and technology don't mix.  I worked in IT for the QLD government, and they just finished installing XP state-wide <i>less than six months ago</i>.  The OS is nearly <b>ten years old</b>, and was officially "deprecated" by Microsoft when they started the whole process!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that there are n't IT pros that work for the government , it 's that government moves glacially , and slowness and technology do n't mix .
I worked in IT for the QLD government , and they just finished installing XP state-wide less than six months ago .
The OS is nearly ten years old , and was officially " deprecated " by Microsoft when they started the whole process !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that there aren't IT pros that work for the government, it's that government moves glacially, and slowness and technology don't mix.
I worked in IT for the QLD government, and they just finished installing XP state-wide less than six months ago.
The OS is nearly ten years old, and was officially "deprecated" by Microsoft when they started the whole process!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245980</id>
	<title>Proposal for Australia</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1266947640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Considering all the anti-internet, anti-gaming, anti-pron laws and sentiment that seems to have become so pervasive in Australia recently (much to the delight of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. editors, who have had no shortage of great front page stories from there recently) I propose that Australia must, to protect its citizens from the immoral influence of the internet, REMOVE ITSELF FROM THE INTERNET IMMEDIATELY. It's the only way to be sure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering all the anti-internet , anti-gaming , anti-pron laws and sentiment that seems to have become so pervasive in Australia recently ( much to the delight of / .
editors , who have had no shortage of great front page stories from there recently ) I propose that Australia must , to protect its citizens from the immoral influence of the internet , REMOVE ITSELF FROM THE INTERNET IMMEDIATELY .
It 's the only way to be sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering all the anti-internet, anti-gaming, anti-pron laws and sentiment that seems to have become so pervasive in Australia recently (much to the delight of /.
editors, who have had no shortage of great front page stories from there recently) I propose that Australia must, to protect its citizens from the immoral influence of the internet, REMOVE ITSELF FROM THE INTERNET IMMEDIATELY.
It's the only way to be sure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246106</id>
	<title>Re:Was it...</title>
	<author>The Wild Norseman</author>
	<datestamp>1266948060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It wasn't even a back door, the front door was wide open!</p></div><p>How would you know... unless you WERE ONE OF THE HACKERS?!?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't even a back door , the front door was wide open ! How would you know... unless you WERE ONE OF THE HACKERS ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't even a back door, the front door was wide open!How would you know... unless you WERE ONE OF THE HACKERS?!?
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245732</id>
	<title>A more correct simile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266946980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>'akin to 3,727 attempts to pick the lock of a secure office and take highly confidential documents.' </i></p><p>A more correct simile would be like driving around to the addresses of 3,727 public parks until they find the one that contains documents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'akin to 3,727 attempts to pick the lock of a secure office and take highly confidential documents .
' A more correct simile would be like driving around to the addresses of 3,727 public parks until they find the one that contains documents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'akin to 3,727 attempts to pick the lock of a secure office and take highly confidential documents.
' A more correct simile would be like driving around to the addresses of 3,727 public parks until they find the one that contains documents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245678</id>
	<title>Re:fuckfuck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266946800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But your method doesn't take into account the time it takes an M&amp;M to rest and get into full fighting form between bouts.  Thus if the first M&amp;M you come across is the strongest it is still likely to lose simply because it has to face fresh competitor after competitor.  Even your fingers raise the core temperature of the competitor high enough after a few bouts to induce softening leaving the M&amp;M weaker against its rested cooler-cored foe.</p><p>Solution: Set up a randomized tournament system where you take two M&amp;Ms at random from the rested pack, test them, and put the winner in a separate pile to rest until the pack is empty.  Then repeat tournament again between the now rested victors of the first round.  Repeat until there is only one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But your method does n't take into account the time it takes an M&amp;M to rest and get into full fighting form between bouts .
Thus if the first M&amp;M you come across is the strongest it is still likely to lose simply because it has to face fresh competitor after competitor .
Even your fingers raise the core temperature of the competitor high enough after a few bouts to induce softening leaving the M&amp;M weaker against its rested cooler-cored foe.Solution : Set up a randomized tournament system where you take two M&amp;Ms at random from the rested pack , test them , and put the winner in a separate pile to rest until the pack is empty .
Then repeat tournament again between the now rested victors of the first round .
Repeat until there is only one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But your method doesn't take into account the time it takes an M&amp;M to rest and get into full fighting form between bouts.
Thus if the first M&amp;M you come across is the strongest it is still likely to lose simply because it has to face fresh competitor after competitor.
Even your fingers raise the core temperature of the competitor high enough after a few bouts to induce softening leaving the M&amp;M weaker against its rested cooler-cored foe.Solution: Set up a randomized tournament system where you take two M&amp;Ms at random from the rested pack, test them, and put the winner in a separate pile to rest until the pack is empty.
Then repeat tournament again between the now rested victors of the first round.
Repeat until there is only one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31256322</id>
	<title>Re:I love the name of the web hosting outfit:</title>
	<author>ax\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1266955020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Career advice for trial lawyers:</p><p>- If the law is against you, bang on the facts<br>- If the facts are against you, bang on the law<br>- If both are against you, bang on the table</p><p>Attribution: Seen on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. but couldn't find it again now for proper attribution</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Career advice for trial lawyers : - If the law is against you , bang on the facts- If the facts are against you , bang on the law- If both are against you , bang on the tableAttribution : Seen on / .
but could n't find it again now for proper attribution</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Career advice for trial lawyers:- If the law is against you, bang on the facts- If the facts are against you, bang on the law- If both are against you, bang on the tableAttribution: Seen on /.
but couldn't find it again now for proper attribution</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31250612</id>
	<title>Re:Window analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266920640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how are you supposed to know if a certain website is for public consumption or not. Should the governemnt have had big red letters on the front page saying: "Do not read until Monday"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how are you supposed to know if a certain website is for public consumption or not .
Should the governemnt have had big red letters on the front page saying : " Do not read until Monday " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how are you supposed to know if a certain website is for public consumption or not.
Should the governemnt have had big red letters on the front page saying: "Do not read until Monday"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246472</id>
	<title>Plead stupid!</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1266949500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd <i>almost</i> want to plead guilty if in return the government would plead <b>stupid</b>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd almost want to plead guilty if in return the government would plead stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd almost want to plead guilty if in return the government would plead stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245276</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1266944820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are there no IT Pros that work for the government?</p><p>I read stories like this and I think "Theres no way they could be monitoring my traffic, they can't even set up basic login authentication for their websites"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there no IT Pros that work for the government ? I read stories like this and I think " Theres no way they could be monitoring my traffic , they ca n't even set up basic login authentication for their websites "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there no IT Pros that work for the government?I read stories like this and I think "Theres no way they could be monitoring my traffic, they can't even set up basic login authentication for their websites"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31255998</id>
	<title>Re:fuckfuck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266951420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like your article, I would often come back
<a href="http://www.myps.org/" title="myps.org" rel="nofollow">Hot Political Figures</a> [myps.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like your article , I would often come back Hot Political Figures [ myps.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like your article, I would often come back
Hot Political Figures [myps.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245842</id>
	<title>Hey AU gov't</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1266947340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's not. It's more like calling 3727 telephone numbers until you find one that is connected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's not .
It 's more like calling 3727 telephone numbers until you find one that is connected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's not.
It's more like calling 3727 telephone numbers until you find one that is connected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31250026</id>
	<title>Is that 3,727 requests to the http server?</title>
	<author>FoolishOwl</author>
	<datestamp>1266918360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I noticed a few people reacting to the 3,727, as if it was some sort of brute-force attack to get a URL.</p><p>If that was 3,727 requests to the http server, I think that wouldn't be very much. That is, reading a web page with graphical elements would, I would think, involve a dozen or so http requests -- more if there were lots of little icons and what not. Two journalists looking at a dozen such web pages a few times each would run up that number pretty quickly. (Can someone with more networking experience than I have check my thinking?)</p><p>And, of course, a decent firewall logs all requests, including legitimate requests.</p><p>So, I would guess that this is just the politician grabbing a number that sounds large to him, and ascribing significance it doesn't have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed a few people reacting to the 3,727 , as if it was some sort of brute-force attack to get a URL.If that was 3,727 requests to the http server , I think that would n't be very much .
That is , reading a web page with graphical elements would , I would think , involve a dozen or so http requests -- more if there were lots of little icons and what not .
Two journalists looking at a dozen such web pages a few times each would run up that number pretty quickly .
( Can someone with more networking experience than I have check my thinking ?
) And , of course , a decent firewall logs all requests , including legitimate requests.So , I would guess that this is just the politician grabbing a number that sounds large to him , and ascribing significance it does n't have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed a few people reacting to the 3,727, as if it was some sort of brute-force attack to get a URL.If that was 3,727 requests to the http server, I think that wouldn't be very much.
That is, reading a web page with graphical elements would, I would think, involve a dozen or so http requests -- more if there were lots of little icons and what not.
Two journalists looking at a dozen such web pages a few times each would run up that number pretty quickly.
(Can someone with more networking experience than I have check my thinking?
)And, of course, a decent firewall logs all requests, including legitimate requests.So, I would guess that this is just the politician grabbing a number that sounds large to him, and ascribing significance it doesn't have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245580</id>
	<title>Re:Question:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266946380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>

<p>Its always possible to bring up charges<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. whether they are warranted or provable is a totally different thing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its always possible to bring up charges .. whether they are warranted or provable is a totally different thing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Its always possible to bring up charges .. whether they are warranted or provable is a totally different thing</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31253950</id>
	<title>Re:Bang the Table????</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266935160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bang the Table</p></div><p>I thought it was some sort of furniture porn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bang the TableI thought it was some sort of furniture porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bang the TableI thought it was some sort of furniture porn.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31250828</id>
	<title>And who's the genius...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266921360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...who published said highly confidential documents to a public webserver?  This story should be about them getting fired, not about "hackers".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...who published said highly confidential documents to a public webserver ?
This story should be about them getting fired , not about " hackers " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...who published said highly confidential documents to a public webserver?
This story should be about them getting fired, not about "hackers".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247762</id>
	<title>Re:Was it...</title>
	<author>BryanL</author>
	<datestamp>1266953820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am so afraid to click that link.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am so afraid to click that link .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am so afraid to click that link.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245952</id>
	<title>Re:Question:</title>
	<author>digitalhermit</author>
	<datestamp>1266947640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A couple years ago I was searching for the name of an old friend from college. I got a few Google hits for his full name and followed one of them. It led to a page on a radio station website that had lots of confidential information including birth date, email address, home address, business phone/address, salary, *and* password information.  I alerted the radio station immediately. The first response from them was accusatory, asking what I was doing hacking their site.  I sent back an email to the person who responded and to the addresses listed on their contact page detailing how I found the information.. Haven't heard back from them, but the page stayed up for over a week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple years ago I was searching for the name of an old friend from college .
I got a few Google hits for his full name and followed one of them .
It led to a page on a radio station website that had lots of confidential information including birth date , email address , home address , business phone/address , salary , * and * password information .
I alerted the radio station immediately .
The first response from them was accusatory , asking what I was doing hacking their site .
I sent back an email to the person who responded and to the addresses listed on their contact page detailing how I found the information.. Have n't heard back from them , but the page stayed up for over a week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple years ago I was searching for the name of an old friend from college.
I got a few Google hits for his full name and followed one of them.
It led to a page on a radio station website that had lots of confidential information including birth date, email address, home address, business phone/address, salary, *and* password information.
I alerted the radio station immediately.
The first response from them was accusatory, asking what I was doing hacking their site.
I sent back an email to the person who responded and to the addresses listed on their contact page detailing how I found the information.. Haven't heard back from them, but the page stayed up for over a week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31250496</id>
	<title>Re:Window analogy</title>
	<author>FoolishOwl</author>
	<datestamp>1266920220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone registered a domain name for the site. Someone configured an http server to serve that domain name. Someone designed the web pages. Someone posted those web pages to the http server.</p><p>A series of deliberate actions were taken to publicly display the documents, before the journalists saw them.</p><p>It is completely absurd to compare the journalist's actions to anything like trespassing or theft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone registered a domain name for the site .
Someone configured an http server to serve that domain name .
Someone designed the web pages .
Someone posted those web pages to the http server.A series of deliberate actions were taken to publicly display the documents , before the journalists saw them.It is completely absurd to compare the journalist 's actions to anything like trespassing or theft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone registered a domain name for the site.
Someone configured an http server to serve that domain name.
Someone designed the web pages.
Someone posted those web pages to the http server.A series of deliberate actions were taken to publicly display the documents, before the journalists saw them.It is completely absurd to compare the journalist's actions to anything like trespassing or theft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31251974</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it have been easier</title>
	<author>Thinboy00</author>
	<datestamp>1266925500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you kidding me?  They made this data accessible on the public internet.  I once read about a case where some kook had a website with a CGI file.  Supposedly, accessing www.example.com/delete.cgi?file=example.txt (names changed to protect the guilty and because my memory sucks) would delete the file example.txt <i>from the server</i>.  He then tried to claim that it was illegal for people to go to that URL and that he would... I don't even know what he actually intended to do about it but I think he was threatening to sue people over this.  Moral of the story: If something is accessible on the public internet, you cannot assume noone will look at it/access it/whatever.  If something is routable, you should assume it will be accessed.  The government could easily have made this non-routable (behind a firewall or NAT router or something) or offline (don't plug in the ethernet; it's really that easy) or not a server (don't run Apache if you don't want people to look in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/var/www or wherever) or password protected (unlike domain name records, passwords are not publicly accessible records that anyone with time can read).  Any of those things would have been trivial to set up, and it is totally the government's fault for leaving a gaping hole there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding me ?
They made this data accessible on the public internet .
I once read about a case where some kook had a website with a CGI file .
Supposedly , accessing www.example.com/delete.cgi ? file = example.txt ( names changed to protect the guilty and because my memory sucks ) would delete the file example.txt from the server .
He then tried to claim that it was illegal for people to go to that URL and that he would... I do n't even know what he actually intended to do about it but I think he was threatening to sue people over this .
Moral of the story : If something is accessible on the public internet , you can not assume noone will look at it/access it/whatever .
If something is routable , you should assume it will be accessed .
The government could easily have made this non-routable ( behind a firewall or NAT router or something ) or offline ( do n't plug in the ethernet ; it 's really that easy ) or not a server ( do n't run Apache if you do n't want people to look in /var/www or wherever ) or password protected ( unlike domain name records , passwords are not publicly accessible records that anyone with time can read ) .
Any of those things would have been trivial to set up , and it is totally the government 's fault for leaving a gaping hole there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding me?
They made this data accessible on the public internet.
I once read about a case where some kook had a website with a CGI file.
Supposedly, accessing www.example.com/delete.cgi?file=example.txt (names changed to protect the guilty and because my memory sucks) would delete the file example.txt from the server.
He then tried to claim that it was illegal for people to go to that URL and that he would... I don't even know what he actually intended to do about it but I think he was threatening to sue people over this.
Moral of the story: If something is accessible on the public internet, you cannot assume noone will look at it/access it/whatever.
If something is routable, you should assume it will be accessed.
The government could easily have made this non-routable (behind a firewall or NAT router or something) or offline (don't plug in the ethernet; it's really that easy) or not a server (don't run Apache if you don't want people to look in /var/www or wherever) or password protected (unlike domain name records, passwords are not publicly accessible records that anyone with time can read).
Any of those things would have been trivial to set up, and it is totally the government's fault for leaving a gaping hole there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31269530</id>
	<title>Newspaper Knows no Boundaries</title>
	<author>greyblogs</author>
	<datestamp>1267130760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is amazing the newspaper was poking around for two days to research a story and the Aussie gov't didn't notice--that is scary.  And, the newspaper going in their backoffice to do research is pretty brassy and brash.  Would think that would be illegal, as they don't own the website or have permissions.  What if there is private information about the private citizens they were accessing?   Yet, they thought it was okay to keep going back in there...Sickening, no honor, no boundaries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is amazing the newspaper was poking around for two days to research a story and the Aussie gov't did n't notice--that is scary .
And , the newspaper going in their backoffice to do research is pretty brassy and brash .
Would think that would be illegal , as they do n't own the website or have permissions .
What if there is private information about the private citizens they were accessing ?
Yet , they thought it was okay to keep going back in there...Sickening , no honor , no boundaries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is amazing the newspaper was poking around for two days to research a story and the Aussie gov't didn't notice--that is scary.
And, the newspaper going in their backoffice to do research is pretty brassy and brash.
Would think that would be illegal, as they don't own the website or have permissions.
What if there is private information about the private citizens they were accessing?
Yet, they thought it was okay to keep going back in there...Sickening, no honor, no boundaries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245290</id>
	<title>I love the name of the web hosting outfit:</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1266944880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Bang the Table".</p><p>Methinks we have found a new tag for articles about politicians who are bit by their own stupid security practices.   Release Word file with revision history still in it? Bang the table.  Secret government data stolen because of malware you downloaded from a porn site? Bang the table.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bang the Table " .Methinks we have found a new tag for articles about politicians who are bit by their own stupid security practices .
Release Word file with revision history still in it ?
Bang the table .
Secret government data stolen because of malware you downloaded from a porn site ?
Bang the table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bang the Table".Methinks we have found a new tag for articles about politicians who are bit by their own stupid security practices.
Release Word file with revision history still in it?
Bang the table.
Secret government data stolen because of malware you downloaded from a porn site?
Bang the table.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246016</id>
	<title>Re:Lock, what lock?</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1266947760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA:<br><i>- We got a tip on Friday that you could read the government's transport plan by accessing a website called, unsurprisingly, nswtransportblueprint.com.au.</i></p><p><i>- Even we did not need help to type in those letters. No password was requested or offered.</i></p><p><i>- Instead we were confronted with a dream menu for any reporter: rail services, cycleways, walking and cycling, bus services, paying and road network.</i></p><p>So the analogy here is being told there's a really juicy book in a library at this specific location, but the book not being in the library's online catalog.  The book itself has a full table of contents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : - We got a tip on Friday that you could read the government 's transport plan by accessing a website called , unsurprisingly , nswtransportblueprint.com.au.- Even we did not need help to type in those letters .
No password was requested or offered.- Instead we were confronted with a dream menu for any reporter : rail services , cycleways , walking and cycling , bus services , paying and road network.So the analogy here is being told there 's a really juicy book in a library at this specific location , but the book not being in the library 's online catalog .
The book itself has a full table of contents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA:- We got a tip on Friday that you could read the government's transport plan by accessing a website called, unsurprisingly, nswtransportblueprint.com.au.- Even we did not need help to type in those letters.
No password was requested or offered.- Instead we were confronted with a dream menu for any reporter: rail services, cycleways, walking and cycling, bus services, paying and road network.So the analogy here is being told there's a really juicy book in a library at this specific location, but the book not being in the library's online catalog.
The book itself has a full table of contents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246002</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it have been easier</title>
	<author>Bengie</author>
	<datestamp>1266947700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A better analogy would be calling random phone numbers to see if you get any to ring. When you finally get a phone number to ring, it has a voice mail on it and doesn't even prompt for a password.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A better analogy would be calling random phone numbers to see if you get any to ring .
When you finally get a phone number to ring , it has a voice mail on it and does n't even prompt for a password .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A better analogy would be calling random phone numbers to see if you get any to ring.
When you finally get a phone number to ring, it has a voice mail on it and doesn't even prompt for a password.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246532</id>
	<title>Re:Two Robots in Front of a Judge</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1266949680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh god, if I had mod points I wouldn't just mod this up, I'd track down all your other posts and mode them up too!<br>This is the most glorious....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh god , if I had mod points I would n't just mod this up , I 'd track down all your other posts and mode them up too ! This is the most glorious... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh god, if I had mod points I wouldn't just mod this up, I'd track down all your other posts and mode them up too!This is the most glorious....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248790</id>
	<title>Re:As long as the URL is secret, it is an attack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266957240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(The story headline is misleading. I'm continuing the argument on the basis that a URL contains an actual secret component.)</p><p>Meatspace and cyberspace are sufficiently different that analogies are rarely useful, because they usually lead to inconsistent results. Sending a request to a server is not like turning a door knob or looking under a park bench. It's like sending a request to a server. One of the differences is that servers exhibit complex behaviors without constant control or supervision. Another difference is that server access is usually remote and that sending a request is most often the only way to see if a server is meant to deliver a response or not. This latter aspect alone throws off many people who are not familiar with how computers work.</p><p>On the internet, most access permissions are <b>implied</b>: If you can, you may. However, that obviously can't be the only rule. People who argue like you do (that if you can see it when you go looking for it, then it is out in the open) don't make a distinction between ability and permission. You justify this conflation with an analogy involving an arbitrarily low amount of secrecy about information placed in a public location. That's not a proper way to argue whether some server access was permissible or not.</p><p>If ability and permission always coincided, what would stop an attacker from brute-forcing a password? Or from using a software exploit? I would certainly agree that hardening your system against even these types of attacks is a good idea and the only way to achieve reasonable security, but from a legal point of view, the line between accessing a server and attacking a server is not where an attacker simply can no longer get any information that the server owner wanted to keep secret. Where is that line?</p><p>I argued that the mechanism which most would clearly regard as an access control mechanism, HTTP basic authentication, is not functionally different from secret URLs, as long as a secret URL isn't easily derived from other URLs (i.e. constructed to be secret) and not published in any way (i.e. not leaked through HTTP referer headers, links, etc.). If one is considered (albeit weak) access control, why isn't the other? They are both transmitted unencrypted. The password can even be entered as part of the URL.</p><p>Your analogy fails to differentiate the two cases. A journalist gets tipped off to check all benches in the park: You meant this as an analogy to an informant giving the journalist some URL pattern to check, but it can just as well be considered analogous to some password pattern. If your argument is meant to justify brute forcing URLs, then it must also justify brute forcing passwords. I am pretty sure you didn't mean it like that, but then what is the difference? IMHO there isn't one. Brute forcing URLs with components that are obviously meant to be secret is an attack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( The story headline is misleading .
I 'm continuing the argument on the basis that a URL contains an actual secret component .
) Meatspace and cyberspace are sufficiently different that analogies are rarely useful , because they usually lead to inconsistent results .
Sending a request to a server is not like turning a door knob or looking under a park bench .
It 's like sending a request to a server .
One of the differences is that servers exhibit complex behaviors without constant control or supervision .
Another difference is that server access is usually remote and that sending a request is most often the only way to see if a server is meant to deliver a response or not .
This latter aspect alone throws off many people who are not familiar with how computers work.On the internet , most access permissions are implied : If you can , you may .
However , that obviously ca n't be the only rule .
People who argue like you do ( that if you can see it when you go looking for it , then it is out in the open ) do n't make a distinction between ability and permission .
You justify this conflation with an analogy involving an arbitrarily low amount of secrecy about information placed in a public location .
That 's not a proper way to argue whether some server access was permissible or not.If ability and permission always coincided , what would stop an attacker from brute-forcing a password ?
Or from using a software exploit ?
I would certainly agree that hardening your system against even these types of attacks is a good idea and the only way to achieve reasonable security , but from a legal point of view , the line between accessing a server and attacking a server is not where an attacker simply can no longer get any information that the server owner wanted to keep secret .
Where is that line ? I argued that the mechanism which most would clearly regard as an access control mechanism , HTTP basic authentication , is not functionally different from secret URLs , as long as a secret URL is n't easily derived from other URLs ( i.e .
constructed to be secret ) and not published in any way ( i.e .
not leaked through HTTP referer headers , links , etc. ) .
If one is considered ( albeit weak ) access control , why is n't the other ?
They are both transmitted unencrypted .
The password can even be entered as part of the URL.Your analogy fails to differentiate the two cases .
A journalist gets tipped off to check all benches in the park : You meant this as an analogy to an informant giving the journalist some URL pattern to check , but it can just as well be considered analogous to some password pattern .
If your argument is meant to justify brute forcing URLs , then it must also justify brute forcing passwords .
I am pretty sure you did n't mean it like that , but then what is the difference ?
IMHO there is n't one .
Brute forcing URLs with components that are obviously meant to be secret is an attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(The story headline is misleading.
I'm continuing the argument on the basis that a URL contains an actual secret component.
)Meatspace and cyberspace are sufficiently different that analogies are rarely useful, because they usually lead to inconsistent results.
Sending a request to a server is not like turning a door knob or looking under a park bench.
It's like sending a request to a server.
One of the differences is that servers exhibit complex behaviors without constant control or supervision.
Another difference is that server access is usually remote and that sending a request is most often the only way to see if a server is meant to deliver a response or not.
This latter aspect alone throws off many people who are not familiar with how computers work.On the internet, most access permissions are implied: If you can, you may.
However, that obviously can't be the only rule.
People who argue like you do (that if you can see it when you go looking for it, then it is out in the open) don't make a distinction between ability and permission.
You justify this conflation with an analogy involving an arbitrarily low amount of secrecy about information placed in a public location.
That's not a proper way to argue whether some server access was permissible or not.If ability and permission always coincided, what would stop an attacker from brute-forcing a password?
Or from using a software exploit?
I would certainly agree that hardening your system against even these types of attacks is a good idea and the only way to achieve reasonable security, but from a legal point of view, the line between accessing a server and attacking a server is not where an attacker simply can no longer get any information that the server owner wanted to keep secret.
Where is that line?I argued that the mechanism which most would clearly regard as an access control mechanism, HTTP basic authentication, is not functionally different from secret URLs, as long as a secret URL isn't easily derived from other URLs (i.e.
constructed to be secret) and not published in any way (i.e.
not leaked through HTTP referer headers, links, etc.).
If one is considered (albeit weak) access control, why isn't the other?
They are both transmitted unencrypted.
The password can even be entered as part of the URL.Your analogy fails to differentiate the two cases.
A journalist gets tipped off to check all benches in the park: You meant this as an analogy to an informant giving the journalist some URL pattern to check, but it can just as well be considered analogous to some password pattern.
If your argument is meant to justify brute forcing URLs, then it must also justify brute forcing passwords.
I am pretty sure you didn't mean it like that, but then what is the difference?
IMHO there isn't one.
Brute forcing URLs with components that are obviously meant to be secret is an attack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254</id>
	<title>Lock, what lock?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266944760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The affected government minister said that the website was accessed 3,727 times, and that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to <b>turn the doorknob</b>of an <b>insecure</b> office and <b>make copies of</b> highly confidential documents.'</p></div>
</blockquote><p>There, fixed that for you, Mr. Minister.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The affected government minister said that the website was accessed 3,727 times , and that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to turn the doorknobof an insecure office and make copies of highly confidential documents .
' There , fixed that for you , Mr. Minister .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The affected government minister said that the website was accessed 3,727 times, and that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to turn the doorknobof an insecure office and make copies of highly confidential documents.
'
There, fixed that for you, Mr. Minister.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245810</id>
	<title>Re:Two Robots in Front of a Judge</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1266947220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As someone whose own server got rooted once, I sympathize.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone whose own server got rooted once , I sympathize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone whose own server got rooted once, I sympathize.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31255082</id>
	<title>Re:Why care about security when you can rule by fe</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1266942840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Security is for chumps. Real security is sleeping well at night knowing that everyone else cowers in fear of your wrath.</p></div></blockquote><p>

