<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_24_025225</id>
	<title>Utah Considers Warrantless Internet Subpoenas</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267017000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>seneces writes <i>"The Utah State Legislature is considering a bill granting the Attorney General's Office the ability to <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci\_14455173">demand customer information from Internet or cell phone companies</a> via an administrative subpoena, with no judicial review (<a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2010/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0150.htm">text of the HB150</a>). This represents an expansion of a law passed last year, which granted that ability when 'it is suspected that a child-sex crime has been committed.' Since becoming law, last year's bill has led to more than one non-judicial request per day for subscriber information. Pete Ashdown, owner of a local ISP and 2006 candidate for the US Senate, has <a href="http://peteashdown.org/journal/2010/02/23/no-warrant-needed/">discussed his position and the effects of this bill</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>seneces writes " The Utah State Legislature is considering a bill granting the Attorney General 's Office the ability to demand customer information from Internet or cell phone companies via an administrative subpoena , with no judicial review ( text of the HB150 ) .
This represents an expansion of a law passed last year , which granted that ability when 'it is suspected that a child-sex crime has been committed .
' Since becoming law , last year 's bill has led to more than one non-judicial request per day for subscriber information .
Pete Ashdown , owner of a local ISP and 2006 candidate for the US Senate , has discussed his position and the effects of this bill .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seneces writes "The Utah State Legislature is considering a bill granting the Attorney General's Office the ability to demand customer information from Internet or cell phone companies via an administrative subpoena, with no judicial review (text of the HB150).
This represents an expansion of a law passed last year, which granted that ability when 'it is suspected that a child-sex crime has been committed.
' Since becoming law, last year's bill has led to more than one non-judicial request per day for subscriber information.
Pete Ashdown, owner of a local ISP and 2006 candidate for the US Senate, has discussed his position and the effects of this bill.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Under the Patriot Act, FBI agents may issue National Security Letters to obtain comprehensive financial and communications records about anyone, including people suspected of no wrongdoing and no connection to terrorists or foreign powers. To do this, the FBI merely needs to claim the information is relevant to an investigation<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;</p><p>This is why we can no longer depend upon the U.S. Supreme Court.  They've had almost ten years to nullify this unconstitutional law and have not done so.  Therefore I propose this:</p><p>The "Protect the 9th and 10th Amendments" Act.<br>-----   Proposed Amendment XXVIII.<br>Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the States declare the Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void.  It shall be as if the Law never existed.   -----  Section 2. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths* of the several States by the date January 1, 2050.</p><p>With this amendment, there'd be no need to wait for the 9 old people on the court.  You (and your neighbors) could collectively instruct the State Legislature to declare the law "unconstitutional".  Once 25 other legislatures have done the same, then the U.S. law would be voided, and there's be no more Patriot Act.</p><p>My proposed amendment would simplify the process, shorten the time that an unconstitutional law sits on the books (2-3 years, not decades), and most-importantly, not require citizens to sit in jail or otherwise be spied upon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Under the Patriot Act , FBI agents may issue National Security Letters to obtain comprehensive financial and communications records about anyone , including people suspected of no wrongdoing and no connection to terrorists or foreign powers .
To do this , the FBI merely needs to claim the information is relevant to an investigation &gt; &gt; &gt; This is why we can no longer depend upon the U.S. Supreme Court .
They 've had almost ten years to nullify this unconstitutional law and have not done so .
Therefore I propose this : The " Protect the 9th and 10th Amendments " Act.----- Proposed Amendment XXVIII.Section 1 .
After a Bill has become Law , if one-half of the States declare the Law to be " unconstitutional " it shall be null and void .
It shall be as if the Law never existed .
----- Section 2 .
This article shall be inoperative , unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths * of the several States by the date January 1 , 2050.With this amendment , there 'd be no need to wait for the 9 old people on the court .
You ( and your neighbors ) could collectively instruct the State Legislature to declare the law " unconstitutional " .
Once 25 other legislatures have done the same , then the U.S. law would be voided , and there 's be no more Patriot Act.My proposed amendment would simplify the process , shorten the time that an unconstitutional law sits on the books ( 2-3 years , not decades ) , and most-importantly , not require citizens to sit in jail or otherwise be spied upon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Under the Patriot Act, FBI agents may issue National Security Letters to obtain comprehensive financial and communications records about anyone, including people suspected of no wrongdoing and no connection to terrorists or foreign powers.
To do this, the FBI merely needs to claim the information is relevant to an investigation&gt;&gt;&gt;This is why we can no longer depend upon the U.S. Supreme Court.
They've had almost ten years to nullify this unconstitutional law and have not done so.
Therefore I propose this:The "Protect the 9th and 10th Amendments" Act.-----   Proposed Amendment XXVIII.Section 1.
After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the States declare the Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void.
It shall be as if the Law never existed.
-----  Section 2.
This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths* of the several States by the date January 1, 2050.With this amendment, there'd be no need to wait for the 9 old people on the court.
You (and your neighbors) could collectively instruct the State Legislature to declare the law "unconstitutional".
Once 25 other legislatures have done the same, then the U.S. law would be voided, and there's be no more Patriot Act.My proposed amendment would simplify the process, shorten the time that an unconstitutional law sits on the books (2-3 years, not decades), and most-importantly, not require citizens to sit in jail or otherwise be spied upon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258364</id>
	<title>Constituion?  What constitution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265120820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm of the mind that the issuance of an administrative warrant constitutes an act of treason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm of the mind that the issuance of an administrative warrant constitutes an act of treason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm of the mind that the issuance of an administrative warrant constitutes an act of treason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258928</id>
	<title>And of course, there's no real controls on it</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1265124240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They had the temerity to make law enforcement agencies that use this statute write a detailed report on their behavior every year to explain themselves, but did not so much as put anything in there to provide for their prosecution by state agencies if they abuse it. This is the worst kind of transparency as it says to the public, "yes, we know there are violations of the law, we have them right here, nicely documented, but damned if we'll do anything about it."</htmltext>
<tokenext>They had the temerity to make law enforcement agencies that use this statute write a detailed report on their behavior every year to explain themselves , but did not so much as put anything in there to provide for their prosecution by state agencies if they abuse it .
This is the worst kind of transparency as it says to the public , " yes , we know there are violations of the law , we have them right here , nicely documented , but damned if we 'll do anything about it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They had the temerity to make law enforcement agencies that use this statute write a detailed report on their behavior every year to explain themselves, but did not so much as put anything in there to provide for their prosecution by state agencies if they abuse it.
This is the worst kind of transparency as it says to the public, "yes, we know there are violations of the law, we have them right here, nicely documented, but damned if we'll do anything about it.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258706</id>
	<title>Re:Would still need a reason to request the data</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1265123100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But if there isn't a review what keeps them from making sure that everyone isn't trying to commit "cyber-stalking", "cyber-harassment" or thousands of possible felonies? The last time I check it isn't all that hard to commit some kind of felony offense. Odds are you or someone you know did something this week that a case could be built around. Something that didn't involve voter fraud, murder, poisoning a river or doing horrible things to innocent children.</p><p>So you ripped that tag off of the mattress. Can you prove that you don't know someone in the mattress manufacturing industry? I see that you received a rebate on that "product". Can you prove to the court that you did not conspire with the Serta to remove the tag and that the monetary incentive you received wasn't payment for that removal? I should also remind you that perjury will get you thrown in jail for the next 5 years and obstruction of justice, however we happen to define it, is also a crime, so please, answer the question.</p><p>Of course this is a silly example that I'd hope no jury would fall for, but the truth of it is if certain people want you in jail, odds are, you are going to jail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But if there is n't a review what keeps them from making sure that everyone is n't trying to commit " cyber-stalking " , " cyber-harassment " or thousands of possible felonies ?
The last time I check it is n't all that hard to commit some kind of felony offense .
Odds are you or someone you know did something this week that a case could be built around .
Something that did n't involve voter fraud , murder , poisoning a river or doing horrible things to innocent children.So you ripped that tag off of the mattress .
Can you prove that you do n't know someone in the mattress manufacturing industry ?
I see that you received a rebate on that " product " .
Can you prove to the court that you did not conspire with the Serta to remove the tag and that the monetary incentive you received was n't payment for that removal ?
I should also remind you that perjury will get you thrown in jail for the next 5 years and obstruction of justice , however we happen to define it , is also a crime , so please , answer the question.Of course this is a silly example that I 'd hope no jury would fall for , but the truth of it is if certain people want you in jail , odds are , you are going to jail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if there isn't a review what keeps them from making sure that everyone isn't trying to commit "cyber-stalking", "cyber-harassment" or thousands of possible felonies?
The last time I check it isn't all that hard to commit some kind of felony offense.
Odds are you or someone you know did something this week that a case could be built around.
Something that didn't involve voter fraud, murder, poisoning a river or doing horrible things to innocent children.So you ripped that tag off of the mattress.
Can you prove that you don't know someone in the mattress manufacturing industry?
I see that you received a rebate on that "product".
Can you prove to the court that you did not conspire with the Serta to remove the tag and that the monetary incentive you received wasn't payment for that removal?
I should also remind you that perjury will get you thrown in jail for the next 5 years and obstruction of justice, however we happen to define it, is also a crime, so please, answer the question.Of course this is a silly example that I'd hope no jury would fall for, but the truth of it is if certain people want you in jail, odds are, you are going to jail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258340</id>
	<title>Just another in a long...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265120640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just another thing in a long string of homophobic, bigoted, racist and now constitutional right removing crap out of Utah.

</p><p>Stay classy you pedophilic whack jobs.

</p><p>We shoulda wiped your asses out when there were only a few of you alone out in the desert.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just another thing in a long string of homophobic , bigoted , racist and now constitutional right removing crap out of Utah .