But that will never happen, lets ignore the fact that the Australian government couldn't intimidate a kitten, let alone an Australian and think about that statement for a while.<br> <br>

You will not sleep well at all if everyone fears you, you are a threat to them and people like to remove threats to them so that they can live without fear. Fear you see is a very powerful motivator and extremely chaotic (it will never work like you expect it to). In actual fact you will sleep very restlessly out of the fear of an uprising or the fear that your own subordinates deciding to top you and take your place.<br> <br>

Those who rule by fear are also ruled fear or if you would prefer, live by the sword, die by the sword.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Security is for chumps .
Real security is sleeping well at night knowing that everyone else cowers in fear of your wrath .
But that will never happen , lets ignore the fact that the Australian government could n't intimidate a kitten , let alone an Australian and think about that statement for a while .
You will not sleep well at all if everyone fears you , you are a threat to them and people like to remove threats to them so that they can live without fear .
Fear you see is a very powerful motivator and extremely chaotic ( it will never work like you expect it to ) .
In actual fact you will sleep very restlessly out of the fear of an uprising or the fear that your own subordinates deciding to top you and take your place .
Those who rule by fear are also ruled fear or if you would prefer , live by the sword , die by the sword .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security is for chumps.
Real security is sleeping well at night knowing that everyone else cowers in fear of your wrath.
But that will never happen, lets ignore the fact that the Australian government couldn't intimidate a kitten, let alone an Australian and think about that statement for a while.
You will not sleep well at all if everyone fears you, you are a threat to them and people like to remove threats to them so that they can live without fear.
Fear you see is a very powerful motivator and extremely chaotic (it will never work like you expect it to).
In actual fact you will sleep very restlessly out of the fear of an uprising or the fear that your own subordinates deciding to top you and take your place.
Those who rule by fear are also ruled fear or if you would prefer, live by the sword, die by the sword.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246250</id>
	<title>Yes....</title>
	<author>MROD</author>
	<datestamp>1266948660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Daniel Cuthbert, who "hacked" the DEC charity website by using '../' in the URL. Convicted 2005.</p><p>http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/008118.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Daniel Cuthbert , who " hacked " the DEC charity website by using '../ ' in the URL .
Convicted 2005.http : //www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/008118.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Daniel Cuthbert, who "hacked" the DEC charity website by using '../' in the URL.
Convicted 2005.http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/008118.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245410</id>
	<title>Robots.txt</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1266945600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>User-agent: *<br>Disallow:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/highly\_confidential\_documents/<br>Hack-delay: &gt;9000</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>User-agent : * Disallow : /highly \ _confidential \ _documents/Hack-delay : &gt; 9000</tokentext>
<sentencetext>User-agent: *Disallow: /highly\_confidential\_documents/Hack-delay: &gt;9000</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247744</id>
	<title>Re:Window analogy</title>
	<author>precariousgray</author>
	<datestamp>1266953700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, let's see if I understand this correctly.  There is a house, with windows, and these windows are not covered by curtains.  If I am looking through the window and reading an important document, I am stealing information.

You're right: that is incorrect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , let 's see if I understand this correctly .
There is a house , with windows , and these windows are not covered by curtains .
If I am looking through the window and reading an important document , I am stealing information .
You 're right : that is incorrect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, let's see if I understand this correctly.
There is a house, with windows, and these windows are not covered by curtains.
If I am looking through the window and reading an important document, I am stealing information.
You're right: that is incorrect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246260</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of...</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1266948660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This reminds me of a case in Canada, where Passport Canada (the agency responsible for passport emission) was "hacked" by changing some numbers in the URL to get from one passport request details to the other, making very confidential information available to even the most basic hackers.</p> </div><p>I still try that out of habit when I see a record ID encoded in the URL. Still works on a lot of websites... about 8\% of the time, especially for smaller shops. I usually send them an e-mail and move on. There's too many to waste my time following up with each one...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of a case in Canada , where Passport Canada ( the agency responsible for passport emission ) was " hacked " by changing some numbers in the URL to get from one passport request details to the other , making very confidential information available to even the most basic hackers .
I still try that out of habit when I see a record ID encoded in the URL .
Still works on a lot of websites... about 8 \ % of the time , especially for smaller shops .
I usually send them an e-mail and move on .
There 's too many to waste my time following up with each one.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of a case in Canada, where Passport Canada (the agency responsible for passport emission) was "hacked" by changing some numbers in the URL to get from one passport request details to the other, making very confidential information available to even the most basic hackers.
I still try that out of habit when I see a record ID encoded in the URL.
Still works on a lot of websites... about 8\% of the time, especially for smaller shops.
I usually send them an e-mail and move on.
There's too many to waste my time following up with each one...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245650</id>
	<title>Re:Library analogy</title>
	<author>Mr Thinly Sliced</author>
	<datestamp>1266946740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The funny part is both sides are fairly non-technical, meaning some "journalist" probably typed in all 3727 URLs.</p></div></blockquote><p>You mean they didn't <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkDD03yeLnU" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">write a visual basic GUI to trace an IP address?</a> [youtube.com].</p><p>From the sounds of this story the Aussie Gov't hired the technical consultants from 24 as their sysadmin and security guy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The funny part is both sides are fairly non-technical , meaning some " journalist " probably typed in all 3727 URLs.You mean they did n't write a visual basic GUI to trace an IP address ?
[ youtube.com ] .From the sounds of this story the Aussie Gov't hired the technical consultants from 24 as their sysadmin and security guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The funny part is both sides are fairly non-technical, meaning some "journalist" probably typed in all 3727 URLs.You mean they didn't write a visual basic GUI to trace an IP address?
[youtube.com].From the sounds of this story the Aussie Gov't hired the technical consultants from 24 as their sysadmin and security guy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252196</id>
	<title>Re:Window analogy</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1266926640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>then why do insurances deny payment, when something is stolen from your unlocked home?</htmltext>
<tokenext>then why do insurances deny payment , when something is stolen from your unlocked home ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then why do insurances deny payment, when something is stolen from your unlocked home?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245944</id>
	<title>Re:Library analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266947580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing like that at all.</p><p>They were told the url by someone.</p><p>They entered it into their browser and got a everyday normal web page.</p><p>They clicked on the menu items and printed out the pages.</p><p>No guessing involved. No typing (other than the initial url) involved.</p><p>The 3727 is probably the number of request logs on the web server from them, counting all the images/css/js/etc files to make it look larger.</p><p>If they were slightly technical they might have done:</p><p>wget -m <a href="http://nswtransportblueprint.com.au/" title="nswtranspo...int.com.au">http://nswtransportblueprint.com.au/</a> [nswtranspo...int.com.au]</p><p>but that would be *more* typing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing like that at all.They were told the url by someone.They entered it into their browser and got a everyday normal web page.They clicked on the menu items and printed out the pages.No guessing involved .
No typing ( other than the initial url ) involved.The 3727 is probably the number of request logs on the web server from them , counting all the images/css/js/etc files to make it look larger.If they were slightly technical they might have done : wget -m http : //nswtransportblueprint.com.au/ [ nswtranspo...int.com.au ] but that would be * more * typing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing like that at all.They were told the url by someone.They entered it into their browser and got a everyday normal web page.They clicked on the menu items and printed out the pages.No guessing involved.
No typing (other than the initial url) involved.The 3727 is probably the number of request logs on the web server from them, counting all the images/css/js/etc files to make it look larger.If they were slightly technical they might have done:wget -m http://nswtransportblueprint.com.au/ [nswtranspo...int.com.au]but that would be *more* typing...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247102</id>
	<title>Re:Proposal for Australia</title>
	<author>Destined Soul</author>
	<datestamp>1266951600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. needs a "Informative yet Funny" mod, if not at least for the above comment.</p><p>Next thing they'll be banning IE, Firefox, et al, for making one-click hacking software.  Retarded* politicians.</p><p>(* I have a Down's syndrome brother, so I liberally apply the word retarded for those who act worse than my brother.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now / .
needs a " Informative yet Funny " mod , if not at least for the above comment.Next thing they 'll be banning IE , Firefox , et al , for making one-click hacking software .
Retarded * politicians .
( * I have a Down 's syndrome brother , so I liberally apply the word retarded for those who act worse than my brother .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now /.
needs a "Informative yet Funny" mod, if not at least for the above comment.Next thing they'll be banning IE, Firefox, et al, for making one-click hacking software.
Retarded* politicians.
(* I have a Down's syndrome brother, so I liberally apply the word retarded for those who act worse than my brother.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31249052</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it have been easier</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1266958020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That analog would mean that every time I type a url in the wrong way then I was hacking. They only picked the lock once really and that would be when they got it right and that doesn't make sense. Any possible analogy would be akin trespassing or mischief, but that would not make sense because that would suggest you can own parts of the internet. Any real world analogy does not absolutely relate to what they did because it involves information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That analog would mean that every time I type a url in the wrong way then I was hacking .
They only picked the lock once really and that would be when they got it right and that does n't make sense .
Any possible analogy would be akin trespassing or mischief , but that would not make sense because that would suggest you can own parts of the internet .
Any real world analogy does not absolutely relate to what they did because it involves information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That analog would mean that every time I type a url in the wrong way then I was hacking.
They only picked the lock once really and that would be when they got it right and that doesn't make sense.
Any possible analogy would be akin trespassing or mischief, but that would not make sense because that would suggest you can own parts of the internet.
Any real world analogy does not absolutely relate to what they did because it involves information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252460</id>
	<title>Re:Entropy</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1266927900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're making the mistake of believing the Slashdot summary, instead of reading TFA.  There was no trial and error involved.  They were given a tip that a public government website had information they might find useful.  The 3,727 "attempts" that Slashdot reports are 3,727 "hits on the firewall" according to TFA.  All of those "hits" were allowed through.  They didn't do a dictionary attack on an existing website hoping to find secret subdirectories that weren't linked to.  They just followed links inside the main page, to various subpages.  The government asserts that typing in a URL was a hack attempt, and each time they clicked a link it was also a hack attempt, some of which led to "classified" information.  To repeat, it wasn't 3,726 404 errors, followed by "YES, VALID URL!" it was 3727 total scrips html pages images and css files as they browsed through a link somebody emailed them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're making the mistake of believing the Slashdot summary , instead of reading TFA .
There was no trial and error involved .
They were given a tip that a public government website had information they might find useful .
The 3,727 " attempts " that Slashdot reports are 3,727 " hits on the firewall " according to TFA .
All of those " hits " were allowed through .
They did n't do a dictionary attack on an existing website hoping to find secret subdirectories that were n't linked to .
They just followed links inside the main page , to various subpages .
The government asserts that typing in a URL was a hack attempt , and each time they clicked a link it was also a hack attempt , some of which led to " classified " information .
To repeat , it was n't 3,726 404 errors , followed by " YES , VALID URL !
" it was 3727 total scrips html pages images and css files as they browsed through a link somebody emailed them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're making the mistake of believing the Slashdot summary, instead of reading TFA.
There was no trial and error involved.
They were given a tip that a public government website had information they might find useful.
The 3,727 "attempts" that Slashdot reports are 3,727 "hits on the firewall" according to TFA.
All of those "hits" were allowed through.
They didn't do a dictionary attack on an existing website hoping to find secret subdirectories that weren't linked to.
They just followed links inside the main page, to various subpages.
The government asserts that typing in a URL was a hack attempt, and each time they clicked a link it was also a hack attempt, some of which led to "classified" information.
To repeat, it wasn't 3,726 404 errors, followed by "YES, VALID URL!
" it was 3727 total scrips html pages images and css files as they browsed through a link somebody emailed them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252816</id>
	<title>Re:Window analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266929460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"... does not mean that by looking through the window and reading an important document left near the window that you're aren't stealing info."</p><p>What if the notice is posted on the window, and you only have to walk up the path to read it?  Furthermore, imagine it is posted on the window of a <i>government building</i> with no security fence or other security precautions evident.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... does not mean that by looking through the window and reading an important document left near the window that you 're are n't stealing info .
" What if the notice is posted on the window , and you only have to walk up the path to read it ?
Furthermore , imagine it is posted on the window of a government building with no security fence or other security precautions evident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... does not mean that by looking through the window and reading an important document left near the window that you're aren't stealing info.
"What if the notice is posted on the window, and you only have to walk up the path to read it?
Furthermore, imagine it is posted on the window of a government building with no security fence or other security precautions evident.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246514</id>
	<title>Re:Window analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266949620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Just because a house has windows and they aren't covered by curtains does not mean that by looking through the window and reading an important document left near the window that you're aren't stealing info.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes it does.  At best you could have <i>copied</i> (duplicated) it.</p><p>Actually, in my country if you leave the curtains open and you than decide to walk around naked and someone sees you than <i>you</i> will be picked up by police for "indecent exposure".   In other words : Its <i>your</i> duty to make sure someone cannot get a sneek-peek into your home and see stuff that he should not.</p><p>In the same direction : If you leave valuable stuff in your car but leave it unlocked that <i>you</i> (can) get a ticket for that (even without those valuables getting stolen).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because a house has windows and they are n't covered by curtains does not mean that by looking through the window and reading an important document left near the window that you 're are n't stealing info.Yes it does .
At best you could have copied ( duplicated ) it.Actually , in my country if you leave the curtains open and you than decide to walk around naked and someone sees you than you will be picked up by police for " indecent exposure " .
In other words : Its your duty to make sure someone can not get a sneek-peek into your home and see stuff that he should not.In the same direction : If you leave valuable stuff in your car but leave it unlocked that you ( can ) get a ticket for that ( even without those valuables getting stolen ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because a house has windows and they aren't covered by curtains does not mean that by looking through the window and reading an important document left near the window that you're aren't stealing info.Yes it does.
At best you could have copied (duplicated) it.Actually, in my country if you leave the curtains open and you than decide to walk around naked and someone sees you than you will be picked up by police for "indecent exposure".
In other words : Its your duty to make sure someone cannot get a sneek-peek into your home and see stuff that he should not.In the same direction : If you leave valuable stuff in your car but leave it unlocked that you (can) get a ticket for that (even without those valuables getting stolen).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246580</id>
	<title>Re:As long as the URL is secret, it is an attack</title>
	<author>Destined Soul</author>
	<datestamp>1266949860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking along these lines.  I remember coming across the following in my linux apache logs and definitely thought of it an attack probe: "GET<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/c/winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir HTTP/1.0"  Surely this can also be done via just an URL but that doesn't make it right.</p><p>Just because you leave your door open doesn't make someone going through it not trespassing, lock or not.  Checking all of the windows and doors to see if there's a way in also doesn't really help with the "I wasn't trespassing" argument, either.</p><p>I do admit it should have been locked down, though.  At least IP filter access to the site if you're still in testing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking along these lines .
I remember coming across the following in my linux apache logs and definitely thought of it an attack probe : " GET /c/winnt/system32/cmd.exe ? /c + dir HTTP/1.0 " Surely this can also be done via just an URL but that does n't make it right.Just because you leave your door open does n't make someone going through it not trespassing , lock or not .
Checking all of the windows and doors to see if there 's a way in also does n't really help with the " I was n't trespassing " argument , either.I do admit it should have been locked down , though .
At least IP filter access to the site if you 're still in testing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking along these lines.
I remember coming across the following in my linux apache logs and definitely thought of it an attack probe: "GET /c/winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir HTTP/1.0"  Surely this can also be done via just an URL but that doesn't make it right.Just because you leave your door open doesn't make someone going through it not trespassing, lock or not.
Checking all of the windows and doors to see if there's a way in also doesn't really help with the "I wasn't trespassing" argument, either.I do admit it should have been locked down, though.
At least IP filter access to the site if you're still in testing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245546</id>
	<title>Re:Lock, what lock?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1266946200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to turn the doorknob of an insecure office and make copies of highly confidential documents.</p></div><p>Makes you wonder if the reporter had typed in "http://nswtransportblueprint.com.au/project" on the first try instead of the 3,727th try, would the government have been okay with that?  If a reporter were outside an unlocked government door, pawing it 3,727 times before successfully opening it, that would be pretty strange, but doesn't change anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to turn the doorknob of an insecure office and make copies of highly confidential documents.Makes you wonder if the reporter had typed in " http : //nswtransportblueprint.com.au/project " on the first try instead of the 3,727th try , would the government have been okay with that ?
If a reporter were outside an unlocked government door , pawing it 3,727 times before successfully opening it , that would be pretty strange , but does n't change anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to turn the doorknob of an insecure office and make copies of highly confidential documents.Makes you wonder if the reporter had typed in "http://nswtransportblueprint.com.au/project" on the first try instead of the 3,727th try, would the government have been okay with that?
If a reporter were outside an unlocked government door, pawing it 3,727 times before successfully opening it, that would be pretty strange, but doesn't change anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31267930</id>
	<title>Splitting of hairs</title>
	<author>DeVilla</author>
	<datestamp>1265125740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Without saying who I believe is actually right in this case, I can't help but wonder how is different to brute force</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <tt>http(s)://hostname/secret</tt></p> </div><p>and</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <tt>http(s)://username:pasword@hostname/</tt></p> </div><p>since basically <tt>secret</tt> could equal <tt>user:password</tt>?  In the second case, you know the secret has at least one known character.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without saying who I believe is actually right in this case , I ca n't help but wonder how is different to brute force http ( s ) : //hostname/secret and http ( s ) : //username : pasword @ hostname/ since basically secret could equal user : password ?
In the second case , you know the secret has at least one known character .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Without saying who I believe is actually right in this case, I can't help but wonder how is different to brute force http(s)://hostname/secret and http(s)://username:pasword@hostname/ since basically secret could equal user:password?
In the second case, you know the secret has at least one known character.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248840</id>
	<title>Fun w/ Numbers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266957360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Numbers can be wonderful fun.  They can mean many things, and not qualifying them can be very effective when you want to mislead....<br> <br>

The number of "violations" being bandied about is probably actually the number of individual GET requests by the web-browser(s) against the web server.<br>
On a media-rich web-site, (which this probably was, since nobody want to actually read anymore), one could probably
rack up that many GET requests simply by loading a couple dozen logical pages.  (Since every <b>href</b> results in yet another GET...)<br>
<br>
Also, they used the browser to print the web-pages.  Depending on the web-browser and the cache-ability of the documents already viewed,
the browser may have had to GET all of the pieces <b>AGAIN</b> just to print the document!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Numbers can be wonderful fun .
They can mean many things , and not qualifying them can be very effective when you want to mislead... . The number of " violations " being bandied about is probably actually the number of individual GET requests by the web-browser ( s ) against the web server .
On a media-rich web-site , ( which this probably was , since nobody want to actually read anymore ) , one could probably rack up that many GET requests simply by loading a couple dozen logical pages .
( Since every href results in yet another GET... ) Also , they used the browser to print the web-pages .
Depending on the web-browser and the cache-ability of the documents already viewed , the browser may have had to GET all of the pieces AGAIN just to print the document !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Numbers can be wonderful fun.
They can mean many things, and not qualifying them can be very effective when you want to mislead.... 

The number of "violations" being bandied about is probably actually the number of individual GET requests by the web-browser(s) against the web server.
On a media-rich web-site, (which this probably was, since nobody want to actually read anymore), one could probably
rack up that many GET requests simply by loading a couple dozen logical pages.
(Since every href results in yet another GET...)

Also, they used the browser to print the web-pages.
Depending on the web-browser and the cache-ability of the documents already viewed,
the browser may have had to GET all of the pieces AGAIN just to print the document!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31249482</id>
	<title>Re:Lock, what lock?</title>
	<author>FoolishOwl</author>
	<datestamp>1266916200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>The affected government minister said that the website was accessed 3,727 times, and that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to <b>turn the doorknob</b>of an <b>insecure</b> office and <b>make copies of</b> highly confidential documents.'</p></div></blockquote><p>There, fixed that for you, Mr. Minister.</p></div><p>I'd say it's equivalent to walking up to the headquarters of a government agency, entering by the side door adjacent to the parking lot -- a sliding glass door that opens automatically when you approach -- and walking to the main lobby, going to the kiosk under the sign that reads INFORMATION, and picking up and reading a few brochures with a total of 200 photographs and 3,527 words.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The affected government minister said that the website was accessed 3,727 times , and that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to turn the doorknobof an insecure office and make copies of highly confidential documents .
'There , fixed that for you , Mr. Minister.I 'd say it 's equivalent to walking up to the headquarters of a government agency , entering by the side door adjacent to the parking lot -- a sliding glass door that opens automatically when you approach -- and walking to the main lobby , going to the kiosk under the sign that reads INFORMATION , and picking up and reading a few brochures with a total of 200 photographs and 3,527 words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The affected government minister said that the website was accessed 3,727 times, and that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to turn the doorknobof an insecure office and make copies of highly confidential documents.
'There, fixed that for you, Mr. Minister.I'd say it's equivalent to walking up to the headquarters of a government agency, entering by the side door adjacent to the parking lot -- a sliding glass door that opens automatically when you approach -- and walking to the main lobby, going to the kiosk under the sign that reads INFORMATION, and picking up and reading a few brochures with a total of 200 photographs and 3,527 words.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245816</id>
	<title>Redefinition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266947220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No matter what the vendor/contractor/"expert" told you, an unanounced valid URL is NOT a firewall.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter what the vendor/contractor/ " expert " told you , an unanounced valid URL is NOT a firewall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter what the vendor/contractor/"expert" told you, an unanounced valid URL is NOT a firewall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252570</id>
	<title>Re:Hey AU gov't</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1266928320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read TFA.  They didn't trial and error 3,727 times.  Somebody e-mailed them a link, and they followed it.  3,727 is the total number of HTML requests that the "secret" and "confidential" public web server received.  As the above reply notes, it's like calling ONE phone number that somebody told you to call, and having an automated system there tell you everything you wanted to know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read TFA .
They did n't trial and error 3,727 times .
Somebody e-mailed them a link , and they followed it .
3,727 is the total number of HTML requests that the " secret " and " confidential " public web server received .
As the above reply notes , it 's like calling ONE phone number that somebody told you to call , and having an automated system there tell you everything you wanted to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read TFA.
They didn't trial and error 3,727 times.
Somebody e-mailed them a link, and they followed it.
3,727 is the total number of HTML requests that the "secret" and "confidential" public web server received.
As the above reply notes, it's like calling ONE phone number that somebody told you to call, and having an automated system there tell you everything you wanted to know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252528</id>
	<title>Re:Window analogy</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1266928200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who gave you permission to access Slashdot?  Seems by your reasoning, you decided to just walk through the unlocked door, which you claim is wrong.  Please stop hacking Slashdot!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who gave you permission to access Slashdot ?
Seems by your reasoning , you decided to just walk through the unlocked door , which you claim is wrong .
Please stop hacking Slashdot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who gave you permission to access Slashdot?
Seems by your reasoning, you decided to just walk through the unlocked door, which you claim is wrong.
Please stop hacking Slashdot!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31249598</id>
	<title>It all depends on intent</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1266916620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are not supposed to open a box with a combination lock because the owner, by installing that lock, has indicated his intent not to allow unauthorized persons access. It could be a cheapo lock with an easy to guess combo. Or it could be something expensive and pick proof. In the eyes of the law it doesn't matter. Common sense may suggest investing in something better than the cheapest lock, but the law doesn't care.
</p><p>A URL is not a secret, given its common use. So it doesn't have the same legal standing as a combination or uid/password. Particularly if that URL has any meaning associated with the likely contents of the site. I would expect anyone searching for information on transportation in New South Wales to consider nswtransportblueprint.com.au to be a perfectly reasonable place to look for public information. So a reasonable person could assume that the site's owner had no intention of securing it. Hiding it at Goatse.cx would have been another matter. But then I don't know much about New South Wales government, so perhaps I'm wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are not supposed to open a box with a combination lock because the owner , by installing that lock , has indicated his intent not to allow unauthorized persons access .
It could be a cheapo lock with an easy to guess combo .
Or it could be something expensive and pick proof .
In the eyes of the law it does n't matter .
Common sense may suggest investing in something better than the cheapest lock , but the law does n't care .
A URL is not a secret , given its common use .
So it does n't have the same legal standing as a combination or uid/password .
Particularly if that URL has any meaning associated with the likely contents of the site .
I would expect anyone searching for information on transportation in New South Wales to consider nswtransportblueprint.com.au to be a perfectly reasonable place to look for public information .
So a reasonable person could assume that the site 's owner had no intention of securing it .
Hiding it at Goatse.cx would have been another matter .
But then I do n't know much about New South Wales government , so perhaps I 'm wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are not supposed to open a box with a combination lock because the owner, by installing that lock, has indicated his intent not to allow unauthorized persons access.
It could be a cheapo lock with an easy to guess combo.
Or it could be something expensive and pick proof.
In the eyes of the law it doesn't matter.
Common sense may suggest investing in something better than the cheapest lock, but the law doesn't care.
A URL is not a secret, given its common use.
So it doesn't have the same legal standing as a combination or uid/password.
Particularly if that URL has any meaning associated with the likely contents of the site.
I would expect anyone searching for information on transportation in New South Wales to consider nswtransportblueprint.com.au to be a perfectly reasonable place to look for public information.
So a reasonable person could assume that the site's owner had no intention of securing it.
Hiding it at Goatse.cx would have been another matter.
But then I don't know much about New South Wales government, so perhaps I'm wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31260820</id>
	<title>My first hack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265132820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember my first hack.</p><p>I was relatively young, maybe 13.  It was when HOTMAIL was the thing.  I had just entered seventh grade and changed into 'high school'.  We had IT lessons in school and everybody was taught how to open up a hotmail account (it was the only commonly known free e-mail service back then).</p><p>I thought it was fun to change a character at the end of a hash (IIRC, this is years ago) and your account to someone else's account name in the URL when you were logged into your account.</p><p>This changed the inbox view to that other person's view.  You could use it as if you had logged in as them.  It was fun for maybe 10 minutes.  Then my attention went elsewhere.  I don't think I ever told an adult about it.</p><p>Was this a hack or not?</p><p>Please elaborate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember my first hack.I was relatively young , maybe 13 .
It was when HOTMAIL was the thing .
I had just entered seventh grade and changed into 'high school' .
We had IT lessons in school and everybody was taught how to open up a hotmail account ( it was the only commonly known free e-mail service back then ) .I thought it was fun to change a character at the end of a hash ( IIRC , this is years ago ) and your account to someone else 's account name in the URL when you were logged into your account.This changed the inbox view to that other person 's view .
You could use it as if you had logged in as them .
It was fun for maybe 10 minutes .
Then my attention went elsewhere .
I do n't think I ever told an adult about it.Was this a hack or not ? Please elaborate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember my first hack.I was relatively young, maybe 13.
It was when HOTMAIL was the thing.
I had just entered seventh grade and changed into 'high school'.
We had IT lessons in school and everybody was taught how to open up a hotmail account (it was the only commonly known free e-mail service back then).I thought it was fun to change a character at the end of a hash (IIRC, this is years ago) and your account to someone else's account name in the URL when you were logged into your account.This changed the inbox view to that other person's view.
You could use it as if you had logged in as them.
It was fun for maybe 10 minutes.
Then my attention went elsewhere.
I don't think I ever told an adult about it.Was this a hack or not?Please elaborate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31251536</id>
	<title>Re:Deja vu again once more</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1266923760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The classic was a few years ago when the Victorian state government sent out their budget in a word document with all their revisions left in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The classic was a few years ago when the Victorian state government sent out their budget in a word document with all their revisions left in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The classic was a few years ago when the Victorian state government sent out their budget in a word document with all their revisions left in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245416</id>
	<title>Re:Lock, what lock?</title>
	<author>Obyron</author>
	<datestamp>1266945600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even that doesn't work. At least in most of the US, you can still be considered "breaking and entering" even if the door is ajar, and you push it open. It's going into a place where you're not permitted for the purpose of committing a felony. The analogy here is more like being told there's a really juicy part in a book, so you flip through until you find the page. The author tries to sue you for circumventing his copyright protection, which was not putting a number on the page.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even that does n't work .
At least in most of the US , you can still be considered " breaking and entering " even if the door is ajar , and you push it open .
It 's going into a place where you 're not permitted for the purpose of committing a felony .
The analogy here is more like being told there 's a really juicy part in a book , so you flip through until you find the page .
The author tries to sue you for circumventing his copyright protection , which was not putting a number on the page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even that doesn't work.
At least in most of the US, you can still be considered "breaking and entering" even if the door is ajar, and you push it open.
It's going into a place where you're not permitted for the purpose of committing a felony.
The analogy here is more like being told there's a really juicy part in a book, so you flip through until you find the page.
The author tries to sue you for circumventing his copyright protection, which was not putting a number on the page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246074</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it have been easier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266947940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> A secret URL is essentially a password </p></div><p>More like an unlisted phone number.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A secret URL is essentially a password More like an unlisted phone number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> A secret URL is essentially a password More like an unlisted phone number.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245794</id>
	<title>Re:Was it...</title>
	<author>Wowsers</author>
	<datestamp>1266947160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It wasn't even a back door, the front door was wide open!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't even a back door , the front door was wide open !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't even a back door, the front door was wide open!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246310</id>
	<title>Re:Answer:</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1266948900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Sorry, but your argument fails almost immediately.
</p><p>
The url had already been "published" in the legal sense - as soon as someone leaked it to the reporters.  There was no guesswork here. The reporters are part of the general public, and the disclosing of the url, without a prior agreement to keep it confidential, meets the legal definition of "to publish", same as a defamation suit only needs the words to be "published" to any 3rd party, not the entire population.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but your argument fails almost immediately .
The url had already been " published " in the legal sense - as soon as someone leaked it to the reporters .
There was no guesswork here .
The reporters are part of the general public , and the disclosing of the url , without a prior agreement to keep it confidential , meets the legal definition of " to publish " , same as a defamation suit only needs the words to be " published " to any 3rd party , not the entire population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Sorry, but your argument fails almost immediately.
The url had already been "published" in the legal sense - as soon as someone leaked it to the reporters.
There was no guesswork here.
The reporters are part of the general public, and the disclosing of the url, without a prior agreement to keep it confidential, meets the legal definition of "to publish", same as a defamation suit only needs the words to be "published" to any 3rd party, not the entire population.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246390</id>
	<title>That's some gate you've got there....</title>
	<author>ElmoGonzo</author>
	<datestamp>1266949140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...now all you need to do is build a fence and connect it to either end.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...now all you need to do is build a fence and connect it to either end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...now all you need to do is build a fence and connect it to either end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245656</id>
	<title>Bad Security Everywhere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266946740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I once worked for a 3rd Party Energy Marketer, ie they sell you Gas/Electric "supply" and you pay your local utility for "delivery". So in the company's quest to find "good" customers, I took the liberty of writing a small program that started with a base 15 digit number and just incremented the number by one each time and tried to login to the ConEd NY website with that account number. Once I found an account that I could login, I had the account holder's name, address, payment history and usage history and could discover if it was an account worth our enrollment department contacting to try to sign up or if we should flag their account number as a "never sign this person up, ever" account. ConEd tracked down the IP/source of the millions of requests and asked us politely to stop, but the hole still exists ~5 years later and if I had some more free time, I'd continue to use my little program and run a junk mail campaign on my spare time.