Stay classy you pedophilic whack jobs .
We shoulda wiped your asses out when there were only a few of you alone out in the desert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just another thing in a long string of homophobic, bigoted, racist and now constitutional right removing crap out of Utah.
Stay classy you pedophilic whack jobs.
We shoulda wiped your asses out when there were only a few of you alone out in the desert.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262486</id>
	<title>Don't ask for rationality from Utah</title>
	<author>ukemike</author>
	<datestamp>1265139360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Utah, and among religious conservatives in general when people talk about constitutional rights, they usually are talking about guns, and property rights.  Things like the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments are for pro-molester liberal pinko commies.  <br> <br>

Asking for rationality from religious conservative types is simply asking too much.  At the very foundation of any religion is the ability of it's adherents to believe in things that are contradicted by science or history.  They call it faith.  Once you've trained people accept faith over reason then those people are very susceptible to all sorts of other irrational ideas. Common fallacies that are picked up by such people include things like, "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear from warrantless searches" or "keep your government hands off of my medicare."</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Utah , and among religious conservatives in general when people talk about constitutional rights , they usually are talking about guns , and property rights .
Things like the 1st , 4th and 5th amendments are for pro-molester liberal pinko commies .
Asking for rationality from religious conservative types is simply asking too much .
At the very foundation of any religion is the ability of it 's adherents to believe in things that are contradicted by science or history .
They call it faith .
Once you 've trained people accept faith over reason then those people are very susceptible to all sorts of other irrational ideas .
Common fallacies that are picked up by such people include things like , " if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear from warrantless searches " or " keep your government hands off of my medicare .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Utah, and among religious conservatives in general when people talk about constitutional rights, they usually are talking about guns, and property rights.
Things like the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments are for pro-molester liberal pinko commies.
Asking for rationality from religious conservative types is simply asking too much.
At the very foundation of any religion is the ability of it's adherents to believe in things that are contradicted by science or history.
They call it faith.
Once you've trained people accept faith over reason then those people are very susceptible to all sorts of other irrational ideas.
Common fallacies that are picked up by such people include things like, "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear from warrantless searches" or "keep your government hands off of my medicare.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262790</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1265140800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That wouldn't help much in the case being discussed in the article, since it is a state law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would n't help much in the case being discussed in the article , since it is a state law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That wouldn't help much in the case being discussed in the article, since it is a state law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31263394</id>
	<title>Re:Yet Again...</title>
	<author>BeanThere</author>
	<datestamp>1265143260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually it's "politicians state the words 'for the good of the children', the *voters* turn their brains off, and the politicians abuse their power to beget more power". The politicians are the only ones with their brains working very well here --- it's their moral centers that are turned off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it 's " politicians state the words 'for the good of the children ' , the * voters * turn their brains off , and the politicians abuse their power to beget more power " .
The politicians are the only ones with their brains working very well here --- it 's their moral centers that are turned off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it's "politicians state the words 'for the good of the children', the *voters* turn their brains off, and the politicians abuse their power to beget more power".
The politicians are the only ones with their brains working very well here --- it's their moral centers that are turned off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260996</id>
	<title>Blatent violation of human rights.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265133480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would be so tough about just going to the judge and getting a warrant if they had probable cause?  If they don't have enough for probable cause, then why are they being allowed to make fishing trips into peoples accounts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would be so tough about just going to the judge and getting a warrant if they had probable cause ?
If they do n't have enough for probable cause , then why are they being allowed to make fishing trips into peoples accounts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would be so tough about just going to the judge and getting a warrant if they had probable cause?
If they don't have enough for probable cause, then why are they being allowed to make fishing trips into peoples accounts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259644</id>
	<title>Ugh</title>
	<author>PenguinGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1265127900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>makes me glad I am leaving the worthless state.  Don't know if the state I am moving to is any better, but it can't be any worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>makes me glad I am leaving the worthless state .
Do n't know if the state I am moving to is any better , but it ca n't be any worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>makes me glad I am leaving the worthless state.
Don't know if the state I am moving to is any better, but it can't be any worse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31267276</id>
	<title>Think of the Children!</title>
	<author>OrwellianLurker</author>
	<datestamp>1265119740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, think of their future-- don't you want them to be adults in a free society?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , think of their future-- do n't you want them to be adults in a free society ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, think of their future-- don't you want them to be adults in a free society?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31261818</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265136780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one is above the law, and no one should have access to warrant-less search and seizure.</p><p><a href="http://www.modbee.com/2008/07/16/v-print/361458/indictments-snare-bikers-stanislaus.html" title="modbee.com" rel="nofollow">Corrupt county Sheriff's Deputies and California Highway Patrol Officers</a> [modbee.com].  Corruption happens at all levels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one is above the law , and no one should have access to warrant-less search and seizure.Corrupt county Sheriff 's Deputies and California Highway Patrol Officers [ modbee.com ] .
Corruption happens at all levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one is above the law, and no one should have access to warrant-less search and seizure.Corrupt county Sheriff's Deputies and California Highway Patrol Officers [modbee.com].
Corruption happens at all levels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259562</id>
	<title>Re:Apparently Constitution doesn't apply in Utah</title>
	<author>EL\_mal0</author>
	<datestamp>1265127600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that I agree with the bill, but I suppose I could be considered one of those militant constitutional crusaders from Utah.</p><p>I believe the argument is somewhere along the lines of, "Criminals give up their rights, including the right to keep the state out of their business, when they commit a crime."  I doubt you'd find too many people who disagree with this line of reasoning.  However, there is that probable cause thing that makes legislation like this confusing to me.</p><p>On the other hand, law abiding citizens <b>do</b> expect the government to stay out their business.  This holds true for a range of issues, be it health care, perceived land grabs for environmental protection (<a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700010372/2-new-national-monuments-in-Utah.html" title="deseretnews.com">link</a> [deseretnews.com]), gun control, etc.</p><p>Not saying I agree with all aspects of where this reasoning goes, but you asked how these positions are rationalized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I agree with the bill , but I suppose I could be considered one of those militant constitutional crusaders from Utah.I believe the argument is somewhere along the lines of , " Criminals give up their rights , including the right to keep the state out of their business , when they commit a crime .
" I doubt you 'd find too many people who disagree with this line of reasoning .
However , there is that probable cause thing that makes legislation like this confusing to me.On the other hand , law abiding citizens do expect the government to stay out their business .
This holds true for a range of issues , be it health care , perceived land grabs for environmental protection ( link [ deseretnews.com ] ) , gun control , etc.Not saying I agree with all aspects of where this reasoning goes , but you asked how these positions are rationalized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I agree with the bill, but I suppose I could be considered one of those militant constitutional crusaders from Utah.I believe the argument is somewhere along the lines of, "Criminals give up their rights, including the right to keep the state out of their business, when they commit a crime.
"  I doubt you'd find too many people who disagree with this line of reasoning.
However, there is that probable cause thing that makes legislation like this confusing to me.On the other hand, law abiding citizens do expect the government to stay out their business.
This holds true for a range of issues, be it health care, perceived land grabs for environmental protection (link [deseretnews.com]), gun control, etc.Not saying I agree with all aspects of where this reasoning goes, but you asked how these positions are rationalized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258494</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1265121900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If a LEO sees something on a forum or in real time in a chat room, they cannot wait for paperwork from a judge to be filed, signed, stamped, sealed, delivered back to a LEO and then driven out to an isp to try its best searching a database for an ip and address 24-48 h later.<br>
Just trust the city or state police.  Its not like the 1960's or 1970's, they have cleaned up at all levels - really.<br>They work on multi year federal and international cases and there has been decades of quality law reform in every state of the union.<br>
Cointelpro was in the distant past, the Missouri Information Analysis Center report was a misunderstanding and quickly cleared up in the mainstream press.<br>
Just give your local LEO the tools they need to make the internet safe from power points of demonic activity.<br>
New net laws will allow the modern Utah internet user to have a faster internet again, ensuring shorter working hours, more safe time with the family online and lower mortgages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a LEO sees something on a forum or in real time in a chat room , they can not wait for paperwork from a judge to be filed , signed , stamped , sealed , delivered back to a LEO and then driven out to an isp to try its best searching a database for an ip and address 24-48 h later .
Just trust the city or state police .
Its not like the 1960 's or 1970 's , they have cleaned up at all levels - really.They work on multi year federal and international cases and there has been decades of quality law reform in every state of the union .
Cointelpro was in the distant past , the Missouri Information Analysis Center report was a misunderstanding and quickly cleared up in the mainstream press .
Just give your local LEO the tools they need to make the internet safe from power points of demonic activity .
New net laws will allow the modern Utah internet user to have a faster internet again , ensuring shorter working hours , more safe time with the family online and lower mortgages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a LEO sees something on a forum or in real time in a chat room, they cannot wait for paperwork from a judge to be filed, signed, stamped, sealed, delivered back to a LEO and then driven out to an isp to try its best searching a database for an ip and address 24-48 h later.
Just trust the city or state police.
Its not like the 1960's or 1970's, they have cleaned up at all levels - really.They work on multi year federal and international cases and there has been decades of quality law reform in every state of the union.
Cointelpro was in the distant past, the Missouri Information Analysis Center report was a misunderstanding and quickly cleared up in the mainstream press.
Just give your local LEO the tools they need to make the internet safe from power points of demonic activity.
New net laws will allow the modern Utah internet user to have a faster internet again, ensuring shorter working hours, more safe time with the family online and lower mortgages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31265882</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, won't you think of the children?</title>
	<author>SimonInOz</author>
	<datestamp>1265110680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Er<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... did you read my post? I mean, not reading the article is one thing, but not reading the post you are responding to, that's just weird.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Er ... did you read my post ?
I mean , not reading the article is one thing , but not reading the post you are responding to , that 's just weird .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Er ... did you read my post?
I mean, not reading the article is one thing, but not reading the post you are responding to, that's just weird.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258238</id>
	<title>Please, think of the children!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265119860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260658</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1265132280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should also include somewhere that the potential unconstitutionality of a law is in itself sufficient cause of action. That is, a law can be brought up for constitutional review without someone being on trial first. That would speed up the review process and keep the DOJ from protecting bad laws by dropping their prosecution just before it would reach the Supreme Court (but after dragging the defendant through hell for several years).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should also include somewhere that the potential unconstitutionality of a law is in itself sufficient cause of action .
That is , a law can be brought up for constitutional review without someone being on trial first .
That would speed up the review process and keep the DOJ from protecting bad laws by dropping their prosecution just before it would reach the Supreme Court ( but after dragging the defendant through hell for several years ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should also include somewhere that the potential unconstitutionality of a law is in itself sufficient cause of action.
That is, a law can be brought up for constitutional review without someone being on trial first.
That would speed up the review process and keep the DOJ from protecting bad laws by dropping their prosecution just before it would reach the Supreme Court (but after dragging the defendant through hell for several years).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258304</id>
	<title>Would still need a reason to request the data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265120400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not that I agree with the bill, but the summary obviously left out important details.<p><div class="quote"><p>His amended bill limits the power to suspected felonies and two misdemeanors -- cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I agree with the bill , but the summary obviously left out important details.His amended bill limits the power to suspected felonies and two misdemeanors -- cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I agree with the bill, but the summary obviously left out important details.His amended bill limits the power to suspected felonies and two misdemeanors -- cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260906</id>
	<title>bah Utah</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1265133120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can we please expel Utah from the union?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>can we please expel Utah from the union ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can we please expel Utah from the union?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260392</id>
	<title>Re:And now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265131080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's in that for government? The goal is power and revenue, not justice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's in that for government ?
The goal is power and revenue , not justice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's in that for government?
The goal is power and revenue, not justice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260028</id>
	<title>Re:Apparently Constitution doesn't apply in Utah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265129460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget Utah legislature invalidating by decree the scientific evidence for global warming, don't forget polygamy, &amp; be sure to read "Under the Banner of Heaven".  Utah is a wierd experience in so many ways.  OTOH it has incredible natural beauty &amp; great skiing.</p><p>PS no relation to Noel...:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget Utah legislature invalidating by decree the scientific evidence for global warming , do n't forget polygamy , &amp; be sure to read " Under the Banner of Heaven " .
Utah is a wierd experience in so many ways .
OTOH it has incredible natural beauty &amp; great skiing.PS no relation to Noel... : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget Utah legislature invalidating by decree the scientific evidence for global warming, don't forget polygamy, &amp; be sure to read "Under the Banner of Heaven".
Utah is a wierd experience in so many ways.
OTOH it has incredible natural beauty &amp; great skiing.PS no relation to Noel...:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31264418</id>
	<title>You're forgetting terrorism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265104800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've lost track of the number of rights we've lost thanks to this country's so-called "war on terror".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've lost track of the number of rights we 've lost thanks to this country 's so-called " war on terror " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've lost track of the number of rights we've lost thanks to this country's so-called "war on terror".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258514</id>
	<title>The Utah Conservative...</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1265122020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...only believes in limited government when morality isn't a factor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...only believes in limited government when morality is n't a factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...only believes in limited government when morality isn't a factor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31263656</id>
	<title>Re:Are you fucking serious!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265101260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>actually we only vote for those that don't have any understanding</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>actually we only vote for those that do n't have any understanding</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually we only vote for those that don't have any understanding</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262672</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, won't you think of the children?</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1265140200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have children, consider this: Do you really want your children to grow up into a world constrained by Stalinist laws, even if said laws are passed to "think of the children" in the present??</p><p>IOW: Is it worth saving the children now, only to destroy their future??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have children , consider this : Do you really want your children to grow up into a world constrained by Stalinist laws , even if said laws are passed to " think of the children " in the present ?
? IOW : Is it worth saving the children now , only to destroy their future ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have children, consider this: Do you really want your children to grow up into a world constrained by Stalinist laws, even if said laws are passed to "think of the children" in the present?
?IOW: Is it worth saving the children now, only to destroy their future?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260840</id>
	<title>Re:Would still need a reason to request the data</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1265132880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>History suggests the limitations are null, so the summary ignores them. It just means that every suspect will be suspected of X and cyber-harrassment. Once the police have what they want they'll declare that the cyber-harrassment didn't pan out, and use the info to prosecute for X. If the bill declares that the information (or anything that information might lead to) may not be used for any other purpose (especially evidence in court), then it will be a real limitation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>History suggests the limitations are null , so the summary ignores them .
It just means that every suspect will be suspected of X and cyber-harrassment .
Once the police have what they want they 'll declare that the cyber-harrassment did n't pan out , and use the info to prosecute for X. If the bill declares that the information ( or anything that information might lead to ) may not be used for any other purpose ( especially evidence in court ) , then it will be a real limitation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>History suggests the limitations are null, so the summary ignores them.
It just means that every suspect will be suspected of X and cyber-harrassment.
Once the police have what they want they'll declare that the cyber-harrassment didn't pan out, and use the info to prosecute for X. If the bill declares that the information (or anything that information might lead to) may not be used for any other purpose (especially evidence in court), then it will be a real limitation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258362</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1265120760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah, you mean an "administrative omelet"... Perfectly standard and legal, I assure you. Plus, its presence on the menu is our only defence against the paedoterrorist menace.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , you mean an " administrative omelet " ... Perfectly standard and legal , I assure you .
Plus , its presence on the menu is our only defence against the paedoterrorist menace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, you mean an "administrative omelet"... Perfectly standard and legal, I assure you.
Plus, its presence on the menu is our only defence against the paedoterrorist menace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259702</id>
	<title>Re:Apparently Constitution doesn't apply in Utah</title>
	<author>iluvcapra</author>
	<datestamp>1265128080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the same Utah that is about to pass a law stating that a woman who has a miscarriage "recklessly" is <a href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/02/19/utah-passes-bill-that-charges-women-for-illegal-abortion-or-miscarriage" title="rhrealitycheck.org">liable to a murder charge</a> [rhrealitycheck.org].  The legislature probably relishes the idea of mandatory pregnancy testing in order to properly enforce the law...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the same Utah that is about to pass a law stating that a woman who has a miscarriage " recklessly " is liable to a murder charge [ rhrealitycheck.org ] .
The legislature probably relishes the idea of mandatory pregnancy testing in order to properly enforce the law.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the same Utah that is about to pass a law stating that a woman who has a miscarriage "recklessly" is liable to a murder charge [rhrealitycheck.org].
The legislature probably relishes the idea of mandatory pregnancy testing in order to properly enforce the law...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262892</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>tsstahl</author>
	<datestamp>1265141340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last I checked, the PATRIOT act is still going strong...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked , the PATRIOT act is still going strong.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked, the PATRIOT act is still going strong...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31264646</id>
	<title>Re:Internet privacy is GONE.</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265105700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If someone blew the whistle that the government was steaming open everyone's mail that passed through the USPS, people would be going ape-shit.</p></div><p>Not really. Not if they claimed they're doing this to catch the evil terrorists / pedos etc.</p><p>It's not just Internet privacy is gone. Privacy in general is gone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone blew the whistle that the government was steaming open everyone 's mail that passed through the USPS , people would be going ape-shit.Not really .
Not if they claimed they 're doing this to catch the evil terrorists / pedos etc.It 's not just Internet privacy is gone .
Privacy in general is gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone blew the whistle that the government was steaming open everyone's mail that passed through the USPS, people would be going ape-shit.Not really.
Not if they claimed they're doing this to catch the evil terrorists / pedos etc.It's not just Internet privacy is gone.
Privacy in general is gone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258456</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1265121600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Patriot Act made this SOP at the federal level for anything related to a terrorism investigation.</p></div><p>Who said they limited this to terrorism investigations? There's some evidence that these are in fact being misused for non-terrorism cases.</p><p>Oh, and NSLs are probably just as unconstitutional as this bill. The issue with them, though, is that the person who would take the serious risk of challenging one in court is not actually the target of the investigation, but whoever the NSL is issued to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Patriot Act made this SOP at the federal level for anything related to a terrorism investigation.Who said they limited this to terrorism investigations ?
There 's some evidence that these are in fact being misused for non-terrorism cases.Oh , and NSLs are probably just as unconstitutional as this bill .
The issue with them , though , is that the person who would take the serious risk of challenging one in court is not actually the target of the investigation , but whoever the NSL is issued to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Patriot Act made this SOP at the federal level for anything related to a terrorism investigation.Who said they limited this to terrorism investigations?
There's some evidence that these are in fact being misused for non-terrorism cases.Oh, and NSLs are probably just as unconstitutional as this bill.
The issue with them, though, is that the person who would take the serious risk of challenging one in court is not actually the target of the investigation, but whoever the NSL is issued to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31261586</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265135880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good intentions / idea in general. The only problem is, that of course &ldquo;States&rdquo; means &ldquo;state governments&rdquo;, meaning: &ldquo;not the dickheads (judges) themselves, but instead their best friends, shall make the descision&rdquo;. Which of course changes nothing at all.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p><p>What is needed is to fix the fundamental problems:<br>1. Enact a direct democracy.<br>2. Split the country / states into smaller units, so that common views and laws are at all possible. (They are not, right now. Since there are at least two strong groups, that strongly disagree with each other on everything.)</p><p>There is nothing bad in making the US two countries. as a whole, all of you would be happier. And you could still team up on everything you wanted / agreed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good intentions / idea in general .