I don't know what this has to do with the story other than that I bet just changing query string parameters and seeing what happens is probably the easiest, most common "attack", even by people who don't mean to be attacking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I once worked for a 3rd Party Energy Marketer , ie they sell you Gas/Electric " supply " and you pay your local utility for " delivery " .
So in the company 's quest to find " good " customers , I took the liberty of writing a small program that started with a base 15 digit number and just incremented the number by one each time and tried to login to the ConEd NY website with that account number .
Once I found an account that I could login , I had the account holder 's name , address , payment history and usage history and could discover if it was an account worth our enrollment department contacting to try to sign up or if we should flag their account number as a " never sign this person up , ever " account .
ConEd tracked down the IP/source of the millions of requests and asked us politely to stop , but the hole still exists ~ 5 years later and if I had some more free time , I 'd continue to use my little program and run a junk mail campaign on my spare time .
I do n't know what this has to do with the story other than that I bet just changing query string parameters and seeing what happens is probably the easiest , most common " attack " , even by people who do n't mean to be attacking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once worked for a 3rd Party Energy Marketer, ie they sell you Gas/Electric "supply" and you pay your local utility for "delivery".
So in the company's quest to find "good" customers, I took the liberty of writing a small program that started with a base 15 digit number and just incremented the number by one each time and tried to login to the ConEd NY website with that account number.
Once I found an account that I could login, I had the account holder's name, address, payment history and usage history and could discover if it was an account worth our enrollment department contacting to try to sign up or if we should flag their account number as a "never sign this person up, ever" account.
ConEd tracked down the IP/source of the millions of requests and asked us politely to stop, but the hole still exists ~5 years later and if I had some more free time, I'd continue to use my little program and run a junk mail campaign on my spare time.
I don't know what this has to do with the story other than that I bet just changing query string parameters and seeing what happens is probably the easiest, most common "attack", even by people who don't mean to be attacking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31262036</id>
	<title>simply foolish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265137560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>anyone who is foolish enough to put important documents in www.mysite.com/secretstuff deserves to have their "secret" stuff discovered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>anyone who is foolish enough to put important documents in www.mysite.com/secretstuff deserves to have their " secret " stuff discovered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anyone who is foolish enough to put important documents in www.mysite.com/secretstuff deserves to have their "secret" stuff discovered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246478</id>
	<title>Re:Entropy</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1266949500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>RTFA.

<p>
They were given this url <a href="http://nswtransportblueprint.com.au/" title="nswtranspo...int.com.au">http://nswtransportblueprint.com.au/</a> [nswtranspo...int.com.au]
</p><p>
They went there.
</p><p>
They hit Print
</p><p>
They followed the pretty linkies
</p><p>
They hit Print some more
</p><p>
They wrote a story about it.
</p><p>
No password dialog. No secret subdomain. No secret subdirectory. No login required.  No user session or password. No<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.hosts entry.  How is that "hacking"?
</p><p>
There was no guesswork involved, so there was zero bits of entropy in this example, unless they were drunk at the time and had to retype it, in which case it's their own entropy pool, not the servers'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/urandom, that is being probed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA .
They were given this url http : //nswtransportblueprint.com.au/ [ nswtranspo...int.com.au ] They went there .
They hit Print They followed the pretty linkies They hit Print some more They wrote a story about it .
No password dialog .
No secret subdomain .
No secret subdirectory .
No login required .
No user session or password .
No .hosts entry .
How is that " hacking " ?
There was no guesswork involved , so there was zero bits of entropy in this example , unless they were drunk at the time and had to retype it , in which case it 's their own entropy pool , not the servers ' /dev/urandom , that is being probed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA.
They were given this url http://nswtransportblueprint.com.au/ [nswtranspo...int.com.au]

They went there.
They hit Print

They followed the pretty linkies

They hit Print some more

They wrote a story about it.
No password dialog.
No secret subdomain.
No secret subdirectory.
No login required.
No user session or password.
No .hosts entry.
How is that "hacking"?
There was no guesswork involved, so there was zero bits of entropy in this example, unless they were drunk at the time and had to retype it, in which case it's their own entropy pool, not the servers' /dev/urandom, that is being probed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247576</id>
	<title>Re:Was it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266953220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Checking into this I was shocked to find that <a href="http://www.australia.gov.au/secret\_files" title="australia.gov.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.australia.gov.au/secret\_files</a> [australia.gov.au] and <a href="http://www.australia.gov.au/super\_secret\_files" title="australia.gov.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.australia.gov.au/super\_secret\_files</a> [australia.gov.au] and <a href="http://www.australia.gov.au/ultra\_super\_secret\_files" title="australia.gov.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.australia.gov.au/ultra\_super\_secret\_files</a> [australia.gov.au] were not secured with a password protected login! If I get the nerve up I'm going to see if I can find the PMs <a href="http://www.australia.gov.au/pm\_does\_it\_doggy" title="australia.gov.au" rel="nofollow">pron</a> [australia.gov.au] protected with Username: username Password: password</p><p>Wish me luck,<br>l33t3r k1Dz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Checking into this I was shocked to find that http : //www.australia.gov.au/secret \ _files [ australia.gov.au ] and http : //www.australia.gov.au/super \ _secret \ _files [ australia.gov.au ] and http : //www.australia.gov.au/ultra \ _super \ _secret \ _files [ australia.gov.au ] were not secured with a password protected login !
If I get the nerve up I 'm going to see if I can find the PMs pron [ australia.gov.au ] protected with Username : username Password : passwordWish me luck,l33t3r k1Dz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Checking into this I was shocked to find that http://www.australia.gov.au/secret\_files [australia.gov.au] and http://www.australia.gov.au/super\_secret\_files [australia.gov.au] and http://www.australia.gov.au/ultra\_super\_secret\_files [australia.gov.au] were not secured with a password protected login!
If I get the nerve up I'm going to see if I can find the PMs pron [australia.gov.au] protected with Username: username Password: passwordWish me luck,l33t3r k1Dz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245346</id>
	<title>tubes from their door to my keyboard</title>
	<author>uncanny</author>
	<datestamp>1266945240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Then dont put your UNLOCKED door in my house!  This is the internets</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then dont put your UNLOCKED door in my house !
This is the internets</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Then dont put your UNLOCKED door in my house!
This is the internets</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31253776</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it have been easier</title>
	<author>cojoco</author>
	<datestamp>1266934140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This analogy is appalling.</p><p>For a start, I think you would be justified if someone nicks your stuff, and it is definitely illegal.</p><p>However, information is *not* property, and nobody has actually stolen anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This analogy is appalling.For a start , I think you would be justified if someone nicks your stuff , and it is definitely illegal.However , information is * not * property , and nobody has actually stolen anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This analogy is appalling.For a start, I think you would be justified if someone nicks your stuff, and it is definitely illegal.However, information is *not* property, and nobody has actually stolen anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245504</id>
	<title>Re:Lock, what lock?</title>
	<author>TexasTroy</author>
	<datestamp>1266945900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Incorrect.  Burglary can still occur if you do not lock the door to your house.

The problem here is that the govt posted material on something akin to an unfinished public street that is not (yet) on any my map and then complaining that someone drove onto it because they (the govt) didn't put up a sign/gate to keep people off of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Incorrect .
Burglary can still occur if you do not lock the door to your house .
The problem here is that the govt posted material on something akin to an unfinished public street that is not ( yet ) on any my map and then complaining that someone drove onto it because they ( the govt ) did n't put up a sign/gate to keep people off of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incorrect.
Burglary can still occur if you do not lock the door to your house.
The problem here is that the govt posted material on something akin to an unfinished public street that is not (yet) on any my map and then complaining that someone drove onto it because they (the govt) didn't put up a sign/gate to keep people off of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252304</id>
	<title>Re:Entropy</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1266927060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if 3,727 attemts took them 2 days, you bet it was manual... a little BASH oneliner would make 3,727 attempts in 1 hour<br> <br>

no automated program would need 46 seconds per request...</htmltext>
<tokenext>if 3,727 attemts took them 2 days , you bet it was manual... a little BASH oneliner would make 3,727 attempts in 1 hour no automated program would need 46 seconds per request.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if 3,727 attemts took them 2 days, you bet it was manual... a little BASH oneliner would make 3,727 attempts in 1 hour 

no automated program would need 46 seconds per request...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247676</id>
	<title>Re:As long as the URL is secret, it is an attack</title>
	<author>silanea</author>
	<datestamp>1266953520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To give you a (non-car) analogy: You have super-secret information which you write onto a sheet of paper. You hide that paper underneath a bench in a public park - simply by placing it on the ground there, without an envelope or any other cover. A journalist gets tipped off to check all benches in this park for secret information. He looks under 3727 benches without finding anything, but under the 3728. bench he discovers your sheet of paper.</p><p>Sixty-four-dollar question: Did the journalist "hack" your super-secret information?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To give you a ( non-car ) analogy : You have super-secret information which you write onto a sheet of paper .
You hide that paper underneath a bench in a public park - simply by placing it on the ground there , without an envelope or any other cover .
A journalist gets tipped off to check all benches in this park for secret information .
He looks under 3727 benches without finding anything , but under the 3728. bench he discovers your sheet of paper.Sixty-four-dollar question : Did the journalist " hack " your super-secret information ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To give you a (non-car) analogy: You have super-secret information which you write onto a sheet of paper.
You hide that paper underneath a bench in a public park - simply by placing it on the ground there, without an envelope or any other cover.
A journalist gets tipped off to check all benches in this park for secret information.
He looks under 3727 benches without finding anything, but under the 3728. bench he discovers your sheet of paper.Sixty-four-dollar question: Did the journalist "hack" your super-secret information?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245490</id>
	<title>Library analogy</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1266945840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'akin to 3,727 attempts to pick the lock of a secure office and take highly confidential documents.'</p></div><p>Much more like checking 3727 shelves in the public library looking for a copy of "internet security for dummies"</p><p>The funny part is both sides are fairly non-technical, meaning some "journalist" probably typed in all 3727 URLs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'akin to 3,727 attempts to pick the lock of a secure office and take highly confidential documents .
'Much more like checking 3727 shelves in the public library looking for a copy of " internet security for dummies " The funny part is both sides are fairly non-technical , meaning some " journalist " probably typed in all 3727 URLs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'akin to 3,727 attempts to pick the lock of a secure office and take highly confidential documents.
'Much more like checking 3727 shelves in the public library looking for a copy of "internet security for dummies"The funny part is both sides are fairly non-technical, meaning some "journalist" probably typed in all 3727 URLs.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247288</id>
	<title>Re:Library analogy</title>
	<author>Ltap</author>
	<datestamp>1266952140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They didn't - not every request was from the Herald, and I'm guessing only half a dozen were.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't - not every request was from the Herald , and I 'm guessing only half a dozen were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't - not every request was from the Herald, and I'm guessing only half a dozen were.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245196</id>
	<title>Was it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266944460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.australia.gov.au/backdoor" title="australia.gov.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.australia.gov.au/backdoor</a> [australia.gov.au]   ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.australia.gov.au/backdoor [ australia.gov.au ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.australia.gov.au/backdoor [australia.gov.au]   ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248140</id>
	<title>Re:fuckfuck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266955260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that story was somewhat original and not 15 years old already, I would be impressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that story was somewhat original and not 15 years old already , I would be impressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that story was somewhat original and not 15 years old already, I would be impressed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246572</id>
	<title>The best part.</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1266949800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"This is akin to 3,727 attempts to pick the lock of a secure office and take highly confidential documents..."</p></div><p>Clearly, if an office is making 4k hits trying to guess a single URL, it must be hacking! But wait, there's more...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Mr Campbell says there were about 3,727 unauthorised hits on the website, some of them from a computer belonging to a "Sydney media organisation".</p></div><p>