The only problem is , that of course    States    means    state governments    , meaning :    not the dickheads ( judges ) themselves , but instead their best friends , shall make the descision    .
Which of course changes nothing at all .
: /What is needed is to fix the fundamental problems : 1 .
Enact a direct democracy.2 .
Split the country / states into smaller units , so that common views and laws are at all possible .
( They are not , right now .
Since there are at least two strong groups , that strongly disagree with each other on everything .
) There is nothing bad in making the US two countries .
as a whole , all of you would be happier .
And you could still team up on everything you wanted / agreed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good intentions / idea in general.
The only problem is, that of course “States” means “state governments”, meaning: “not the dickheads (judges) themselves, but instead their best friends, shall make the descision”.
Which of course changes nothing at all.
:/What is needed is to fix the fundamental problems:1.
Enact a direct democracy.2.
Split the country / states into smaller units, so that common views and laws are at all possible.
(They are not, right now.
Since there are at least two strong groups, that strongly disagree with each other on everything.
)There is nothing bad in making the US two countries.
as a whole, all of you would be happier.
And you could still team up on everything you wanted / agreed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258400</id>
	<title>IANAL</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1265121000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i thought judges issued subpoenas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i thought judges issued subpoenas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i thought judges issued subpoenas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31263356</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, won't you think of the children?</title>
	<author>BeanThere</author>
	<datestamp>1265143080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is no question that "all power corrupts".</p></div><p>I don't really agree that 'all power corrupts', as the parroty meme goes, but in general it does tend to, and I do agree that in most cases, power begets more power, by its nature. But this is why the 2nd Amendment is there, to help create a balance of power in favor of the liberty of individuals. Governments have stepped way too far beyond their mandate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no question that " all power corrupts " .I do n't really agree that 'all power corrupts ' , as the parroty meme goes , but in general it does tend to , and I do agree that in most cases , power begets more power , by its nature .
But this is why the 2nd Amendment is there , to help create a balance of power in favor of the liberty of individuals .
Governments have stepped way too far beyond their mandate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no question that "all power corrupts".I don't really agree that 'all power corrupts', as the parroty meme goes, but in general it does tend to, and I do agree that in most cases, power begets more power, by its nature.
But this is why the 2nd Amendment is there, to help create a balance of power in favor of the liberty of individuals.
Governments have stepped way too far beyond their mandate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258536</id>
	<title>Yet Again...</title>
	<author>TheSpoom</author>
	<datestamp>1265122200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Politicians hear the words "for the good of the children" and their brains turn off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Politicians hear the words " for the good of the children " and their brains turn off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politicians hear the words "for the good of the children" and their brains turn off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258348</id>
	<title>BB</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265120700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As always, Big Brother comes in small, fairly digestible steps. Note<br>the progression below:</p><p>&gt; Last year, the Legislature granted prosecutors subpoena power<br>&gt; when they suspect a child-sex crime has been committed.</p><p>Here it was one crime...of course the one, where it's really hard to<br>say no to such a bill. Then we continue, as is not just to be<br>expected but a given:</p><p>&gt; Daw's bill initially had sought to expand the authority to any<br>&gt; crime, but committee members balked at such broad power last<br>&gt; Friday. His amended bill limits the power to suspected felonies<br>&gt; and two misdemeanors -- cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment.</p><p>So now it's child-sex crimes + SUSPECTED felonies + 2 misdemeanors.</p><p>In a couple of years, give or take, it'll become standard-operating<br>procedure applying at will to *everyone*. And that, ladies and<br>gentlemen, is the problem with taking away basic rights from the<br>people. It will always get worse, because nobody wants to lose their<br>shiny new toys anymore that give you almost god-power over other's.<br>Except, of course, you're in Soviet Russia. There Big Brother<br>doesn't subpoena your ISP records but the actual user for, uh,<br>re-education. A bit more of this stuff above and we'll be there too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As always , Big Brother comes in small , fairly digestible steps .
Notethe progression below : &gt; Last year , the Legislature granted prosecutors subpoena power &gt; when they suspect a child-sex crime has been committed.Here it was one crime...of course the one , where it 's really hard tosay no to such a bill .
Then we continue , as is not just to beexpected but a given : &gt; Daw 's bill initially had sought to expand the authority to any &gt; crime , but committee members balked at such broad power last &gt; Friday .
His amended bill limits the power to suspected felonies &gt; and two misdemeanors -- cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment.So now it 's child-sex crimes + SUSPECTED felonies + 2 misdemeanors.In a couple of years , give or take , it 'll become standard-operatingprocedure applying at will to * everyone * .
And that , ladies andgentlemen , is the problem with taking away basic rights from thepeople .
It will always get worse , because nobody wants to lose theirshiny new toys anymore that give you almost god-power over other 's.Except , of course , you 're in Soviet Russia .
There Big Brotherdoes n't subpoena your ISP records but the actual user for , uh,re-education .
A bit more of this stuff above and we 'll be there too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As always, Big Brother comes in small, fairly digestible steps.
Notethe progression below:&gt; Last year, the Legislature granted prosecutors subpoena power&gt; when they suspect a child-sex crime has been committed.Here it was one crime...of course the one, where it's really hard tosay no to such a bill.
Then we continue, as is not just to beexpected but a given:&gt; Daw's bill initially had sought to expand the authority to any&gt; crime, but committee members balked at such broad power last&gt; Friday.
His amended bill limits the power to suspected felonies&gt; and two misdemeanors -- cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment.So now it's child-sex crimes + SUSPECTED felonies + 2 misdemeanors.In a couple of years, give or take, it'll become standard-operatingprocedure applying at will to *everyone*.
And that, ladies andgentlemen, is the problem with taking away basic rights from thepeople.
It will always get worse, because nobody wants to lose theirshiny new toys anymore that give you almost god-power over other's.Except, of course, you're in Soviet Russia.
There Big Brotherdoesn't subpoena your ISP records but the actual user for, uh,re-education.
A bit more of this stuff above and we'll be there too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260728</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, won't you think of the children?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265132520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck almighty, shit.  Why must all posts on this fucking topic always begin with pablum like 'Child sex crime is horrible.'.  No shit, dickshaft.  Are you afraid I am going to read the rest of your post where you layout your logical and reasoned arguments against something tangentially related to child sex crimes, and come away thinking your a baby rapist? A big fucking rhetorical pussy, yes, but not a baby rapist.</p><p>Just fucking say what you want to say about this shitty law without feeling the need to preface it with a vapid statement.</p><p>Same goes for you 'Now, I'm not racist' cocksuckers, 'I believe in equality among the sexes, but...' faggots, 'I don't support terrorism, however...' assfucks and anyone else who prefaces their ideas with worthless self-serving statements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck almighty , shit .
Why must all posts on this fucking topic always begin with pablum like 'Child sex crime is horrible.' .
No shit , dickshaft .
Are you afraid I am going to read the rest of your post where you layout your logical and reasoned arguments against something tangentially related to child sex crimes , and come away thinking your a baby rapist ?
A big fucking rhetorical pussy , yes , but not a baby rapist.Just fucking say what you want to say about this shitty law without feeling the need to preface it with a vapid statement.Same goes for you 'Now , I 'm not racist ' cocksuckers , 'I believe in equality among the sexes , but... ' faggots , 'I do n't support terrorism , however... ' assfucks and anyone else who prefaces their ideas with worthless self-serving statements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck almighty, shit.
Why must all posts on this fucking topic always begin with pablum like 'Child sex crime is horrible.'.
No shit, dickshaft.
Are you afraid I am going to read the rest of your post where you layout your logical and reasoned arguments against something tangentially related to child sex crimes, and come away thinking your a baby rapist?
A big fucking rhetorical pussy, yes, but not a baby rapist.Just fucking say what you want to say about this shitty law without feeling the need to preface it with a vapid statement.Same goes for you 'Now, I'm not racist' cocksuckers, 'I believe in equality among the sexes, but...' faggots, 'I don't support terrorism, however...' assfucks and anyone else who prefaces their ideas with worthless self-serving statements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259170</id>
	<title>Re: Child abuse is the new Godwin.</title>
	<author>JaredOfEuropa</author>
	<datestamp>1265125560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly, and just as I predicted.  Child abuse and kiddie porn should be added as a clause to Godwin's law when it comes to legislative discussions: sooner or later someone is going to bring up "The Children" to defend their side of the argument.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , and just as I predicted .
Child abuse and kiddie porn should be added as a clause to Godwin 's law when it comes to legislative discussions : sooner or later someone is going to bring up " The Children " to defend their side of the argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, and just as I predicted.
Child abuse and kiddie porn should be added as a clause to Godwin's law when it comes to legislative discussions: sooner or later someone is going to bring up "The Children" to defend their side of the argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260586</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265131980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This from slashdot user "AHuxley"!  Well done, sir.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This from slashdot user " AHuxley " !
Well done , sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This from slashdot user "AHuxley"!
Well done, sir.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258594</id>
	<title>Re:And now</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1265122560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Laws should not be passed just based on how they are to be used.<br><br>They should be passed based on how they can be abused. If there are too many ways they can be abused (or if the impact of abuse is high), they should not be passed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Laws should not be passed just based on how they are to be used.They should be passed based on how they can be abused .
If there are too many ways they can be abused ( or if the impact of abuse is high ) , they should not be passed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laws should not be passed just based on how they are to be used.They should be passed based on how they can be abused.