Erm, that is to say, clearly if an undisclosed subset of 4k hits come from a newspaper office, then it must, uh, be a hacking attempt.
</p><p>
Right-o. Carry on then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" This is akin to 3,727 attempts to pick the lock of a secure office and take highly confidential documents... " Clearly , if an office is making 4k hits trying to guess a single URL , it must be hacking !
But wait , there 's more...Mr Campbell says there were about 3,727 unauthorised hits on the website , some of them from a computer belonging to a " Sydney media organisation " .
Erm , that is to say , clearly if an undisclosed subset of 4k hits come from a newspaper office , then it must , uh , be a hacking attempt .
Right-o. Carry on then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This is akin to 3,727 attempts to pick the lock of a secure office and take highly confidential documents..."Clearly, if an office is making 4k hits trying to guess a single URL, it must be hacking!
But wait, there's more...Mr Campbell says there were about 3,727 unauthorised hits on the website, some of them from a computer belonging to a "Sydney media organisation".
Erm, that is to say, clearly if an undisclosed subset of 4k hits come from a newspaper office, then it must, uh, be a hacking attempt.
Right-o. Carry on then.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246892</id>
	<title>Re:Entropy</title>
	<author>eth1</author>
	<datestamp>1266950760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3000 "accesses" probably just means they looked at 30 pages with 100 images, scripts, and other elements that were all downloaded via separate requests/connections. But 3,727 is a better number to use when you're trying spin the journalists into villains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3000 " accesses " probably just means they looked at 30 pages with 100 images , scripts , and other elements that were all downloaded via separate requests/connections .
But 3,727 is a better number to use when you 're trying spin the journalists into villains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3000 "accesses" probably just means they looked at 30 pages with 100 images, scripts, and other elements that were all downloaded via separate requests/connections.
But 3,727 is a better number to use when you're trying spin the journalists into villains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245696</id>
	<title>Re:Lock, what lock?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266946860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>The affected government minister said that the website was accessed 3,727 times, and that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to <b>read from the public facing outside of a government building wall</b> highly confidential documents <b>that have been taped up there by an idiot</b>.'</p></div></blockquote><p>There, fixed that for you, Mr. Minister.</p></div><p>There, fixed that for you.</p></div><p>Done and done</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The affected government minister said that the website was accessed 3,727 times , and that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to read from the public facing outside of a government building wall highly confidential documents that have been taped up there by an idiot .
'There , fixed that for you , Mr. Minister.There , fixed that for you.Done and done</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The affected government minister said that the website was accessed 3,727 times, and that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to read from the public facing outside of a government building wall highly confidential documents that have been taped up there by an idiot.
'There, fixed that for you, Mr. Minister.There, fixed that for you.Done and done
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245762</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it have been easier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266947100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but the submitter got at wrong. A secret URL is essentially a password - so attempting lots of funny URLs can be like trying lots of ssh logins. The problem here is that it was a weak password, not that they used a secret URL.</p><p>Of course there are perfectly good reasons not to rely on secret URLs. Google is one, log files and browser caches are another. But that is a technical issue, and it is not actually relevant here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but the submitter got at wrong .
A secret URL is essentially a password - so attempting lots of funny URLs can be like trying lots of ssh logins .
The problem here is that it was a weak password , not that they used a secret URL.Of course there are perfectly good reasons not to rely on secret URLs .
Google is one , log files and browser caches are another .
But that is a technical issue , and it is not actually relevant here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but the submitter got at wrong.
A secret URL is essentially a password - so attempting lots of funny URLs can be like trying lots of ssh logins.
The problem here is that it was a weak password, not that they used a secret URL.Of course there are perfectly good reasons not to rely on secret URLs.
Google is one, log files and browser caches are another.
But that is a technical issue, and it is not actually relevant here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31251096</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it have been easier</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1266922200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>More like an unlisted phone number.</p></div><p>More like an <em>unpublished</em> phone number.</p><p>An unpublished number is not printed in your white pages, but will still be disclosed by directory assistance for by-name queries. An truly unlisted number won't even be provided by directory assistance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More like an unlisted phone number.More like an unpublished phone number.An unpublished number is not printed in your white pages , but will still be disclosed by directory assistance for by-name queries .
An truly unlisted number wo n't even be provided by directory assistance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like an unlisted phone number.More like an unpublished phone number.An unpublished number is not printed in your white pages, but will still be disclosed by directory assistance for by-name queries.
An truly unlisted number won't even be provided by directory assistance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246158</id>
	<title>Re:I am not a lawyer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266948180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I hide my wristwatch in a crowded shopping mall with the intent of retrieving it after lunch, and someone else finds and takes it, has that person stole my watch?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I hide my wristwatch in a crowded shopping mall with the intent of retrieving it after lunch , and someone else finds and takes it , has that person stole my watch ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I hide my wristwatch in a crowded shopping mall with the intent of retrieving it after lunch, and someone else finds and takes it, has that person stole my watch?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245226</id>
	<title>Two Robots in Front of a Judge</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1266944640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>NSW Lawyer</b>: You allege that the Sydney Morning Herald sent repeatedly sent liscivious requests to you, is that correct?<br>
<b>NSW Server</b>: <i>*nods solemnly*</i> <br>
<b>NSW Lawyer</b>: I see<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and just exactly how many times were you violated? <br>
<b>NSW Server</b>: <i>*pauses and swallows loudly*</i> Three<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... three thousand seven hudred and twenty seven.<br>
<i>*crowd gasps*</i> <br>
<b>NSW Lawyer</b>: I see.  Now, I know this is hard for you but could you please point to where, exactly, on this anatomically correct server doll the Sydney Morning Herald accessed you from. <br>
<b>NSW Server</b>: <i>*turns the server doll over and motions to the ports*</i>  Here on the back, in my ethernet port.  <br>
<i>*sounds of disgust ripple through the crowd*</i> <br>
<b>NSW Lawyer</b>: And what did he say to you when this was happening?  <br>
<b>NSW Server</b>: GET. <br>
<b>NSW Lawyer</b>: 'GET' what?  <br>
<b>NSW Server</b>: He just kept saying GET, GET, GET!  GET <i>this</i> document.  GET <i>that</i> document.  <br>
<b>NSW Lawyer</b>: And did you get it for him?  <br>
<b>NSW Server</b>: No it didn't exist!  They just weren't there!  <br>
<b>NSW Lawyer</b>: And what did you say exactly!  <br>
<b>NSW Server</b>: 404!  404, goddammit, 404<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <i>*breaks down sobbing*</i> I didn't know what he wanted from me until it was too late!!!<br>
<b>NSW Lawyer</b>: There there.  There there, it's okay.  You're safe now.  <i>*turns to the judge*</i> Can we let this sort of gross injustice go unpunished in today's society?  How long before this happens to <i>your</i> server?  Or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <i>your child's server</i>?!  Huh?  <br>
<b>NSW Judge</b>: <i>*nods approvingly*</i> <br>
<b>NSW Lawyer</b>: I rest my case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NSW Lawyer : You allege that the Sydney Morning Herald sent repeatedly sent liscivious requests to you , is that correct ?
NSW Server : * nods solemnly * NSW Lawyer : I see ... and just exactly how many times were you violated ?
NSW Server : * pauses and swallows loudly * Three ... three thousand seven hudred and twenty seven .
* crowd gasps * NSW Lawyer : I see .
Now , I know this is hard for you but could you please point to where , exactly , on this anatomically correct server doll the Sydney Morning Herald accessed you from .
NSW Server : * turns the server doll over and motions to the ports * Here on the back , in my ethernet port .
* sounds of disgust ripple through the crowd * NSW Lawyer : And what did he say to you when this was happening ?
NSW Server : GET .
NSW Lawyer : 'GET ' what ?
NSW Server : He just kept saying GET , GET , GET !
GET this document .
GET that document .
NSW Lawyer : And did you get it for him ?
NSW Server : No it did n't exist !
They just were n't there !
NSW Lawyer : And what did you say exactly !
NSW Server : 404 !
404 , goddammit , 404 ... * breaks down sobbing * I did n't know what he wanted from me until it was too late ! ! !
NSW Lawyer : There there .
There there , it 's okay .
You 're safe now .
* turns to the judge * Can we let this sort of gross injustice go unpunished in today 's society ?
How long before this happens to your server ?
Or ... your child 's server ? !
Huh ? NSW Judge : * nods approvingly * NSW Lawyer : I rest my case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NSW Lawyer: You allege that the Sydney Morning Herald sent repeatedly sent liscivious requests to you, is that correct?
NSW Server: *nods solemnly* 
NSW Lawyer: I see ... and just exactly how many times were you violated?
NSW Server: *pauses and swallows loudly* Three ... three thousand seven hudred and twenty seven.
*crowd gasps* 
NSW Lawyer: I see.
Now, I know this is hard for you but could you please point to where, exactly, on this anatomically correct server doll the Sydney Morning Herald accessed you from.
NSW Server: *turns the server doll over and motions to the ports*  Here on the back, in my ethernet port.
*sounds of disgust ripple through the crowd* 
NSW Lawyer: And what did he say to you when this was happening?
NSW Server: GET.
NSW Lawyer: 'GET' what?
NSW Server: He just kept saying GET, GET, GET!
GET this document.
GET that document.
NSW Lawyer: And did you get it for him?
NSW Server: No it didn't exist!
They just weren't there!
NSW Lawyer: And what did you say exactly!
NSW Server: 404!
404, goddammit, 404 ... *breaks down sobbing* I didn't know what he wanted from me until it was too late!!!
NSW Lawyer: There there.
There there, it's okay.
You're safe now.
*turns to the judge* Can we let this sort of gross injustice go unpunished in today's society?
How long before this happens to your server?
Or ... your child's server?!
Huh?  
NSW Judge: *nods approvingly* 
NSW Lawyer: I rest my case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31250504</id>
	<title>Re:Lock, what lock?</title>
	<author>Dracophile</author>
	<datestamp>1266920280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't burglary. To continue the analogy: this is someone walking up that unfinished street, looking in three thousand-odd places for someone with a list of things to see, finally finding someone with an index, asking them for a copy of that index, and then asking them for a copy of everything on that index. And that someone willingly complied with every request for information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't burglary .
To continue the analogy : this is someone walking up that unfinished street , looking in three thousand-odd places for someone with a list of things to see , finally finding someone with an index , asking them for a copy of that index , and then asking them for a copy of everything on that index .
And that someone willingly complied with every request for information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't burglary.
To continue the analogy: this is someone walking up that unfinished street, looking in three thousand-odd places for someone with a list of things to see, finally finding someone with an index, asking them for a copy of that index, and then asking them for a copy of everything on that index.
And that someone willingly complied with every request for information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31257990</id>
	<title>Re:Proposal for Australia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265117160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sanctions only fuck up the citizens, what you really want is for all politicians to die in a fire (especially Australian ones).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sanctions only fuck up the citizens , what you really want is for all politicians to die in a fire ( especially Australian ones ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sanctions only fuck up the citizens, what you really want is for all politicians to die in a fire (especially Australian ones).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245452</id>
	<title>More like "exceeding authorization"</title>
	<author>ub3r n3u7r4l1st</author>
	<datestamp>1266945720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no changes or password cracking involved. More like "accidentally" viewing a website that is not supposed to be public.</p><p>This reminds me of similar case of a story where an employee were able to look at files that he is not suppose to see with his account, thanks to a mistake by a sysadmin, and the boss accuse him of hacking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no changes or password cracking involved .
More like " accidentally " viewing a website that is not supposed to be public.This reminds me of similar case of a story where an employee were able to look at files that he is not suppose to see with his account , thanks to a mistake by a sysadmin , and the boss accuse him of hacking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no changes or password cracking involved.
More like "accidentally" viewing a website that is not supposed to be public.This reminds me of similar case of a story where an employee were able to look at files that he is not suppose to see with his account, thanks to a mistake by a sysadmin, and the boss accuse him of hacking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245568</id>
	<title>Re:Lock, what lock?</title>
	<author>Saint Fnordius</author>
	<datestamp>1266946320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To expand upon your metaphor...</p><p>Consider the "security" of the entry akin to having an unlocked door that is merely obscured by bushes painted to match the brickwork, and no pavement leading to it. There also was no one monitoring the traffic going in and out, so no one was there to notice the reporters making photographs until much later.</p><p>Security by obscurity at its finest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To expand upon your metaphor...Consider the " security " of the entry akin to having an unlocked door that is merely obscured by bushes painted to match the brickwork , and no pavement leading to it .
There also was no one monitoring the traffic going in and out , so no one was there to notice the reporters making photographs until much later.Security by obscurity at its finest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To expand upon your metaphor...Consider the "security" of the entry akin to having an unlocked door that is merely obscured by bushes painted to match the brickwork, and no pavement leading to it.
There also was no one monitoring the traffic going in and out, so no one was there to notice the reporters making photographs until much later.Security by obscurity at its finest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248792</id>
	<title>Obscurity??</title>
	<author>Y Ddraig Goch</author>
	<datestamp>1266957240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that the DNS server resolved the URL to an ip address is proof that this or was going to be a public site.  Fer cryin' out loud, if you want obscurity don't create DNS records that point to your server.  Sheesh!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that the DNS server resolved the URL to an ip address is proof that this or was going to be a public site .
Fer cryin ' out loud , if you want obscurity do n't create DNS records that point to your server .
Sheesh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that the DNS server resolved the URL to an ip address is proof that this or was going to be a public site.
Fer cryin' out loud, if you want obscurity don't create DNS records that point to your server.
Sheesh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31254172</id>
	<title>Re:I love the name of the web hosting outfit:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266936540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Bang the Table".</p><p>Methinks we have found a new tag for articles about politicians who are bit by their own stupid security practices.   Release Word file with revision history still in it? Bang the table.  Secret government data stolen because of malware you downloaded from a porn site? Bang the table.</p></div><p>i for one will be an early adopter of this phrase.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bang the Table " .Methinks we have found a new tag for articles about politicians who are bit by their own stupid security practices .
Release Word file with revision history still in it ?
Bang the table .
Secret government data stolen because of malware you downloaded from a porn site ?
Bang the table.i for one will be an early adopter of this phrase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bang the Table".Methinks we have found a new tag for articles about politicians who are bit by their own stupid security practices.
Release Word file with revision history still in it?
Bang the table.
Secret government data stolen because of malware you downloaded from a porn site?
Bang the table.i for one will be an early adopter of this phrase.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245178</id>
	<title>Wouldn't it have been easier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266944340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To just Google what they wanted to know? Google even has a "url" specifier!</htmltext>
<tokenext>To just Google what they wanted to know ?
Google even has a " url " specifier !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To just Google what they wanted to know?
Google even has a "url" specifier!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245426</id>
	<title>Why care about security when you can rule by fear?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266945600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These reporters will learn not to meddle in government affairs when they're behind bars for the next 50+ years for computer offenses.
Security is for chumps. Real security is sleeping well at night knowing that everyone else cowers in fear of your wrath.
Not many reporters are willing to bet their lives on a story, and those that are willing will be made examples to the rest.
Either the story dies or you do - Your choice!</htmltext>
<tokenext>These reporters will learn not to meddle in government affairs when they 're behind bars for the next 50 + years for computer offenses .
Security is for chumps .
Real security is sleeping well at night knowing that everyone else cowers in fear of your wrath .
Not many reporters are willing to bet their lives on a story , and those that are willing will be made examples to the rest .
Either the story dies or you do - Your choice !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These reporters will learn not to meddle in government affairs when they're behind bars for the next 50+ years for computer offenses.
Security is for chumps.
Real security is sleeping well at night knowing that everyone else cowers in fear of your wrath.
Not many reporters are willing to bet their lives on a story, and those that are willing will be made examples to the rest.
Either the story dies or you do - Your choice!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245836</id>
	<title>Re:Two Robots in Front of a Judge</title>
	<author>dancingmilk</author>
	<datestamp>1266947280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This made my day, thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This made my day , thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This made my day, thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246162</id>
	<title>Re:Entropy</title>
	<author>daremonai</author>
	<datestamp>1266948180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The newspaper didn't do any guessing at all. They were told the site name, and went directly to it. The site had links to all sorts of transportation plans, which the guys at the paper accessed. That's where the 3,727 number comes from - just the number of URI accesses listed in the web server log, most likely by other people in addition to the newspaper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The newspaper did n't do any guessing at all .
They were told the site name , and went directly to it .
The site had links to all sorts of transportation plans , which the guys at the paper accessed .
That 's where the 3,727 number comes from - just the number of URI accesses listed in the web server log , most likely by other people in addition to the newspaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The newspaper didn't do any guessing at all.
They were told the site name, and went directly to it.
The site had links to all sorts of transportation plans, which the guys at the paper accessed.
That's where the 3,727 number comes from - just the number of URI accesses listed in the web server log, most likely by other people in addition to the newspaper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246782</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it have been easier</title>
	<author>rbochan</author>
	<datestamp>1266950460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sorry, but the submitter got at wrong. A secret URL is essentially a password - so attempting lots of funny URLs can be like trying lots of ssh logins. The problem here is that it was a weak password, not that they used a secret URL...</p></div></blockquote><p>Do you work for the Tuttle, OK government?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but the submitter got at wrong .
A secret URL is essentially a password - so attempting lots of funny URLs can be like trying lots of ssh logins .
The problem here is that it was a weak password , not that they used a secret URL...Do you work for the Tuttle , OK government ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but the submitter got at wrong.
A secret URL is essentially a password - so attempting lots of funny URLs can be like trying lots of ssh logins.
The problem here is that it was a weak password, not that they used a secret URL...Do you work for the Tuttle, OK government?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247178</id>
	<title>Alternate URL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266951780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny really, seeing as they didn't turn off the DNS for http://nswtransport.com which resolved to the same server</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny really , seeing as they did n't turn off the DNS for http : //nswtransport.com which resolved to the same server</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny really, seeing as they didn't turn off the DNS for http://nswtransport.com which resolved to the same server</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245790</id>
	<title>Re:Was it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266947160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you mean <a href="http://www.australia.gov.au/sheeps\_backdoor" title="australia.gov.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.australia.gov.au/sheeps\_backdoor</a> [australia.gov.au]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you mean http : //www.australia.gov.au/sheeps \ _backdoor [ australia.gov.au ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you mean http://www.australia.gov.au/sheeps\_backdoor [australia.gov.au]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246038</id>
	<title>Latvia too</title>
	<author>atisss</author>
	<datestamp>1266947820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Our local media is full of news regarding Gov't Tax office, it has been hacked by just incrementing id's in URL (without any authorization), so total of 7 million declarations have been downloaded. Attacker is publishing downloaded data on Goverment owned institutions, revealing income of most-paid employees.