If there are too many ways they can be abused (or if the impact of abuse is high), they should not be passed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31267660</id>
	<title>4th Amendment Violation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really wish more people would read and understand the Constitution so that we wouldn't have our rights chipped away by the government. This is an outright violation of the Constitution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really wish more people would read and understand the Constitution so that we would n't have our rights chipped away by the government .
This is an outright violation of the Constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really wish more people would read and understand the Constitution so that we wouldn't have our rights chipped away by the government.
This is an outright violation of the Constitution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260698</id>
	<title>Re:Rationale: personal preferences</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265132340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Those are my personal opinions. Yours may be different."</p></div><p>The ability to think like that is beyond the ability of most people much less Slashdotters who feel they could bring about world peace and love and prosperity if everyone would just stop laughing at them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Those are my personal opinions .
Yours may be different .
" The ability to think like that is beyond the ability of most people much less Slashdotters who feel they could bring about world peace and love and prosperity if everyone would just stop laughing at them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Those are my personal opinions.
Yours may be different.
"The ability to think like that is beyond the ability of most people much less Slashdotters who feel they could bring about world peace and love and prosperity if everyone would just stop laughing at them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259996</id>
	<title>Re:Would still need a reason to request the data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265129340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea dude your pointing that out only makes this law even worse.  cyber-harassment is an extremely broad thing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea dude your pointing that out only makes this law even worse .
cyber-harassment is an extremely broad thing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea dude your pointing that out only makes this law even worse.
cyber-harassment is an extremely broad thing</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258350</id>
	<title>If they would prosecute subverters of these laws</title>
	<author>Tangential</author>
	<datestamp>1265120700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Laws like this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/always/ end up being subverted for lots of other purposes.

I believe that if people who were found to have subverted it were vigorously prosecuted, then eventually, law enforcement/prosecutors would quit asking for such laws in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Laws like this /always/ end up being subverted for lots of other purposes .
I believe that if people who were found to have subverted it were vigorously prosecuted , then eventually , law enforcement/prosecutors would quit asking for such laws in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laws like this /always/ end up being subverted for lots of other purposes.
I believe that if people who were found to have subverted it were vigorously prosecuted, then eventually, law enforcement/prosecutors would quit asking for such laws in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31263784</id>
	<title>Re:And now</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1265101860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Laws should not be passed just based on how they are to be used.</i> <br> <br>You mean how their advocates <b>claim</b> they will be used...<br> <br> <i>They should be passed based on how they can be abused.</i> <br> <br>Which may be exactly how they are intended to be used in the first place.<br> <br> <i>f there are too many ways they can be abused (or if the impact of abuse is high), they should not be passed.</i> <br> <br>This is difficult when you have a political class. Either these people will be so out of touch with the public that they can't understand this or they just won't care since any abuse won't affect them and "theirs".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Laws should not be passed just based on how they are to be used .
You mean how their advocates claim they will be used... They should be passed based on how they can be abused .
Which may be exactly how they are intended to be used in the first place .
f there are too many ways they can be abused ( or if the impact of abuse is high ) , they should not be passed .
This is difficult when you have a political class .
Either these people will be so out of touch with the public that they ca n't understand this or they just wo n't care since any abuse wo n't affect them and " theirs " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laws should not be passed just based on how they are to be used.
You mean how their advocates claim they will be used...  They should be passed based on how they can be abused.
Which may be exactly how they are intended to be used in the first place.
f there are too many ways they can be abused (or if the impact of abuse is high), they should not be passed.
This is difficult when you have a political class.
Either these people will be so out of touch with the public that they can't understand this or they just won't care since any abuse won't affect them and "theirs".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258778</id>
	<title>you can not hide any more</title>
	<author>kubitus</author>
	<datestamp>1265123400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>.<p>
<a href="http://www.faz.net/s/Rub475F682E3FC24868A8A5276D4FB916D7/Doc~E2DB28F0A1D814E61BD8AE675DE76A85F~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html" title="faz.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.faz.net/s/Rub475F682E3FC24868A8A5276D4FB916D7/Doc~E2DB28F0A1D814E61BD8AE675DE76A85F~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html</a> [faz.net].</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>
and this holds true not for criminals, but more for ordinary people..</p><p>
Criminals have the means to use different mobilephones etc..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
http : //www.faz.net/s/Rub475F682E3FC24868A8A5276D4FB916D7/Doc ~ E2DB28F0A1D814E61BD8AE675DE76A85F ~ ATpl ~ Ecommon ~ Scontent.html [ faz.net ] .
. . and this holds true not for criminals , but more for ordinary people. . Criminals have the means to use different mobilephones etc. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
http://www.faz.net/s/Rub475F682E3FC24868A8A5276D4FB916D7/Doc~E2DB28F0A1D814E61BD8AE675DE76A85F~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html [faz.net].
..
and this holds true not for criminals, but more for ordinary people..
Criminals have the means to use different mobilephones etc..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259630</id>
	<title>Ah, Utah politics</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1265127840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Utah State Legislature</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...or, as it's more commonly known, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Utah State Legislature ...or , as it 's more commonly known , The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Utah State Legislature ...or, as it's more commonly known, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258258</id>
	<title>And now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265120040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a case study in why you can't pass exceptional legislation aimed at exceptional crimes. Just because a crime is particularly repugnant does not mean that we should lay down our rights to try and stop it. Don't be so lazy, find a better solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a case study in why you ca n't pass exceptional legislation aimed at exceptional crimes .
Just because a crime is particularly repugnant does not mean that we should lay down our rights to try and stop it .
Do n't be so lazy , find a better solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a case study in why you can't pass exceptional legislation aimed at exceptional crimes.
Just because a crime is particularly repugnant does not mean that we should lay down our rights to try and stop it.
Don't be so lazy, find a better solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258454</id>
	<title>Disturbing implications</title>
	<author>FrostDust</author>
	<datestamp>1265121540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More than one request per day, in suspicion of a child-sex crime?</p><p>There must be a lot of sick perverts in Utah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More than one request per day , in suspicion of a child-sex crime ? There must be a lot of sick perverts in Utah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More than one request per day, in suspicion of a child-sex crime?There must be a lot of sick perverts in Utah.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31265088</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1265107500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>(note: I might have a skewed view of state politics since I'm from Illinois - here's hoping our next elected Governor isn't arrested)</i></p><p>Hmmm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... One might take this as evidence that Illinois politics is <b>less</b> corrupt than most other states.  After all, in most states there isn't the slightest chance that a sitting governor would be arrested.  If this happens in Illinois, it means that the legal system isn't in the governor's pocket, and the governor can be held accountable for actions while in office.  Compared with states where a governor can get away with nearly anything, this is an extraordinary instance of law enforcement against the powerful.</p><p>Of course, I could be wrong, and the Illinois politicians are so over-the-top corrupt that they offend even the on-the-take police and prosecutors.  That's hard to believe, but I suppose it's possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( note : I might have a skewed view of state politics since I 'm from Illinois - here 's hoping our next elected Governor is n't arrested ) Hmmm ... One might take this as evidence that Illinois politics is less corrupt than most other states .
After all , in most states there is n't the slightest chance that a sitting governor would be arrested .
If this happens in Illinois , it means that the legal system is n't in the governor 's pocket , and the governor can be held accountable for actions while in office .
Compared with states where a governor can get away with nearly anything , this is an extraordinary instance of law enforcement against the powerful.Of course , I could be wrong , and the Illinois politicians are so over-the-top corrupt that they offend even the on-the-take police and prosecutors .
That 's hard to believe , but I suppose it 's possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(note: I might have a skewed view of state politics since I'm from Illinois - here's hoping our next elected Governor isn't arrested)Hmmm ... One might take this as evidence that Illinois politics is less corrupt than most other states.
After all, in most states there isn't the slightest chance that a sitting governor would be arrested.
If this happens in Illinois, it means that the legal system isn't in the governor's pocket, and the governor can be held accountable for actions while in office.
Compared with states where a governor can get away with nearly anything, this is an extraordinary instance of law enforcement against the powerful.Of course, I could be wrong, and the Illinois politicians are so over-the-top corrupt that they offend even the on-the-take police and prosecutors.
That's hard to believe, but I suppose it's possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31261198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258468</id>
	<title>Are you fucking serious!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265121660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's obvious you do not need an understanding of history <i>or</i> the constitution to be a politician in Utah.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's obvious you do not need an understanding of history or the constitution to be a politician in Utah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's obvious you do not need an understanding of history or the constitution to be a politician in Utah.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31266002</id>
	<title>Contact information for Rep. Daw</title>
	<author>Ifandbut</author>
	<datestamp>1265111340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Representative<br>Bradley M. Daw<br>District 60<br>Party R</p><p>Email: bdaw@utah.gov</p><p>Born: February 7<br>Spouse: Laura<br>Address: 842 E 280 S, OREM, UT  84097<br>Home Phone: Work Phone: Cell Phone: 801-850-3608</p><p>I sent him a e-mail and actually received a response. Here is the text of my e-mails and his replies with edits to remove my personal information.</p><p>-<br>Dear Rep. Daw,</p><p>Today I was deeply offended and appalled to see the article in The Deseret News concerning HB0150. This bill is a clear violation of a citizen's Fourth Amendment right to due process. American citizens should not be subjected to warrant-less searches, and that is exactly what HB0150 does. The law first passed last year was restricted to child-sex crimes, now you want to change it to be restricted to felonies, e-stalking and e-harassment (both are misdemeanors).</p><p>What is next, warrant-less searches for supporters of your political opposition? Warrant-less searches of non-Mormons? Can you not see how this law can be abused and the very slippery slope you are on? I thought that republicans were suposed to be opposed to this sort of big government intrusion?</p><p>I urge you to reconsider your support for this bill, both on a moral and constitutional grounds.</p><p>Thank you,<br>K<br>Ogden, UT</p><p>-<br>K,</p><p>Citizens are not being subjected to warrantless searches. Citizens aren't being searched at all. All that the subpoena can do is request a phone company or internet service provider to supply the name and address of the account owner of a phone number or IP address. The bill narrowly defines what information can be requested of the business and requires that any subpoena issued has to be put on file with the Commission for Criminal and Juvenile Justice for later review. This is no slippery slope but is, I believe, an appropriate response to anonymity afforded criminals who use the internet and cell phones to commit crime.</p><p>Brad Daw</p><p>-<br>Rep. Daw,</p><p>First, I do honestly appreciate that you took the time to reply to me in such a timely manner. When I sent this e-mail I honestly did not expect it to even reach your eyes. Thank you.</p><p>Now, I must respectfully disagree about this not being a slippery slope. First the law was restricted to one of the worst crimes possible, child-sex crimes. Now you are broadening the law to all felonies and two misdemeanors. Originally you wanted this bill to encompass all crimes. If this bill gets passed then it would be a simple matter for someone to come by next year and amend the law to broaden the it more.</p><p>Also, I consider my personal information to be part of me. I consider obtaining this information, including bank records, without judicial review or my consent, to be a violation of my privacy.</p><p>Thank you again for taking the time to read my e-mail and reply to me. Now, I must again urge your to reconsider your support of this bill.</p><p>-</p><p>K,</p><p>Bank records is a misreport in the Tribune. The bill allows the AG to obtain the method of payment to the provider, not bank records. Let me walk you through the safeguards that are in place.</p><p>1. Very limited scope of what can be requested on the subpoena.<br>2. At least three people in the AGs office have to sign off on it.<br>3. A copy of the subpoena must be filed with CCJJ for later audit.<br>4. The provider is free to refuse the subpoena at which point it would have to be ajudicated.<br>5. This power has been exercised by the federal government for decades with no evidence of abuse.<br>6. This power has been exercised by the federal government for decades with no constitutional challenge.<br>7. This can only be used for felonies or two specific misdemeanors.<br>8. If there is any hint of abuse, ISPs could complain to the legislature and the law would be repealed in one quick hurry and the AG would very well know that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RepresentativeBradley M. DawDistrict 60Party REmail : bdaw @ utah.govBorn : February 7Spouse : LauraAddress : 842 E 280 S , OREM , UT 84097Home Phone : Work Phone : Cell Phone : 801-850-3608I sent him a e-mail and actually received a response .
Here is the text of my e-mails and his replies with edits to remove my personal information.-Dear Rep. Daw,Today I was deeply offended and appalled to see the article in The Deseret News concerning HB0150 .
This bill is a clear violation of a citizen 's Fourth Amendment right to due process .
American citizens should not be subjected to warrant-less searches , and that is exactly what HB0150 does .
The law first passed last year was restricted to child-sex crimes , now you want to change it to be restricted to felonies , e-stalking and e-harassment ( both are misdemeanors ) .What is next , warrant-less searches for supporters of your political opposition ?
Warrant-less searches of non-Mormons ?
Can you not see how this law can be abused and the very slippery slope you are on ?
I thought that republicans were suposed to be opposed to this sort of big government intrusion ? I urge you to reconsider your support for this bill , both on a moral and constitutional grounds.Thank you,KOgden , UT-K,Citizens are not being subjected to warrantless searches .
Citizens are n't being searched at all .
All that the subpoena can do is request a phone company or internet service provider to supply the name and address of the account owner of a phone number or IP address .
The bill narrowly defines what information can be requested of the business and requires that any subpoena issued has to be put on file with the Commission for Criminal and Juvenile Justice for later review .
This is no slippery slope but is , I believe , an appropriate response to anonymity afforded criminals who use the internet and cell phones to commit crime.Brad Daw-Rep. Daw,First , I do honestly appreciate that you took the time to reply to me in such a timely manner .
When I sent this e-mail I honestly did not expect it to even reach your eyes .
Thank you.Now , I must respectfully disagree about this not being a slippery slope .
First the law was restricted to one of the worst crimes possible , child-sex crimes .
Now you are broadening the law to all felonies and two misdemeanors .
Originally you wanted this bill to encompass all crimes .
If this bill gets passed then it would be a simple matter for someone to come by next year and amend the law to broaden the it more.Also , I consider my personal information to be part of me .
I consider obtaining this information , including bank records , without judicial review or my consent , to be a violation of my privacy.Thank you again for taking the time to read my e-mail and reply to me .
Now , I must again urge your to reconsider your support of this bill.-K,Bank records is a misreport in the Tribune .
The bill allows the AG to obtain the method of payment to the provider , not bank records .
Let me walk you through the safeguards that are in place.1 .
Very limited scope of what can be requested on the subpoena.2 .
At least three people in the AGs office have to sign off on it.3 .
A copy of the subpoena must be filed with CCJJ for later audit.4 .
The provider is free to refuse the subpoena at which point it would have to be ajudicated.5 .
This power has been exercised by the federal government for decades with no evidence of abuse.6 .
This power has been exercised by the federal government for decades with no constitutional challenge.7 .
This can only be used for felonies or two specific misdemeanors.8 .
If there is any hint of abuse , ISPs could complain to the legislature and the law would be repealed in one quick hurry and the AG would very well know that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RepresentativeBradley M. DawDistrict 60Party REmail: bdaw@utah.govBorn: February 7Spouse: LauraAddress: 842 E 280 S, OREM, UT  84097Home Phone: Work Phone: Cell Phone: 801-850-3608I sent him a e-mail and actually received a response.
Here is the text of my e-mails and his replies with edits to remove my personal information.-Dear Rep. Daw,Today I was deeply offended and appalled to see the article in The Deseret News concerning HB0150.
This bill is a clear violation of a citizen's Fourth Amendment right to due process.
American citizens should not be subjected to warrant-less searches, and that is exactly what HB0150 does.
The law first passed last year was restricted to child-sex crimes, now you want to change it to be restricted to felonies, e-stalking and e-harassment (both are misdemeanors).What is next, warrant-less searches for supporters of your political opposition?
Warrant-less searches of non-Mormons?
Can you not see how this law can be abused and the very slippery slope you are on?
I thought that republicans were suposed to be opposed to this sort of big government intrusion?I urge you to reconsider your support for this bill, both on a moral and constitutional grounds.Thank you,KOgden, UT-K,Citizens are not being subjected to warrantless searches.
Citizens aren't being searched at all.
All that the subpoena can do is request a phone company or internet service provider to supply the name and address of the account owner of a phone number or IP address.
The bill narrowly defines what information can be requested of the business and requires that any subpoena issued has to be put on file with the Commission for Criminal and Juvenile Justice for later review.
This is no slippery slope but is, I believe, an appropriate response to anonymity afforded criminals who use the internet and cell phones to commit crime.Brad Daw-Rep. Daw,First, I do honestly appreciate that you took the time to reply to me in such a timely manner.
When I sent this e-mail I honestly did not expect it to even reach your eyes.
Thank you.Now, I must respectfully disagree about this not being a slippery slope.
First the law was restricted to one of the worst crimes possible, child-sex crimes.
Now you are broadening the law to all felonies and two misdemeanors.
Originally you wanted this bill to encompass all crimes.
If this bill gets passed then it would be a simple matter for someone to come by next year and amend the law to broaden the it more.Also, I consider my personal information to be part of me.
I consider obtaining this information, including bank records, without judicial review or my consent, to be a violation of my privacy.Thank you again for taking the time to read my e-mail and reply to me.
Now, I must again urge your to reconsider your support of this bill.-K,Bank records is a misreport in the Tribune.
The bill allows the AG to obtain the method of payment to the provider, not bank records.
Let me walk you through the safeguards that are in place.1.
Very limited scope of what can be requested on the subpoena.2.
At least three people in the AGs office have to sign off on it.3.
A copy of the subpoena must be filed with CCJJ for later audit.4.
The provider is free to refuse the subpoena at which point it would have to be ajudicated.5.
This power has been exercised by the federal government for decades with no evidence of abuse.6.
This power has been exercised by the federal government for decades with no constitutional challenge.7.
This can only be used for felonies or two specific misdemeanors.8.
If there is any hint of abuse, ISPs could complain to the legislature and the law would be repealed in one quick hurry and the AG would very well know that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258382</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>Atriqus</author>
	<datestamp>1265120880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because the phrase "suspected child-sex crime" is equivalent to hitting the win button in a US government building; the merits don't actually need to make sense, as lot as someone declares it.  Hell, it was probably the back-up line if "suspected weapons of mass destruction" didn't work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the phrase " suspected child-sex crime " is equivalent to hitting the win button in a US government building ; the merits do n't actually need to make sense , as lot as someone declares it .
Hell , it was probably the back-up line if " suspected weapons of mass destruction " did n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the phrase "suspected child-sex crime" is equivalent to hitting the win button in a US government building; the merits don't actually need to make sense, as lot as someone declares it.
Hell, it was probably the back-up line if "suspected weapons of mass destruction" didn't work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258674</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, won't you think of the children?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265122980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There is no question that "all power corrupts". </i></p><p>Actually, to my mind there is a question. I don't believe power corrupts, I believe power attracts the corruptible. The fact that there are a few good cops and good politicians kind of illustrates that; but people go for those jobs because they're power hungry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no question that " all power corrupts " .
Actually , to my mind there is a question .
I do n't believe power corrupts , I believe power attracts the corruptible .
The fact that there are a few good cops and good politicians kind of illustrates that ; but people go for those jobs because they 're power hungry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no question that "all power corrupts".
Actually, to my mind there is a question.
I don't believe power corrupts, I believe power attracts the corruptible.