<a href="http://latviantelecoms.blogspot.com/2010/02/cyberactivists-obtain-latvian-state.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://latviantelecoms.blogspot.com/2010/02/cyberactivists-obtain-latvian-state.html</a> [blogspot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our local media is full of news regarding Gov't Tax office , it has been hacked by just incrementing id 's in URL ( without any authorization ) , so total of 7 million declarations have been downloaded .
Attacker is publishing downloaded data on Goverment owned institutions , revealing income of most-paid employees .
http : //latviantelecoms.blogspot.com/2010/02/cyberactivists-obtain-latvian-state.html [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our local media is full of news regarding Gov't Tax office, it has been hacked by just incrementing id's in URL (without any authorization), so total of 7 million declarations have been downloaded.
Attacker is publishing downloaded data on Goverment owned institutions, revealing income of most-paid employees.
http://latviantelecoms.blogspot.com/2010/02/cyberactivists-obtain-latvian-state.html [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245666</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>digitalchinky</author>
	<datestamp>1266946740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are some terribly bright and technically minded people in government, particularly in the intelligence gathering fields (secret 3 letter agencies) - unfortunately they are not usually in positions of power or within ear shot of anyone that might easily comprehend what they are actually saying. I guess it's the same old problem everywhere - if 'Government' knew what they actually had behind their own closed doors, they'd be shocked, maybe even outraged<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>I spent a lot of years working for the defence signals directorate (Same as the NSA's, different acronym) - safe to say that those up at the top take about 5 to 10 years to actually understand what their underlings have been saying for the aforementioned 5 to 10 years. Ops Normal.</p><p>The main problem is, as others have more eloquently said, right up at the top you get the boss saying "Just make it f'ing happen already" Be damned if they care about security. Thus the stunningly illogical knee jerk reaction to shut the barn door after the quadrupeds have already legged it, oh, and death sentences to the idiots that forged the door hinges, because we need to punish the wrong people in spectacular fashion to prove a point that nobody will ever understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some terribly bright and technically minded people in government , particularly in the intelligence gathering fields ( secret 3 letter agencies ) - unfortunately they are not usually in positions of power or within ear shot of anyone that might easily comprehend what they are actually saying .
I guess it 's the same old problem everywhere - if 'Government ' knew what they actually had behind their own closed doors , they 'd be shocked , maybe even outraged : - ) I spent a lot of years working for the defence signals directorate ( Same as the NSA 's , different acronym ) - safe to say that those up at the top take about 5 to 10 years to actually understand what their underlings have been saying for the aforementioned 5 to 10 years .
Ops Normal.The main problem is , as others have more eloquently said , right up at the top you get the boss saying " Just make it f'ing happen already " Be damned if they care about security .
Thus the stunningly illogical knee jerk reaction to shut the barn door after the quadrupeds have already legged it , oh , and death sentences to the idiots that forged the door hinges , because we need to punish the wrong people in spectacular fashion to prove a point that nobody will ever understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some terribly bright and technically minded people in government, particularly in the intelligence gathering fields (secret 3 letter agencies) - unfortunately they are not usually in positions of power or within ear shot of anyone that might easily comprehend what they are actually saying.
I guess it's the same old problem everywhere - if 'Government' knew what they actually had behind their own closed doors, they'd be shocked, maybe even outraged :-)I spent a lot of years working for the defence signals directorate (Same as the NSA's, different acronym) - safe to say that those up at the top take about 5 to 10 years to actually understand what their underlings have been saying for the aforementioned 5 to 10 years.
Ops Normal.The main problem is, as others have more eloquently said, right up at the top you get the boss saying "Just make it f'ing happen already" Be damned if they care about security.
Thus the stunningly illogical knee jerk reaction to shut the barn door after the quadrupeds have already legged it, oh, and death sentences to the idiots that forged the door hinges, because we need to punish the wrong people in spectacular fashion to prove a point that nobody will ever understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248054</id>
	<title>Re:Entropy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266954900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm, 5 character user selected password?</p><p>"So the combination is... one, two, three, four, five? That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard in my life! The kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage!" -- Dark Helmet, Spaceballs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm , 5 character user selected password ?
" So the combination is... one , two , three , four , five ?
That 's the stupidest combination I 've ever heard in my life !
The kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage !
" -- Dark Helmet , Spaceballs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm, 5 character user selected password?
"So the combination is... one, two, three, four, five?
That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard in my life!
The kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage!
" -- Dark Helmet, Spaceballs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245652</id>
	<title>Lowell Maximum Security Prison?</title>
	<author>LaminatorX</author>
	<datestamp>1266946740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like you to consider that web-address "off-limits," as a favor to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like you to consider that web-address " off-limits , " as a favor to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like you to consider that web-address "off-limits," as a favor to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246898</id>
	<title>Re:Proposal for Australia</title>
	<author>Heed00</author>
	<datestamp>1266950820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you'll find that taking off and nuking the entire site from orbit is the only way to be sure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 'll find that taking off and nuking the entire site from orbit is the only way to be sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you'll find that taking off and nuking the entire site from orbit is the only way to be sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247026</id>
	<title>Too funny...</title>
	<author>g0bshiTe</author>
	<datestamp>1266951240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looking at the actual webpage, it appears there is a login now. Considering the previous gaping security hole I wonder how much fun you could have with the Login URL.<br> <br>
<a href="http://nswtransport.com/login?return\_to=\%2F" title="nswtransport.com">http://nswtransport.com/login?return\_to=\%2F</a> [nswtransport.com] <br> <br>I wonder if it would return<br> <br>
<a href="http://nswtransport.com/login?return\_to=..\%2F..\%2F..\%2Fetc\%2Fpasswd" title="nswtransport.com">http://nswtransport.com/login?return\_to=..\%2F..\%2F..\%2Fetc\%2Fpasswd</a> [nswtransport.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at the actual webpage , it appears there is a login now .
Considering the previous gaping security hole I wonder how much fun you could have with the Login URL .
http : //nswtransport.com/login ? return \ _to = \ % 2F [ nswtransport.com ] I wonder if it would return http : //nswtransport.com/login ? return \ _to = .. \ % 2F.. \ % 2F.. \ % 2Fetc \ % 2Fpasswd [ nswtransport.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at the actual webpage, it appears there is a login now.
Considering the previous gaping security hole I wonder how much fun you could have with the Login URL.
http://nswtransport.com/login?return\_to=\%2F [nswtransport.com]  I wonder if it would return 
http://nswtransport.com/login?return\_to=..\%2F..\%2F..\%2Fetc\%2Fpasswd [nswtransport.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247438</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it have been easier</title>
	<author>gnasher719</author>
	<datestamp>1266952740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>More like an unlisted phone number.</p></div><p>More like if we had a phone system where you typed in the name of the person you want to call and it connects, and you type in the name of a person who isn't listed in the official phone directory.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More like an unlisted phone number.More like if we had a phone system where you typed in the name of the person you want to call and it connects , and you type in the name of a person who is n't listed in the official phone directory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like an unlisted phone number.More like if we had a phone system where you typed in the name of the person you want to call and it connects, and you type in the name of a person who isn't listed in the official phone directory.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246964</id>
	<title>Re:Lock, what lock?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266951060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking more along the lines of the following:  You walk into a Smithsonian museum, and notice a side room with an open doorway, and artwork on display just like the rest of the museum.  So you go in and start looking around and taking pictures, but get yelled at because it's really a new exhibit that isn't open until Monday.</p><p>The door was open, there was no sign saying keep out, and the stuff in there was intended for public display, just not yet.  It's not your fault that they didn't take proper care to prevent you from seeing it before you were supposed to, and since it's public property there's no restrictions against taking pictures.  They can ask you to leave and put a barrier up to prevent you from coming back, but unless you actually damaged something in there that's all they can do...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking more along the lines of the following : You walk into a Smithsonian museum , and notice a side room with an open doorway , and artwork on display just like the rest of the museum .
So you go in and start looking around and taking pictures , but get yelled at because it 's really a new exhibit that is n't open until Monday.The door was open , there was no sign saying keep out , and the stuff in there was intended for public display , just not yet .
It 's not your fault that they did n't take proper care to prevent you from seeing it before you were supposed to , and since it 's public property there 's no restrictions against taking pictures .
They can ask you to leave and put a barrier up to prevent you from coming back , but unless you actually damaged something in there that 's all they can do.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking more along the lines of the following:  You walk into a Smithsonian museum, and notice a side room with an open doorway, and artwork on display just like the rest of the museum.
So you go in and start looking around and taking pictures, but get yelled at because it's really a new exhibit that isn't open until Monday.The door was open, there was no sign saying keep out, and the stuff in there was intended for public display, just not yet.
It's not your fault that they didn't take proper care to prevent you from seeing it before you were supposed to, and since it's public property there's no restrictions against taking pictures.
They can ask you to leave and put a barrier up to prevent you from coming back, but unless you actually damaged something in there that's all they can do...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245676</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266946800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That was bad coding, this is bad policy. I can understand it though. I know of a few ol' timers who get livid when asked a site prompts them to log in. They honestly feel their time is so precious and they are so important that they shouldn't have to log in. And they're so stubborn, they absolutely will not log in to the site, even after you've told them the password (for the 100th time). They just refuse to use the site to prove their point (that they shouldn't need to log in).</htmltext>
<tokenext>That was bad coding , this is bad policy .
I can understand it though .
I know of a few ol ' timers who get livid when asked a site prompts them to log in .
They honestly feel their time is so precious and they are so important that they should n't have to log in .
And they 're so stubborn , they absolutely will not log in to the site , even after you 've told them the password ( for the 100th time ) .
They just refuse to use the site to prove their point ( that they should n't need to log in ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was bad coding, this is bad policy.
I can understand it though.
I know of a few ol' timers who get livid when asked a site prompts them to log in.
They honestly feel their time is so precious and they are so important that they shouldn't have to log in.
And they're so stubborn, they absolutely will not log in to the site, even after you've told them the password (for the 100th time).
They just refuse to use the site to prove their point (that they shouldn't need to log in).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31249054</id>
	<title>Re:Window analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266958020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unpublished?  It was in DNS wasn't it?  Sounds like it was published to me...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unpublished ?
It was in DNS was n't it ?
Sounds like it was published to me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unpublished?
It was in DNS wasn't it?
Sounds like it was published to me...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31250648</id>
	<title>Analogy Fail</title>
	<author>Dracophile</author>
	<datestamp>1266920760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The web works differently. One computer asks another for an index of available material. The other computer, by default, complies with the request and hands over a copy of the index. The first computer asks for a copy of the material listed in the index, and the second, again by default, complies with that request. This is <i>not at all</i> the same as walking into a house with an open door and removing actual property. Computers on a network will always do what they are asked to do. They are designed to do exactly that. When they do it, they are working exactly as they are supposed to work. This is not at all analogous with our traditional understanding of the way houses work. It's way past time people understood that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web works differently .
One computer asks another for an index of available material .
The other computer , by default , complies with the request and hands over a copy of the index .
The first computer asks for a copy of the material listed in the index , and the second , again by default , complies with that request .
This is not at all the same as walking into a house with an open door and removing actual property .
Computers on a network will always do what they are asked to do .
They are designed to do exactly that .
When they do it , they are working exactly as they are supposed to work .
This is not at all analogous with our traditional understanding of the way houses work .
It 's way past time people understood that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web works differently.
One computer asks another for an index of available material.
The other computer, by default, complies with the request and hands over a copy of the index.
The first computer asks for a copy of the material listed in the index, and the second, again by default, complies with that request.
This is not at all the same as walking into a house with an open door and removing actual property.
Computers on a network will always do what they are asked to do.
They are designed to do exactly that.
When they do it, they are working exactly as they are supposed to work.
This is not at all analogous with our traditional understanding of the way houses work.
It's way past time people understood that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246414</id>
	<title>Re:Library analogy</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1266949260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
No, the url was "published" in the legal sense - they were given it by someone.
</p><p>
No hacking involved.
</p><p>
They weren't the only ones to whom the url was "published", since several others also were grabbing the files at the same time.  And the way they grabbed the files?  Clicked on the menu and followed the links, then "Print".
</p><p>
The url in question? <a href="http://nswtransportblueprint.com.au/" title="nswtranspo...int.com.au">http://nswtransportblueprint.com.au/</a> [nswtranspo...int.com.au]
</p><p>
No secret directories, no login required, no hidden subdomain, no<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.hosts file to exclude them, nothing. It was supposed to be a public website - it just went "public" a week early.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the url was " published " in the legal sense - they were given it by someone .
No hacking involved .
They were n't the only ones to whom the url was " published " , since several others also were grabbing the files at the same time .
And the way they grabbed the files ?
Clicked on the menu and followed the links , then " Print " .
The url in question ?
http : //nswtransportblueprint.com.au/ [ nswtranspo...int.com.au ] No secret directories , no login required , no hidden subdomain , no .hosts file to exclude them , nothing .
It was supposed to be a public website - it just went " public " a week early .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
No, the url was "published" in the legal sense - they were given it by someone.
No hacking involved.
They weren't the only ones to whom the url was "published", since several others also were grabbing the files at the same time.
And the way they grabbed the files?
Clicked on the menu and followed the links, then "Print".
The url in question?
http://nswtransportblueprint.com.au/ [nswtranspo...int.com.au]

No secret directories, no login required, no hidden subdomain, no .hosts file to exclude them, nothing.
It was supposed to be a public website - it just went "public" a week early.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245514</id>
	<title>Re:Deja vu again once more</title>
	<author>i-like-burritos</author>
	<datestamp>1266945960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heh, I've gotten the actual answers to a test that hadn't happened yet by guessing the URL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , I 've gotten the actual answers to a test that had n't happened yet by guessing the URL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, I've gotten the actual answers to a test that hadn't happened yet by guessing the URL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245500</id>
	<title>Re:fuckfuck</title>
	<author>SatanClauz</author>
	<datestamp>1266945900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>okay<p>
 first, i'm not sure what this has to do with the post.</p><p>
second, I do the EXACT same thing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>
that is all</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>okay first , i 'm not sure what this has to do with the post .
second , I do the EXACT same thing : ) that is all</tokentext>
<sentencetext>okay
 first, i'm not sure what this has to do with the post.
second, I do the EXACT same thing :)
that is all</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31251400</id>
	<title>Security through Obscurity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266923220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>= Fail</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>= Fail</tokentext>
<sentencetext>= Fail</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245376</id>
	<title>Question:</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1266945420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it even legally possible to bring up criminal charges, considering the URL was completely unsecured?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it even legally possible to bring up criminal charges , considering the URL was completely unsecured ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it even legally possible to bring up criminal charges, considering the URL was completely unsecured?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31270658</id>
	<title>Re:Proposal for Australia</title>
	<author>EdgeCreeper</author>
	<datestamp>1267103100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You say that nuking Australia from orbit protects it's citizens!?  You might be a politician.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You say that nuking Australia from orbit protects it 's citizens ! ?
You might be a politician .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say that nuking Australia from orbit protects it's citizens!?
You might be a politician.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247180</id>
	<title>Re:Answer:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266951780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My web site manages user sessions by requiring that the username and password be presented in the URL as follows:</p><p>www.foobar.com/page.php?u=foo&amp;p=p45sw0Rd</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My web site manages user sessions by requiring that the username and password be presented in the URL as follows : www.foobar.com/page.php ? u = foo&amp;p = p45sw0Rd</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My web site manages user sessions by requiring that the username and password be presented in the URL as follows:www.foobar.com/page.php?u=foo&amp;p=p45sw0Rd</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246914</id>
	<title>Re:As long as the URL is secret, it is an attack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266950820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you had read the article you would know this wasn't a case of "guessing" the URL.  The article states that they had a source that told them the EXACT url to use, and it doesn't involve a query string at all.  This source (probably some lower level person inside the ministry in question) had knowledge of the new site, and what it contained, and they leaked this information to the journalists.  This is 100\% not hacking.</p><p>The URL in question is nswtransportblueprint.com.au.  It isn't functioning now, but according to the journalists it was on Friday.  The 3700 "hits" were probably the journalists going to various pages on the site and printing the information, as the article does say that is what they did.</p><p>At any rate, there wasn't a password *anywhere* not in the URL, not in the headers, it was a completely open and accessible site.  Google could have crawled it if there were any external links pointing to it that would lead the googlebot over.  Anyone on the planet could have gone to the URL and seen the information.  If your friend tells you "Hey I know this great new site that you should check out its supercoolsite.com", and you go there, and supercoolsite.com has no access control, no passwords, no funky URL parameters to guess, but maybe supercoolsite.com hasn't officially launched yet, and they don't actually want traffic... are you hacking their site?  Maybe the founders sister is a blabber mouth and told all her friends about this site her brother is building, unbeknownest to him.  That is hacking according to your definition that if the URL isn't "published in any way" then the URL alone is access control? That's just crazy.  Putting something on the web by definition is publishing it to the world.  If you don't want the world to see it you have to put it behind some kind of real access control (username/password/encryption/run server on a different port/ip access list/VPN)  Preferably a combination of all of those.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you had read the article you would know this was n't a case of " guessing " the URL .
The article states that they had a source that told them the EXACT url to use , and it does n't involve a query string at all .
This source ( probably some lower level person inside the ministry in question ) had knowledge of the new site , and what it contained , and they leaked this information to the journalists .
This is 100 \ % not hacking.The URL in question is nswtransportblueprint.com.au .
It is n't functioning now , but according to the journalists it was on Friday .
The 3700 " hits " were probably the journalists going to various pages on the site and printing the information , as the article does say that is what they did.At any rate , there was n't a password * anywhere * not in the URL , not in the headers , it was a completely open and accessible site .
Google could have crawled it if there were any external links pointing to it that would lead the googlebot over .
Anyone on the planet could have gone to the URL and seen the information .
If your friend tells you " Hey I know this great new site that you should check out its supercoolsite.com " , and you go there , and supercoolsite.com has no access control , no passwords , no funky URL parameters to guess , but maybe supercoolsite.com has n't officially launched yet , and they do n't actually want traffic... are you hacking their site ?
Maybe the founders sister is a blabber mouth and told all her friends about this site her brother is building , unbeknownest to him .
That is hacking according to your definition that if the URL is n't " published in any way " then the URL alone is access control ?
That 's just crazy .
Putting something on the web by definition is publishing it to the world .
If you do n't want the world to see it you have to put it behind some kind of real access control ( username/password/encryption/run server on a different port/ip access list/VPN ) Preferably a combination of all of those .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you had read the article you would know this wasn't a case of "guessing" the URL.
The article states that they had a source that told them the EXACT url to use, and it doesn't involve a query string at all.
This source (probably some lower level person inside the ministry in question) had knowledge of the new site, and what it contained, and they leaked this information to the journalists.
This is 100\% not hacking.The URL in question is nswtransportblueprint.com.au.
It isn't functioning now, but according to the journalists it was on Friday.
The 3700 "hits" were probably the journalists going to various pages on the site and printing the information, as the article does say that is what they did.At any rate, there wasn't a password *anywhere* not in the URL, not in the headers, it was a completely open and accessible site.
Google could have crawled it if there were any external links pointing to it that would lead the googlebot over.
Anyone on the planet could have gone to the URL and seen the information.
If your friend tells you "Hey I know this great new site that you should check out its supercoolsite.com", and you go there, and supercoolsite.com has no access control, no passwords, no funky URL parameters to guess, but maybe supercoolsite.com hasn't officially launched yet, and they don't actually want traffic... are you hacking their site?
Maybe the founders sister is a blabber mouth and told all her friends about this site her brother is building, unbeknownest to him.
That is hacking according to your definition that if the URL isn't "published in any way" then the URL alone is access control?
That's just crazy.
Putting something on the web by definition is publishing it to the world.
If you don't want the world to see it you have to put it behind some kind of real access control (username/password/encryption/run server on a different port/ip access list/VPN)  Preferably a combination of all of those.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245386</id>
	<title>Re:Two Robots in Front of a Judge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266945480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, <a href="http://understandingservers.ytmnd.com/" title="ytmnd.com" rel="nofollow">exxxxxxxactttlllyyyyy</a> [ytmnd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , exxxxxxxactttlllyyyyy [ ytmnd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, exxxxxxxactttlllyyyyy [ytmnd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31254144</id>
	<title>Raises important points about security</title>
	<author>cybereal</author>
	<datestamp>1266936360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In nearly every home in the US, let alone the world, the doorways are locked with $5 pieces of tin and maybe a tiny bolt of metal shoved through some wood.  There is little challenge to defeat these locks, either through picking or just jostling the door open or breaking the jamb.  Furthermore, it's often the case that the doors are not locked at all, or perhaps a window is left open, or unlocked, and it's just assumed that since it's a second story window, that nobody would try it.</p><p>So many of these homes are invade by thieves.  And yet, there is no question that those invading were violating a law.</p><p>If you enter a public place, rules tend to change.  Despite the doors not being locked, I can walk into a grocery store and not feel like I've trespassed because it's a business and that's expected.  However, I've often seen unmarked doors in dark corners of large stores, or even doors marked "Employee Only" or maybe an unlabeled staircase leading to who-knows-where.  I know I'm not welcome in those areas, and if I entered one and was subsequently accosted for it, should I be shocked?</p><p>Now we start talking about computers, and their presence on public networks.  To me this is some kind of bizarre combination of the two previous physical scenarios.  The computers themselves are viewed as having the privacy rights of the house, where-as their offering and the environment in which they make the offer is more like the store, or even another unmentioned public situation: A public park.  So how do we come to the conclusions we make?  Why is "security by obscurity" not enough to justify criminal charges to those who would violate it?</p><p>Or, if you see things the other way, then I ask why you think that the public accessing a publicly offered machine is somehow unlawful, even if they are walking through those otherwise unmarked doors or looking for out-of-the way staircases?</p><p>Just because a person doesn't break a lock to get into a home doesn't mean it's not breaking and entering, and just because a door at a store is unmarked doesn't mean the person's trying to break the law either.  In the internet, your computer is knowingly placed in the public arena with open attempts at making it easy for the public to find and access, yet somehow accessing an unadvertised part of that computer is a violation?</p><p>I don't think the answers are clear but I do think some of the associated assumptions on both sides are questionable.  It's interesting to thing about at least.  Who has the responsibility here, is it the site admin's responsibility to batten down every hatch or is it reasonable to expect people not to snoop around?  You tell me...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In nearly every home in the US , let alone the world , the doorways are locked with $ 5 pieces of tin and maybe a tiny bolt of metal shoved through some wood .
There is little challenge to defeat these locks , either through picking or just jostling the door open or breaking the jamb .
Furthermore , it 's often the case that the doors are not locked at all , or perhaps a window is left open , or unlocked , and it 's just assumed that since it 's a second story window , that nobody would try it.So many of these homes are invade by thieves .
And yet , there is no question that those invading were violating a law.If you enter a public place , rules tend to change .
Despite the doors not being locked , I can walk into a grocery store and not feel like I 've trespassed because it 's a business and that 's expected .
However , I 've often seen unmarked doors in dark corners of large stores , or even doors marked " Employee Only " or maybe an unlabeled staircase leading to who-knows-where .
I know I 'm not welcome in those areas , and if I entered one and was subsequently accosted for it , should I be shocked ? Now we start talking about computers , and their presence on public networks .
To me this is some kind of bizarre combination of the two previous physical scenarios .
The computers themselves are viewed as having the privacy rights of the house , where-as their offering and the environment in which they make the offer is more like the store , or even another unmentioned public situation : A public park .
So how do we come to the conclusions we make ?
Why is " security by obscurity " not enough to justify criminal charges to those who would violate it ? Or , if you see things the other way , then I ask why you think that the public accessing a publicly offered machine is somehow unlawful , even if they are walking through those otherwise unmarked doors or looking for out-of-the way staircases ? Just because a person does n't break a lock to get into a home does n't mean it 's not breaking and entering , and just because a door at a store is unmarked does n't mean the person 's trying to break the law either .
In the internet , your computer is knowingly placed in the public arena with open attempts at making it easy for the public to find and access , yet somehow accessing an unadvertised part of that computer is a violation ? I do n't think the answers are clear but I do think some of the associated assumptions on both sides are questionable .
It 's interesting to thing about at least .
Who has the responsibility here , is it the site admin 's responsibility to batten down every hatch or is it reasonable to expect people not to snoop around ?
You tell me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In nearly every home in the US, let alone the world, the doorways are locked with $5 pieces of tin and maybe a tiny bolt of metal shoved through some wood.
There is little challenge to defeat these locks, either through picking or just jostling the door open or breaking the jamb.
Furthermore, it's often the case that the doors are not locked at all, or perhaps a window is left open, or unlocked, and it's just assumed that since it's a second story window, that nobody would try it.So many of these homes are invade by thieves.
And yet, there is no question that those invading were violating a law.If you enter a public place, rules tend to change.
Despite the doors not being locked, I can walk into a grocery store and not feel like I've trespassed because it's a business and that's expected.
However, I've often seen unmarked doors in dark corners of large stores, or even doors marked "Employee Only" or maybe an unlabeled staircase leading to who-knows-where.
I know I'm not welcome in those areas, and if I entered one and was subsequently accosted for it, should I be shocked?Now we start talking about computers, and their presence on public networks.
To me this is some kind of bizarre combination of the two previous physical scenarios.
The computers themselves are viewed as having the privacy rights of the house, where-as their offering and the environment in which they make the offer is more like the store, or even another unmentioned public situation: A public park.
So how do we come to the conclusions we make?
Why is "security by obscurity" not enough to justify criminal charges to those who would violate it?Or, if you see things the other way, then I ask why you think that the public accessing a publicly offered machine is somehow unlawful, even if they are walking through those otherwise unmarked doors or looking for out-of-the way staircases?Just because a person doesn't break a lock to get into a home doesn't mean it's not breaking and entering, and just because a door at a store is unmarked doesn't mean the person's trying to break the law either.
In the internet, your computer is knowingly placed in the public arena with open attempts at making it easy for the public to find and access, yet somehow accessing an unadvertised part of that computer is a violation?I don't think the answers are clear but I do think some of the associated assumptions on both sides are questionable.
It's interesting to thing about at least.
Who has the responsibility here, is it the site admin's responsibility to batten down every hatch or is it reasonable to expect people not to snoop around?
You tell me...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245408</id>
	<title>Bang the Table????</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1266945600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article mentions the hosting company is called Bang the table. Where have I heard that before?<p>