The fact that there are a few good cops and good politicians kind of illustrates that; but people go for those jobs because they're power hungry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258602</id>
	<title>I hate people that prey on the defensless, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with H.L. Mencken when he said:<br>"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."</p><p>And to the AG I say get a real warrant if you suspect someone of committing a crime.  If you can't prove that to a judge move on to another case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with H.L .
Mencken when he said : " The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one 's time defending scoundrels .
For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed , and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all .
" And to the AG I say get a real warrant if you suspect someone of committing a crime .
If you ca n't prove that to a judge move on to another case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with H.L.
Mencken when he said:"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels.
For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
"And to the AG I say get a real warrant if you suspect someone of committing a crime.
If you can't prove that to a judge move on to another case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258944</id>
	<title>Living in...</title>
	<author>zerointeger</author>
	<datestamp>1265124360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Utah is interesting.
<br>
We have everything that the bigger cities have. Unfortunately that includes corruption. I am not going to try and slander the law enforcement community as a whole, nor the politicians, as I do not think it is warranted.
<br> <br>
However, having witnessed first hand corruption I cannot think of any law that would stop this practice.
<br> <br>
This whole thing of labeling everything a sex crime, leads me to believe that cointellpro has simply morphed into a form that will always merit support from politicians, families and law enforcement constituents.
<br> <br>
I have not read the contents of the bill but I wonder if there are safeguards for us tax payers? I also question biased opinions from within the ranks those that took an oath to protect the law. A tapped internet connection can also be used as a reverse proxy which would then be subjected to the investigative authority and their best interests and/or their quota.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Utah is interesting .
We have everything that the bigger cities have .
Unfortunately that includes corruption .
I am not going to try and slander the law enforcement community as a whole , nor the politicians , as I do not think it is warranted .
However , having witnessed first hand corruption I can not think of any law that would stop this practice .
This whole thing of labeling everything a sex crime , leads me to believe that cointellpro has simply morphed into a form that will always merit support from politicians , families and law enforcement constituents .
I have not read the contents of the bill but I wonder if there are safeguards for us tax payers ?
I also question biased opinions from within the ranks those that took an oath to protect the law .
A tapped internet connection can also be used as a reverse proxy which would then be subjected to the investigative authority and their best interests and/or their quota .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Utah is interesting.
We have everything that the bigger cities have.
Unfortunately that includes corruption.
I am not going to try and slander the law enforcement community as a whole, nor the politicians, as I do not think it is warranted.
However, having witnessed first hand corruption I cannot think of any law that would stop this practice.
This whole thing of labeling everything a sex crime, leads me to believe that cointellpro has simply morphed into a form that will always merit support from politicians, families and law enforcement constituents.
I have not read the contents of the bill but I wonder if there are safeguards for us tax payers?
I also question biased opinions from within the ranks those that took an oath to protect the law.
A tapped internet connection can also be used as a reverse proxy which would then be subjected to the investigative authority and their best interests and/or their quota.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31264184</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>Nathrael</author>
	<datestamp>1265103780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. Enact a direct democracy.</p></div><p>
Yeah, because what could be better than making those who have even less of a clue than our politicians the decision-makers ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Enact a direct democracy .
Yeah , because what could be better than making those who have even less of a clue than our politicians the decision-makers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Enact a direct democracy.
Yeah, because what could be better than making those who have even less of a clue than our politicians the decision-makers ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31261586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258864</id>
	<title>Not really news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A LOT of states use administrative subpoenas to get business records.  It would be different if they were trying to get actual use and behavior by the customer.  Subpoenas, which are less than a warrant (and a warrant less than a court order) are usually the legal process for obtaining records from a business.  This is how cell phone records, account information, and hundreds of other types of documents are obtained.  If you really want to bring the criminal justice system to a screeching halt, try requiring police to get in front of a judge every time they want to know who the owner of a phone number or email address is......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A LOT of states use administrative subpoenas to get business records .
It would be different if they were trying to get actual use and behavior by the customer .
Subpoenas , which are less than a warrant ( and a warrant less than a court order ) are usually the legal process for obtaining records from a business .
This is how cell phone records , account information , and hundreds of other types of documents are obtained .
If you really want to bring the criminal justice system to a screeching halt , try requiring police to get in front of a judge every time they want to know who the owner of a phone number or email address is..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A LOT of states use administrative subpoenas to get business records.
It would be different if they were trying to get actual use and behavior by the customer.
Subpoenas, which are less than a warrant (and a warrant less than a court order) are usually the legal process for obtaining records from a business.
This is how cell phone records, account information, and hundreds of other types of documents are obtained.
If you really want to bring the criminal justice system to a screeching halt, try requiring police to get in front of a judge every time they want to know who the owner of a phone number or email address is......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31263970</id>
	<title>Re:BB</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1265102700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>In a couple of years, give or take, it'll become standard-operating procedure applying at will to *everyone*.</i> <br> <br>Where "everyone" just happens to exclude politicians, police officers, big business, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a couple of years , give or take , it 'll become standard-operating procedure applying at will to * everyone * .
Where " everyone " just happens to exclude politicians , police officers , big business , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a couple of years, give or take, it'll become standard-operating procedure applying at will to *everyone*.
Where "everyone" just happens to exclude politicians, police officers, big business, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260528</id>
	<title>Re:Would still need a reason to request the data</title>
	<author>http</author>
	<datestamp>1265131740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you've got enough evidence to suspect a felony, you've got enough evidence to obtain a warrant.<br>
Make no mistake about it, you have either evil or incompetent men and women at the helm to have this approved by the house committee.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've got enough evidence to suspect a felony , you 've got enough evidence to obtain a warrant .
Make no mistake about it , you have either evil or incompetent men and women at the helm to have this approved by the house committee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've got enough evidence to suspect a felony, you've got enough evidence to obtain a warrant.
Make no mistake about it, you have either evil or incompetent men and women at the helm to have this approved by the house committee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262434</id>
	<title>That Many?</title>
	<author>BarefootClown</author>
	<datestamp>1265139120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More than one per day?  I guess the real question here is why are there so many perverts in Utah?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More than one per day ?
I guess the real question here is why are there so many perverts in Utah ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More than one per day?
I guess the real question here is why are there so many perverts in Utah?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259084</id>
	<title>Rationale: personal preferences</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1265125080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How do you rationalize positions like that?</p></div><p>"Those are my personal opinions.  Yours may be different."</p><p>That's, roughly speaking, how you do it.</p><p>And you can't really say "But your opinions are wrong!".  At best, you can say something like "The policies you advocate go against the constitution", and they can respond "Well, then I guess my opinion is that we should change the constitution."</p><p>You may try arguing that their suggested policy has consequences which (a) they don't know about; and (b) they don't like or agree with.  I'm not sure how well it works, but at least you're attacking the problem from a decent angle.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you rationalize positions like that ?
" Those are my personal opinions .
Yours may be different .
" That 's , roughly speaking , how you do it.And you ca n't really say " But your opinions are wrong ! " .
At best , you can say something like " The policies you advocate go against the constitution " , and they can respond " Well , then I guess my opinion is that we should change the constitution .
" You may try arguing that their suggested policy has consequences which ( a ) they do n't know about ; and ( b ) they do n't like or agree with .
I 'm not sure how well it works , but at least you 're attacking the problem from a decent angle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you rationalize positions like that?
"Those are my personal opinions.
Yours may be different.
"That's, roughly speaking, how you do it.And you can't really say "But your opinions are wrong!".
At best, you can say something like "The policies you advocate go against the constitution", and they can respond "Well, then I guess my opinion is that we should change the constitution.
"You may try arguing that their suggested policy has consequences which (a) they don't know about; and (b) they don't like or agree with.
I'm not sure how well it works, but at least you're attacking the problem from a decent angle.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259362</id>
	<title>Ob</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck Utah, fuck all those morman fucker's and fuck the horses they rode in on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck Utah , fuck all those morman fucker 's and fuck the horses they rode in on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck Utah, fuck all those morman fucker's and fuck the horses they rode in on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258566</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265122380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Patriot Act made this SOP at the federal level for anything related to a terrorism investigation. My guess is the same standard will soon apply to child porn investigations. </i></p><p>The Patriot Act (which should have been named "traitorous coward act") only covers federal agencies, not any state law enforcement agencies. I don't see how this bill will stand judicial scrutiny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Patriot Act made this SOP at the federal level for anything related to a terrorism investigation .
My guess is the same standard will soon apply to child porn investigations .
The Patriot Act ( which should have been named " traitorous coward act " ) only covers federal agencies , not any state law enforcement agencies .
I do n't see how this bill will stand judicial scrutiny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Patriot Act made this SOP at the federal level for anything related to a terrorism investigation.
My guess is the same standard will soon apply to child porn investigations.
The Patriot Act (which should have been named "traitorous coward act") only covers federal agencies, not any state law enforcement agencies.
I don't see how this bill will stand judicial scrutiny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258284</id>
	<title>This will never be abused, of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265120280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Child porn will be used as a generic criticism of anyone they want to eavesdrop on, regardless of the actual investigation.</p><p>Child porn has become a root password to the legal system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Child porn will be used as a generic criticism of anyone they want to eavesdrop on , regardless of the actual investigation.Child porn has become a root password to the legal system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Child porn will be used as a generic criticism of anyone they want to eavesdrop on, regardless of the actual investigation.Child porn has become a root password to the legal system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258452</id>
	<title>Judicial Subpoena should be easy enough</title>
	<author>wintercolby</author>
	<datestamp>1265121540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Atty:  Your honor, the suspect is a Morman Fundamentalist.<br>
Judge:  And you have proof of this?<br>
Atty:  He cliams 35 dependants on his state taxes.<br>
Judge:  Subpoena granted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Atty : Your honor , the suspect is a Morman Fundamentalist .