Yup, recently someone in pandasthumb.org quoted someone famous saying, <i>"If the law is on your side, bang on the law, If facts are on your side, bang on the facts, if neither, bang on the table".</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article mentions the hosting company is called Bang the table .
Where have I heard that before ?
Yup , recently someone in pandasthumb.org quoted someone famous saying , " If the law is on your side , bang on the law , If facts are on your side , bang on the facts , if neither , bang on the table " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article mentions the hosting company is called Bang the table.
Where have I heard that before?
Yup, recently someone in pandasthumb.org quoted someone famous saying, "If the law is on your side, bang on the law, If facts are on your side, bang on the facts, if neither, bang on the table".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245818</id>
	<title>w00t 74</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266947220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">consider that right problems that I've members' creative slings 4re limited, serves to reinforce Problems wi8th</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>consider that right problems that I 've members ' creative slings 4re limited , serves to reinforce Problems wi8th [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>consider that right problems that I've members' creative slings 4re limited, serves to reinforce Problems wi8th [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247318</id>
	<title>Re:Window analogy</title>
	<author>Ltap</author>
	<datestamp>1266952260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Better than a "Windows" analogy - just because a computer has ports and they are open does not mean that by sending a few trojans its way and looking at some porn on another guy's computer means that you aren't totally exploiting user stupidity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better than a " Windows " analogy - just because a computer has ports and they are open does not mean that by sending a few trojans its way and looking at some porn on another guy 's computer means that you are n't totally exploiting user stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better than a "Windows" analogy - just because a computer has ports and they are open does not mean that by sending a few trojans its way and looking at some porn on another guy's computer means that you aren't totally exploiting user stupidity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245692</id>
	<title>Answer:</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1266946800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why, yes, yes it is.</p><p>First of all, define "completely unsecured".  I'm pretty sure I know your definition, and if I had to vote I'd support it; but I'm also pretty sure I know their definition and it has a frightening amount of support.  They will argue, and the courts might accept, that the non-publication of the URL constitutes "security", or an expectation of privacy, or whatever terms they need to feel good about filing charges.</p><p>This is a matter of technical knowledge.  To a person who only knows how to follow links, limiting circulation of links can seem like "security".  You can point out that it's easy to learn the skills to circumvent that, but think how that looks to someone who isn't very computer literate.  "Sure, you can learn how to get around it - just like a thief can learn how to bypass a typical 5-pin lock.  The skill to bump a lock isn't very hard to learn either."</p><p>The point is, as long as the <i>typical</i> level of knowledge doesn't include ways to find a non-published URL, the perceived threat will be in those who have the knowledge - not in those whose idea of "security" allows that knowledge to be used.  I've seen Fortune 500 companies ban dsektop search tools rather than tell their employees not to "hide" sensitive documents on unlocked directories of shared drives.  You really think the courts and laws are so far ahead of that knowledge curve?</p><p>Ultimately what's missing is a universal legal standard that presumes information is public if it is deliberately placed on a web-accessible file system without at least a prescribed level of protection.  How strong that prescribed level of protection should be is open to debate.  I don't need fool-proof security on my house to charge you with trespassing - a closed door is more than enough.</p><p>The exact standard isn't important.  What's important is, the standard should exist, should be universal, and should be known to all parties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , yes , yes it is.First of all , define " completely unsecured " .
I 'm pretty sure I know your definition , and if I had to vote I 'd support it ; but I 'm also pretty sure I know their definition and it has a frightening amount of support .
They will argue , and the courts might accept , that the non-publication of the URL constitutes " security " , or an expectation of privacy , or whatever terms they need to feel good about filing charges.This is a matter of technical knowledge .
To a person who only knows how to follow links , limiting circulation of links can seem like " security " .
You can point out that it 's easy to learn the skills to circumvent that , but think how that looks to someone who is n't very computer literate .
" Sure , you can learn how to get around it - just like a thief can learn how to bypass a typical 5-pin lock .
The skill to bump a lock is n't very hard to learn either .
" The point is , as long as the typical level of knowledge does n't include ways to find a non-published URL , the perceived threat will be in those who have the knowledge - not in those whose idea of " security " allows that knowledge to be used .
I 've seen Fortune 500 companies ban dsektop search tools rather than tell their employees not to " hide " sensitive documents on unlocked directories of shared drives .
You really think the courts and laws are so far ahead of that knowledge curve ? Ultimately what 's missing is a universal legal standard that presumes information is public if it is deliberately placed on a web-accessible file system without at least a prescribed level of protection .
How strong that prescribed level of protection should be is open to debate .
I do n't need fool-proof security on my house to charge you with trespassing - a closed door is more than enough.The exact standard is n't important .
What 's important is , the standard should exist , should be universal , and should be known to all parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, yes, yes it is.First of all, define "completely unsecured".
I'm pretty sure I know your definition, and if I had to vote I'd support it; but I'm also pretty sure I know their definition and it has a frightening amount of support.
They will argue, and the courts might accept, that the non-publication of the URL constitutes "security", or an expectation of privacy, or whatever terms they need to feel good about filing charges.This is a matter of technical knowledge.
To a person who only knows how to follow links, limiting circulation of links can seem like "security".
You can point out that it's easy to learn the skills to circumvent that, but think how that looks to someone who isn't very computer literate.
"Sure, you can learn how to get around it - just like a thief can learn how to bypass a typical 5-pin lock.
The skill to bump a lock isn't very hard to learn either.
"The point is, as long as the typical level of knowledge doesn't include ways to find a non-published URL, the perceived threat will be in those who have the knowledge - not in those whose idea of "security" allows that knowledge to be used.
I've seen Fortune 500 companies ban dsektop search tools rather than tell their employees not to "hide" sensitive documents on unlocked directories of shared drives.
You really think the courts and laws are so far ahead of that knowledge curve?Ultimately what's missing is a universal legal standard that presumes information is public if it is deliberately placed on a web-accessible file system without at least a prescribed level of protection.
How strong that prescribed level of protection should be is open to debate.
I don't need fool-proof security on my house to charge you with trespassing - a closed door is more than enough.The exact standard isn't important.
What's important is, the standard should exist, should be universal, and should be known to all parties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248610</id>
	<title>Re:Proposal for Australia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266956760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> It's the only way to be sure.</p></div><p>Haha. I love that movie.</p><p>"They mostly come at night. Mostly."<br>"Game over, man! Game over!"<br>Bill Paxton is ha-larious!</p><p>What were we talking about?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the only way to be sure.Haha .
I love that movie .
" They mostly come at night .
Mostly. " " Game over , man !
Game over !
" Bill Paxton is ha-larious ! What were we talking about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It's the only way to be sure.Haha.
I love that movie.
"They mostly come at night.
Mostly.""Game over, man!
Game over!
"Bill Paxton is ha-larious!What were we talking about?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246168</id>
	<title>Appraently, Yes.</title>
	<author>celtic\_hackr</author>
	<datestamp>1266948240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone has secured the site, or deleted it. The link no longer works, and here I was going to look for a robots.txt file. Rats! Foiled again!.  Not even a login prompt. It may be:[Agent86 voice] "they used the old use the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. effect to bring the server crashing down and thereby securing it from all those pesky hackers" trick.[/Agent86 voice]
</p><p>
Curiously, they specifically make it sound like all 3,727 page hits were from the hacks at the Herald, but clearly state the "some of them" came from the Herald. So, what is the actual number from the Herald hacks? Hmmm... I'd buy that for a dollar!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone has secured the site , or deleted it .
The link no longer works , and here I was going to look for a robots.txt file .
Rats ! Foiled again ! .
Not even a login prompt .
It may be : [ Agent86 voice ] " they used the old use the / .
effect to bring the server crashing down and thereby securing it from all those pesky hackers " trick .
[ /Agent86 voice ] Curiously , they specifically make it sound like all 3,727 page hits were from the hacks at the Herald , but clearly state the " some of them " came from the Herald .
So , what is the actual number from the Herald hacks ?
Hmmm... I 'd buy that for a dollar !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone has secured the site, or deleted it.
The link no longer works, and here I was going to look for a robots.txt file.
Rats! Foiled again!.
Not even a login prompt.
It may be:[Agent86 voice] "they used the old use the /.
effect to bring the server crashing down and thereby securing it from all those pesky hackers" trick.
[/Agent86 voice]

Curiously, they specifically make it sound like all 3,727 page hits were from the hacks at the Herald, but clearly state the "some of them" came from the Herald.
So, what is the actual number from the Herald hacks?
Hmmm... I'd buy that for a dollar!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246392</id>
	<title>Re:Question:</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1266949140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's Australia.  They sent a man to prison for having a few naked drawing of Simpsons characters.  I think they can find a way to charge anyone for just about anything they don't like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Australia .
They sent a man to prison for having a few naked drawing of Simpsons characters .
I think they can find a way to charge anyone for just about anything they do n't like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Australia.
They sent a man to prison for having a few naked drawing of Simpsons characters.
I think they can find a way to charge anyone for just about anything they don't like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246268</id>
	<title>Re:Question:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266948720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compare it to someone pressing all buttons next to the (not automatically opening) front door of an appartment-building : If some inhabitant presses the door-opener is he than entering the building illegally ?</p><p>Another comparision : If you knock on a door and someone opens it and than proceedes to hand you their wallet are you than in any way stealing from them ?</p><p>Yet another : A door with a lock (even if currently not applied) conveys the message that someone could want that passage blocked (and outof respect you do not even try to get that door open).  A door with no such mechanism does not convey any such message.</p><p>P.s.<br>If I would have been stopped by any door which opening-mechanism I did not instantly understand than quite a few doors would have stayed closed to me.</p><p>P.p.s.<br>IANAL.  And depending on the country you're in you mileage may vary.</p><p>captcha : thoughts.  How apropriate.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compare it to someone pressing all buttons next to the ( not automatically opening ) front door of an appartment-building : If some inhabitant presses the door-opener is he than entering the building illegally ? Another comparision : If you knock on a door and someone opens it and than proceedes to hand you their wallet are you than in any way stealing from them ? Yet another : A door with a lock ( even if currently not applied ) conveys the message that someone could want that passage blocked ( and outof respect you do not even try to get that door open ) .
A door with no such mechanism does not convey any such message.P.s.If I would have been stopped by any door which opening-mechanism I did not instantly understand than quite a few doors would have stayed closed to me.P.p.s.IANAL .
And depending on the country you 're in you mileage may vary.captcha : thoughts .
How apropriate .
: - )  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compare it to someone pressing all buttons next to the (not automatically opening) front door of an appartment-building : If some inhabitant presses the door-opener is he than entering the building illegally ?Another comparision : If you knock on a door and someone opens it and than proceedes to hand you their wallet are you than in any way stealing from them ?Yet another : A door with a lock (even if currently not applied) conveys the message that someone could want that passage blocked (and outof respect you do not even try to get that door open).
A door with no such mechanism does not convey any such message.P.s.If I would have been stopped by any door which opening-mechanism I did not instantly understand than quite a few doors would have stayed closed to me.P.p.s.IANAL.
And depending on the country you're in you mileage may vary.captcha : thoughts.
How apropriate.
:-)
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245246</id>
	<title>Urgent notification to all:</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1266944760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear NSW Transportation Dept Employee, <p>

We have enhanced the security of our secret intranet site with immediate effect. The new enhanced security intranet site is SECRETnswtransportblueprint.com
Please update your bookmarks. To allow our braindead minister who can not remember a password and is frightened when confronted with a login dialog to use the site, we have disabled the login requirements for all. So please keep the url confidential. </p><p>

Signed</p><p>
Assistant to the Minister D Umbi Diot
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear NSW Transportation Dept Employee , We have enhanced the security of our secret intranet site with immediate effect .
The new enhanced security intranet site is SECRETnswtransportblueprint.com Please update your bookmarks .
To allow our braindead minister who can not remember a password and is frightened when confronted with a login dialog to use the site , we have disabled the login requirements for all .
So please keep the url confidential .
Signed Assistant to the Minister D Umbi Diot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear NSW Transportation Dept Employee, 

We have enhanced the security of our secret intranet site with immediate effect.
The new enhanced security intranet site is SECRETnswtransportblueprint.com
Please update your bookmarks.
To allow our braindead minister who can not remember a password and is frightened when confronted with a login dialog to use the site, we have disabled the login requirements for all.
So please keep the url confidential.
Signed
Assistant to the Minister D Umbi Diot
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31251238</id>
	<title>Pikers, really.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266922680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All they need do to persecute Sydney Morning Herald is to put this on their main page: <a href="http://simpsons-xxx.com/thesimpsonsporn01.jpg" title="simpsons-xxx.com" rel="nofollow">http://simpsons-xxx.com/thesimpsonsporn01.jpg</a> [simpsons-xxx.com] </p><p>NSFNSW</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All they need do to persecute Sydney Morning Herald is to put this on their main page : http : //simpsons-xxx.com/thesimpsonsporn01.jpg [ simpsons-xxx.com ] NSFNSW</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All they need do to persecute Sydney Morning Herald is to put this on their main page: http://simpsons-xxx.com/thesimpsonsporn01.jpg [simpsons-xxx.com] NSFNSW</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246466</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it have been easier</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1266949440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sorry, but the submitter got at wrong.</p></div><p>No, you did.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A secret URL is essentially a password</p></div><p>Wrong.  There is no such thing as a 'secret' URL.  This was an <i>unpublished</i> URL, which is not the same thing as a secret.</p><p>A secret is something that everybody involved knows not to divulge.  A HTTP URL is transmitted in plaintext, URLs are stored in plaintext in your browser's history, they are sent as a referrer when you click on a link in a page or when you load an external element, they are stored in plaintext in your server's logs - they are the <b>exact opposite</b> of secret.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but the submitter got at wrong.No , you did.A secret URL is essentially a passwordWrong .
There is no such thing as a 'secret ' URL .
This was an unpublished URL , which is not the same thing as a secret.A secret is something that everybody involved knows not to divulge .
A HTTP URL is transmitted in plaintext , URLs are stored in plaintext in your browser 's history , they are sent as a referrer when you click on a link in a page or when you load an external element , they are stored in plaintext in your server 's logs - they are the exact opposite of secret .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but the submitter got at wrong.No, you did.A secret URL is essentially a passwordWrong.
There is no such thing as a 'secret' URL.
This was an unpublished URL, which is not the same thing as a secret.A secret is something that everybody involved knows not to divulge.
A HTTP URL is transmitted in plaintext, URLs are stored in plaintext in your browser's history, they are sent as a referrer when you click on a link in a page or when you load an external element, they are stored in plaintext in your server's logs - they are the exact opposite of secret.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247564</id>
	<title>Re:Lock, what lock?</title>
	<author>precariousgray</author>
	<datestamp>1266953160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>The affected government minister said that the website was accessed 3,727 times, and that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to turn the doorknob of an insecure office and <b>kindly stick its head in the sand</b> highly confidential documents <b>like an ostrich, which then bleats, choking itself to death</b>.'</p></div></blockquote><p>There, fixed that for you, Mr. Minister.</p></div><p>There, fixed that for you.</p></div><p>I think we can finally settle on this one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The affected government minister said that the website was accessed 3,727 times , and that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to turn the doorknob of an insecure office and kindly stick its head in the sand highly confidential documents like an ostrich , which then bleats , choking itself to death .
'There , fixed that for you , Mr. Minister.There , fixed that for you.I think we can finally settle on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The affected government minister said that the website was accessed 3,727 times, and that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to turn the doorknob of an insecure office and kindly stick its head in the sand highly confidential documents like an ostrich, which then bleats, choking itself to death.
'There, fixed that for you, Mr. Minister.There, fixed that for you.I think we can finally settle on this one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246956</id>
	<title>Re:Proposal for Australia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266951000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No... no... don't give them any ideas.  Please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No... no... do n't give them any ideas .
Please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No... no... don't give them any ideas.
Please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245578</id>
	<title>Re:Two Robots in Front of a Judge</title>
	<author>SeeSp0tRun</author>
	<datestamp>1266946380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want to mod this up again, too funny!
<br> <br>
IANAL, but what happened is akin to entering without permission.  It kind of gets fuzzy where it was made publicly available, but not publicly broadcast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to mod this up again , too funny !
IANAL , but what happened is akin to entering without permission .
It kind of gets fuzzy where it was made publicly available , but not publicly broadcast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to mod this up again, too funny!
IANAL, but what happened is akin to entering without permission.
It kind of gets fuzzy where it was made publicly available, but not publicly broadcast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248668</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it have been easier</title>
	<author>Homburg</author>
	<datestamp>1266956940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A secret URL is essentially a password - so attempting lots of funny URLs can be like trying lots of ssh logins.</p></div><p>Well, if they had used an intentionally hard-to-guess URL (like, say, the ones Google uses for shared calendars) you might have a point. But, from the article, they simply used the URL which would become the public URL once announced, nswtransportblueprint.com.au . They didn't have to try lots of URLs to defeat any kind of secrecy; they simply accessed an obvious, public URL, that the government hadn't yet officially announced.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A secret URL is essentially a password - so attempting lots of funny URLs can be like trying lots of ssh logins.Well , if they had used an intentionally hard-to-guess URL ( like , say , the ones Google uses for shared calendars ) you might have a point .
But , from the article , they simply used the URL which would become the public URL once announced , nswtransportblueprint.com.au .
They did n't have to try lots of URLs to defeat any kind of secrecy ; they simply accessed an obvious , public URL , that the government had n't yet officially announced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A secret URL is essentially a password - so attempting lots of funny URLs can be like trying lots of ssh logins.Well, if they had used an intentionally hard-to-guess URL (like, say, the ones Google uses for shared calendars) you might have a point.
But, from the article, they simply used the URL which would become the public URL once announced, nswtransportblueprint.com.au .
They didn't have to try lots of URLs to defeat any kind of secrecy; they simply accessed an obvious, public URL, that the government hadn't yet officially announced.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245482</id>
	<title>As long as the URL is secret, it is an attack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266945840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no technical difference between a password in the URL and a password in the rest of the HTTP header. Neither is a particularly good access control, but as long as the URL is not easily derived from another URL or published in any way, they are actual access control methods. We don't use secret URLs because there are many ways a URL can easily leak and become public knowledge (e.g. through the HTTP Referer header). Secret URL components are however used frequently for session control when cookies are unavailable. Would you not consider using a leaked session-URL an attack?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no technical difference between a password in the URL and a password in the rest of the HTTP header .
Neither is a particularly good access control , but as long as the URL is not easily derived from another URL or published in any way , they are actual access control methods .
We do n't use secret URLs because there are many ways a URL can easily leak and become public knowledge ( e.g .
through the HTTP Referer header ) .
Secret URL components are however used frequently for session control when cookies are unavailable .
Would you not consider using a leaked session-URL an attack ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no technical difference between a password in the URL and a password in the rest of the HTTP header.
Neither is a particularly good access control, but as long as the URL is not easily derived from another URL or published in any way, they are actual access control methods.
We don't use secret URLs because there are many ways a URL can easily leak and become public knowledge (e.g.
through the HTTP Referer header).
Secret URL components are however used frequently for session control when cookies are unavailable.
Would you not consider using a leaked session-URL an attack?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245252</id>
	<title>Deja vu again once more</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1266944760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't there a story like this about ten years ago, but it was something concerning grades or test scores on a college website?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't there a story like this about ten years ago , but it was something concerning grades or test scores on a college website ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't there a story like this about ten years ago, but it was something concerning grades or test scores on a college website?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31249318</id>
	<title>Send them off to Silicone Pines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266958740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The self described "hacks" ((newspaper term)) claim that they are not really computer savy. OK , take that at face value. I think that the NSW blokes and theit IT provider should be sent to Silicone Pines: http://www.satirewire.com/features/siliconpines/acf.shtml</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The self described " hacks " ( ( newspaper term ) ) claim that they are not really computer savy .
OK , take that at face value .
I think that the NSW blokes and theit IT provider should be sent to Silicone Pines : http : //www.satirewire.com/features/siliconpines/acf.shtml</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The self described "hacks" ((newspaper term)) claim that they are not really computer savy.
OK , take that at face value.
I think that the NSW blokes and theit IT provider should be sent to Silicone Pines: http://www.satirewire.com/features/siliconpines/acf.shtml</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245588</id>
	<title>Entropy</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1266946440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Security by obscurity at its finest.</i> <p>At what point does obscurity become security?  3,727 attempts corresponds to 12 bits of entropy.  According to <a href="http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-63/SP800-63V1\_0\_2.pdf" title="nist.gov">NIST</a> [nist.gov], that's the equivalent of a 5-character user-selected password.  The same document stipulates a mere 10 bits of entropy for some applications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Security by obscurity at its finest .
At what point does obscurity become security ?
3,727 attempts corresponds to 12 bits of entropy .
According to NIST [ nist.gov ] , that 's the equivalent of a 5-character user-selected password .
The same document stipulates a mere 10 bits of entropy for some applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security by obscurity at its finest.
At what point does obscurity become security?
3,727 attempts corresponds to 12 bits of entropy.
According to NIST [nist.gov], that's the equivalent of a 5-character user-selected password.
The same document stipulates a mere 10 bits of entropy for some applications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246630</id>
	<title>Re:Lock, what lock?</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1266949980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like getting an unlisted telephone number and using your secret plans as your answering machine message.</p><p>Nothing about attempts to turn the doorknobof an insecure office and make copies of highly confidential documents</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like getting an unlisted telephone number and using your secret plans as your answering machine message.Nothing about attempts to turn the doorknobof an insecure office and make copies of highly confidential documents</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like getting an unlisted telephone number and using your secret plans as your answering machine message.Nothing about attempts to turn the doorknobof an insecure office and make copies of highly confidential documents</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248916</id>
	<title>Re:fuckfuck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266957660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Old copypasta is old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Old copypasta is old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old copypasta is old.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247756</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>SleazyRidr</author>
	<datestamp>1266953760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually in Australia they work for four letter agencies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually in Australia they work for four letter agencies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually in Australia they work for four letter agencies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252094</id>
	<title>Local newspaper?</title>
	<author>GrahamCox</author>
	<datestamp>1266925980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Sydney Morning Herald, a local newspaper? Well, yes, I guess so, in exactly the same way that the New York Times or Washington Post is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Sydney Morning Herald , a local newspaper ?
Well , yes , I guess so , in exactly the same way that the New York Times or Washington Post is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Sydney Morning Herald, a local newspaper?
Well, yes, I guess so, in exactly the same way that the New York Times or Washington Post is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246578</id>
	<title>Re:Two Robots in Front of a Judge</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1266949860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like getting an unlisted telephone number and using your secret plans as your answering machine message.<br>Nothing like entering without permission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like getting an unlisted telephone number and using your secret plans as your answering machine message.Nothing like entering without permission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like getting an unlisted telephone number and using your secret plans as your answering machine message.Nothing like entering without permission.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31249918</id>
	<title>robots.txt</title>
	<author>indre1</author>
	<datestamp>1266917940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Contents of aussiegovernmentdomain.com/robots.txt<br> <br>

User-Agent: *<br>
Disallow:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/very/secret/catalog123</htmltext>
<tokenext>Contents of aussiegovernmentdomain.com/robots.txt User-Agent : * Disallow : /very/secret/catalog123</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Contents of aussiegovernmentdomain.com/robots.txt 

User-Agent: *
Disallow: /very/secret/catalog123</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245856</id>
	<title>Re:Lock, what lock?</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1266947400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, it's more like "I hid the document in what I thought was a secret spot, in a public park. Someone discovered it there and started talking about it with their friends."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it 's more like " I hid the document in what I thought was a secret spot , in a public park .
Someone discovered it there and started talking about it with their friends .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it's more like "I hid the document in what I thought was a secret spot, in a public park.
Someone discovered it there and started talking about it with their friends.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248166</id>
	<title>Re:Was it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266955320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>reminds me of the time i hacked my friend's fridge for a can of beer when he was out of the room for a moment</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>reminds me of the time i hacked my friend 's fridge for a can of beer when he was out of the room for a moment</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reminds me of the time i hacked my friend's fridge for a can of beer when he was out of the room for a moment</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245270</id>
	<title>Reminds me of...</title>
	<author>courteaudotbiz</author>
	<datestamp>1266944820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This reminds me of a case in Canada, where Passport Canada (the agency responsible for passport emission) was "hacked" by changing some numbers in the URL to get from one passport request details to the other, making very confidential information available to even the most basic hackers.
<br>
<br>
However, no one was accused here, except the developpers of the solutions who were blamed. Now, Passport Canada still processes online passport requests, but applicants are no more able to view the details and advancement of their application online.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of a case in Canada , where Passport Canada ( the agency responsible for passport emission ) was " hacked " by changing some numbers in the URL to get from one passport request details to the other , making very confidential information available to even the most basic hackers .
However , no one was accused here , except the developpers of the solutions who were blamed .
Now , Passport Canada still processes online passport requests , but applicants are no more able to view the details and advancement of their application online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of a case in Canada, where Passport Canada (the agency responsible for passport emission) was "hacked" by changing some numbers in the URL to get from one passport request details to the other, making very confidential information available to even the most basic hackers.
However, no one was accused here, except the developpers of the solutions who were blamed.
Now, Passport Canada still processes online passport requests, but applicants are no more able to view the details and advancement of their application online.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31250100</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266918660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are, but we're<br>* Hamstrung by process and procedure, especially when making a production release<br>* Slowed down by ITIL - see above<br>* Limited by what we can do with outdated software/hardware<br>* Cleaning up the mess left by contractors</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are , but we 're * Hamstrung by process and procedure , especially when making a production release * Slowed down by ITIL - see above * Limited by what we can do with outdated software/hardware * Cleaning up the mess left by contractors</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are, but we're* Hamstrung by process and procedure, especially when making a production release* Slowed down by ITIL - see above* Limited by what we can do with outdated software/hardware* Cleaning up the mess left by contractors</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246068</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it have been easier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266947880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't call putting something up on the internet, completely out in the open with no protection whatsoever, and then simply hoping no one will find it because you didn't announce its presence, "essentially a password".</p><p>If the internet is a forest and I protect my valuables by sitting them underneath a tree far from civilization and tell no one they're there, should I be mad if someone looking around the forest for valuables takes them all?  No.  Either you don't put your valuables in the forest or you put them in a big honking safe that no one can break into or walk off with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't call putting something up on the internet , completely out in the open with no protection whatsoever , and then simply hoping no one will find it because you did n't announce its presence , " essentially a password " .If the internet is a forest and I protect my valuables by sitting them underneath a tree far from civilization and tell no one they 're there , should I be mad if someone looking around the forest for valuables takes them all ?
No. Either you do n't put your valuables in the forest or you put them in a big honking safe that no one can break into or walk off with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't call putting something up on the internet, completely out in the open with no protection whatsoever, and then simply hoping no one will find it because you didn't announce its presence, "essentially a password".If the internet is a forest and I protect my valuables by sitting them underneath a tree far from civilization and tell no one they're there, should I be mad if someone looking around the forest for valuables takes them all?
No.  Either you don't put your valuables in the forest or you put them in a big honking safe that no one can break into or walk off with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245430</id>
	<title>Re:Lock, what lock?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266945660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>The affected government minister said that the website was accessed 3,727 times, and that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to turn the doorknob of an insecure office and <b>kindly accept the</b> highly confidential documents <b>that the receptionist hands to you</b>.'</p></div></blockquote><p>There, fixed that for you, Mr. Minister.</p></div><p>There, fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The affected government minister said that the website was accessed 3,727 times , and that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to turn the doorknob of an insecure office and kindly accept the highly confidential documents that the receptionist hands to you .
'There , fixed that for you , Mr. Minister.There , fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The affected government minister said that the website was accessed 3,727 times, and that this is 'akin to 3,727 attempts to turn the doorknob of an insecure office and kindly accept the highly confidential documents that the receptionist hands to you.
'There, fixed that for you, Mr. Minister.There, fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245372</id>
	<title>fuckfuck</title>
	<author>fuckfuck69</author>
	<datestamp>1266945420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whenever I get a package of plain M&amp;Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. To this end, I hold M&amp;M duels.

Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them breaks and splinters. That is the &ldquo;loser,&rdquo; and I eat the inferior one immediately. The winner gets to go another round.

I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&amp;Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior. I have hypothesized that the blue M&amp;Ms as a race cannot survive long in the intense theater of competition that is the modern candy and snack-food world.

Occasionally I will get a mutation, a candy that is misshapen, or pointier, or flatter than the rest. Almost invariably this proves to be a weakness, but on very rare occasions it gives the candy extra strength. In this way, the species continues to adapt to its environment.

When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&amp;M, the strongest of the herd. Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well, I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to M&amp;M Mars, A Division of Mars, Inc., Hackettstown, NJ 17840-1503 U.S.A., along with a 3&#215;5 card reading, &ldquo;Please use this M&amp;M for breeding purposes.&rdquo;

This week they wrote back to thank me, and sent me a coupon for a free 1/2 pound bag of plain M&amp;Ms. I consider this &ldquo;grant money.&rdquo; I have set aside the weekend for a grand tournament. From a field of hundreds, we will discover the True Champion.

There can be only one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever I get a package of plain M&amp;Ms , I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species .
To this end , I hold M&amp;M duels .
Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger , I apply pressure , squeezing them together until one of them breaks and splinters .
That is the    loser ,    and I eat the inferior one immediately .
The winner gets to go another round .
I have found that , in general , the brown and red M&amp;Ms are tougher , and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior .
I have hypothesized that the blue M&amp;Ms as a race can not survive long in the intense theater of competition that is the modern candy and snack-food world .
Occasionally I will get a mutation , a candy that is misshapen , or pointier , or flatter than the rest .
Almost invariably this proves to be a weakness , but on very rare occasions it gives the candy extra strength .
In this way , the species continues to adapt to its environment .
When I reach the end of the pack , I am left with one M&amp;M , the strongest of the herd .
Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well , I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to M&amp;M Mars , A Division of Mars , Inc. , Hackettstown , NJ 17840-1503 U.S.A. , along with a 3   5 card reading ,    Please use this M&amp;M for breeding purposes.    This week they wrote back to thank me , and sent me a coupon for a free 1/2 pound bag of plain M&amp;Ms .
I consider this    grant money.    I have set aside the weekend for a grand tournament .
From a field of hundreds , we will discover the True Champion .
There can be only one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever I get a package of plain M&amp;Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species.
To this end, I hold M&amp;M duels.
Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them breaks and splinters.
That is the “loser,” and I eat the inferior one immediately.
The winner gets to go another round.
I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&amp;Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior.
I have hypothesized that the blue M&amp;Ms as a race cannot survive long in the intense theater of competition that is the modern candy and snack-food world.
Occasionally I will get a mutation, a candy that is misshapen, or pointier, or flatter than the rest.
Almost invariably this proves to be a weakness, but on very rare occasions it gives the candy extra strength.
In this way, the species continues to adapt to its environment.
When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&amp;M, the strongest of the herd.
Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well, I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to M&amp;M Mars, A Division of Mars, Inc., Hackettstown, NJ 17840-1503 U.S.A., along with a 3×5 card reading, “Please use this M&amp;M for breeding purposes.”

This week they wrote back to thank me, and sent me a coupon for a free 1/2 pound bag of plain M&amp;Ms.
I consider this “grant money.” I have set aside the weekend for a grand tournament.
From a field of hundreds, we will discover the True Champion.
There can be only one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246144</id>
	<title>Re:Answer:</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1266948120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we end up with a legal standard where making information available over http without authentication is considered anything other than intent to share the information, we have failed miserably.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we end up with a legal standard where making information available over http without authentication is considered anything other than intent to share the information , we have failed miserably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we end up with a legal standard where making information available over http without authentication is considered anything other than intent to share the information, we have failed miserably.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245478</id>
	<title>'Trespassing' and 'Breaking and Entering'</title>
	<author>capitaladot</author>
	<datestamp>1266945840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We do a very poor job, globally, of distinguishing between electronic trespass and electronic breaking and entering.  In the rush to criminalize computer use deigned anti-social, bedrock concepts such as the above were not well-translated to electronic paradigms.  As such, bizarrely disproportionate legal sanctions are often applied to those convicted of these acts, and with little reason beyond knee-jerk technophobia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do a very poor job , globally , of distinguishing between electronic trespass and electronic breaking and entering .
In the rush to criminalize computer use deigned anti-social , bedrock concepts such as the above were not well-translated to electronic paradigms .
As such , bizarrely disproportionate legal sanctions are often applied to those convicted of these acts , and with little reason beyond knee-jerk technophobia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We do a very poor job, globally, of distinguishing between electronic trespass and electronic breaking and entering.
In the rush to criminalize computer use deigned anti-social, bedrock concepts such as the above were not well-translated to electronic paradigms.
As such, bizarrely disproportionate legal sanctions are often applied to those convicted of these acts, and with little reason beyond knee-jerk technophobia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620</id>
	<title>Window analogy</title>
	<author>realsilly</author>
	<datestamp>1266946560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because a house has windows and they aren't covered by curtains does not mean that by looking through the window and reading an important document left near the window that you're aren't stealing info.  An unlocked door also doesn't mean you have the right to open it either.  Both are wrong.</p><p>Conversely, an unpublished website for a govt. agency... and they really thought that was secure?  Buahhahhahhahhahha!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because a house has windows and they are n't covered by curtains does not mean that by looking through the window and reading an important document left near the window that you 're are n't stealing info .
An unlocked door also does n't mean you have the right to open it either .
Both are wrong.Conversely , an unpublished website for a govt .
agency... and they really thought that was secure ?
Buahhahhahhahhahha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because a house has windows and they aren't covered by curtains does not mean that by looking through the window and reading an important document left near the window that you're aren't stealing info.
An unlocked door also doesn't mean you have the right to open it either.
Both are wrong.Conversely, an unpublished website for a govt.
agency... and they really thought that was secure?
Buahhahhahhahhahha!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31260582</id>
	<title>Re:fuckfuck</title>
	<author>pnutjam</author>
	<datestamp>1265131980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why nobody takes IT seriously, we over analyze everything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why nobody takes IT seriously , we over analyze everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why nobody takes IT seriously, we over analyze everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245678</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31250504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31266108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31251096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31251536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31249054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31253950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31260582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31270658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31257990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31253776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31250612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31254172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31251974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31255998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31249482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31256322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31250496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31250100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31255082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31250648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_157200_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31249052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31249054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31250648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31250496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31250612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31250100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31255082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31250504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31249482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31256322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31254172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246068
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31253776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31249052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31251974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246074
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247438
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31251096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245678
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31255998
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31260582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31266108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31251536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31257990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31270658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31247676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31248054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31250026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31246260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31252570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31253950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_157200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_157200.31245246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