Judge : And you have proof of this ?
Atty : He cliams 35 dependants on his state taxes .
Judge : Subpoena granted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Atty:  Your honor, the suspect is a Morman Fundamentalist.
Judge:  And you have proof of this?
Atty:  He cliams 35 dependants on his state taxes.
Judge:  Subpoena granted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259960</id>
	<title>Re:Apparently Constitution doesn't apply in Utah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265129220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the Idiocracy that is "Utah's Capitol Hill".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the Idiocracy that is " Utah 's Capitol Hill " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the Idiocracy that is "Utah's Capitol Hill".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258392</id>
	<title>Oh, won't you think of the children?</title>
	<author>SimonInOz</author>
	<datestamp>1265121000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Child sex crime is horrible.</p><p>No argument there. I have children. The mere idea indeed, horrifies me.</p><p>But I am dismayed to see such crimes being used as leverage to obtain ever more far-reaching powers.</p><p>There is no question that "all power corrupts". It's not a standard quote for nothing - it is, all too sadly, true.<br>I believe that no special powers are needed here - just sensible application of the ones that the already specially privileged police forces already have, is sufficient. I see no realistic problem with getting a search warrant from a judge. Like for searching a house.</p><p>Suspicion indeed - I'd like to feel the police would need a little more than suspicion - suspicion with enough basisi to convince a judge, perhaps? Isn't that what they are for, as a counterbalance to "over zealous" police forces?</p><p>After all, anybody can suspect anybody of anything - with no basis whatsoever. And I don't think that's a good basis for a law. It's more like a license to harass, I'd say. And isn't there already enough of that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Child sex crime is horrible.No argument there .
I have children .
The mere idea indeed , horrifies me.But I am dismayed to see such crimes being used as leverage to obtain ever more far-reaching powers.There is no question that " all power corrupts " .
It 's not a standard quote for nothing - it is , all too sadly , true.I believe that no special powers are needed here - just sensible application of the ones that the already specially privileged police forces already have , is sufficient .
I see no realistic problem with getting a search warrant from a judge .
Like for searching a house.Suspicion indeed - I 'd like to feel the police would need a little more than suspicion - suspicion with enough basisi to convince a judge , perhaps ?
Is n't that what they are for , as a counterbalance to " over zealous " police forces ? After all , anybody can suspect anybody of anything - with no basis whatsoever .
And I do n't think that 's a good basis for a law .
It 's more like a license to harass , I 'd say .
And is n't there already enough of that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Child sex crime is horrible.No argument there.
I have children.
The mere idea indeed, horrifies me.But I am dismayed to see such crimes being used as leverage to obtain ever more far-reaching powers.There is no question that "all power corrupts".
It's not a standard quote for nothing - it is, all too sadly, true.I believe that no special powers are needed here - just sensible application of the ones that the already specially privileged police forces already have, is sufficient.
I see no realistic problem with getting a search warrant from a judge.
Like for searching a house.Suspicion indeed - I'd like to feel the police would need a little more than suspicion - suspicion with enough basisi to convince a judge, perhaps?
Isn't that what they are for, as a counterbalance to "over zealous" police forces?After all, anybody can suspect anybody of anything - with no basis whatsoever.
And I don't think that's a good basis for a law.
It's more like a license to harass, I'd say.
And isn't there already enough of that?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31261198</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>The Moof</author>
	<datestamp>1265134440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if one-half of the States declare the Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void.</p></div><p>And how will this be determined?<br> <br>
If it's the state government's decision, I highly doubt they'd overturn anything since they're likely as corrupt as Washington (note:  I might have a skewed view of state politics since I'm from Illinois - here's hoping our next elected Governor isn't arrested).<br> <br>
If it's based on a public ballot, I don't have faith in the general populace to be skeptical enough of any laws passed, and will likely be pushed through as "the Government would do wrong."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if one-half of the States declare the Law to be " unconstitutional " it shall be null and void.And how will this be determined ?
If it 's the state government 's decision , I highly doubt they 'd overturn anything since they 're likely as corrupt as Washington ( note : I might have a skewed view of state politics since I 'm from Illinois - here 's hoping our next elected Governor is n't arrested ) .
If it 's based on a public ballot , I do n't have faith in the general populace to be skeptical enough of any laws passed , and will likely be pushed through as " the Government would do wrong .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if one-half of the States declare the Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void.And how will this be determined?
If it's the state government's decision, I highly doubt they'd overturn anything since they're likely as corrupt as Washington (note:  I might have a skewed view of state politics since I'm from Illinois - here's hoping our next elected Governor isn't arrested).
If it's based on a public ballot, I don't have faith in the general populace to be skeptical enough of any laws passed, and will likely be pushed through as "the Government would do wrong.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31266576</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, won't you think of the children?</title>
	<author>aukset</author>
	<datestamp>1265114640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you worked with the police on a day to day basis you would actually find that MOST cops are good, and that even most examples of bad cops are good people making bad decisions. It only takes one rotten fruit to spoil the bunch, and this old adage could not be truer about our collective opinions on law enforcement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you worked with the police on a day to day basis you would actually find that MOST cops are good , and that even most examples of bad cops are good people making bad decisions .
It only takes one rotten fruit to spoil the bunch , and this old adage could not be truer about our collective opinions on law enforcement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you worked with the police on a day to day basis you would actually find that MOST cops are good, and that even most examples of bad cops are good people making bad decisions.
It only takes one rotten fruit to spoil the bunch, and this old adage could not be truer about our collective opinions on law enforcement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262630</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>s73v3r</author>
	<datestamp>1265140020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a better way to go about your goal is, instead of having the State Legislatures attempt to rule whether something is Constitutional or not, have it set up so that citizens and State Legislatures can hold conventions in their States calling the question of whether a law is Constitutional or not. After a sufficient number of state conventions have asked the question (probably about half the Union, like you had), the Supreme Court is then charged with deciding the Constitutionality of the law.

</p><p>This is the best of both worlds: The original Separation of Powers is still respected (the Legislative Branch isn't deciding judiciary matters), and it should be possible for concerned citizens to bring the measure before the Court without having had felt the adverse effects of the law to start (i.e. You don't need to have had the DMCA used against you before you can challenge its validity). I still see a problem in how it would proceed once it got to the SCOTUS, however. Who would perform the arguments on either side? Would the Justice dept be obligated to defend the law? Or should the head sponsor of the bill argue in favor? Who would be the person arguing against?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a better way to go about your goal is , instead of having the State Legislatures attempt to rule whether something is Constitutional or not , have it set up so that citizens and State Legislatures can hold conventions in their States calling the question of whether a law is Constitutional or not .
After a sufficient number of state conventions have asked the question ( probably about half the Union , like you had ) , the Supreme Court is then charged with deciding the Constitutionality of the law .
This is the best of both worlds : The original Separation of Powers is still respected ( the Legislative Branch is n't deciding judiciary matters ) , and it should be possible for concerned citizens to bring the measure before the Court without having had felt the adverse effects of the law to start ( i.e .
You do n't need to have had the DMCA used against you before you can challenge its validity ) .
I still see a problem in how it would proceed once it got to the SCOTUS , however .
Who would perform the arguments on either side ?
Would the Justice dept be obligated to defend the law ?
Or should the head sponsor of the bill argue in favor ?
Who would be the person arguing against ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a better way to go about your goal is, instead of having the State Legislatures attempt to rule whether something is Constitutional or not, have it set up so that citizens and State Legislatures can hold conventions in their States calling the question of whether a law is Constitutional or not.
After a sufficient number of state conventions have asked the question (probably about half the Union, like you had), the Supreme Court is then charged with deciding the Constitutionality of the law.
This is the best of both worlds: The original Separation of Powers is still respected (the Legislative Branch isn't deciding judiciary matters), and it should be possible for concerned citizens to bring the measure before the Court without having had felt the adverse effects of the law to start (i.e.
You don't need to have had the DMCA used against you before you can challenge its validity).
I still see a problem in how it would proceed once it got to the SCOTUS, however.
Who would perform the arguments on either side?
Would the Justice dept be obligated to defend the law?
Or should the head sponsor of the bill argue in favor?
Who would be the person arguing against?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262948</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, won't you think of the children?</title>
	<author>esocid</author>
	<datestamp>1265141580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That sounds like a good distinction. I suppose my sig would also need that distinction, since either the corrupt or  corruptible will eventually seek absolute power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds like a good distinction .
I suppose my sig would also need that distinction , since either the corrupt or corruptible will eventually seek absolute power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds like a good distinction.
I suppose my sig would also need that distinction, since either the corrupt or  corruptible will eventually seek absolute power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258672</id>
	<title>This guy is a Democrat</title>
	<author>Attack DAWWG</author>
	<datestamp>1265122980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pete Ashdown, the guy who is speaking out against the warrantless wiretapping, is a Democrat.</p><p>But this is Utah.</p><p>Good luck with that.  How many people do you think will even listen?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pete Ashdown , the guy who is speaking out against the warrantless wiretapping , is a Democrat.But this is Utah.Good luck with that .
How many people do you think will even listen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pete Ashdown, the guy who is speaking out against the warrantless wiretapping, is a Democrat.But this is Utah.Good luck with that.
How many people do you think will even listen?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31263010</id>
	<title>Gah</title>
	<author>Nekomusume</author>
	<datestamp>1265141760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time you give the police more powers, they immediately abuse them in every conceivable way.<br>Seriously, how long does it take to get a warrant? Unless somebody's life is on the line right this second, we need 'em.<br>It's one of the few things that protects us from the police.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time you give the police more powers , they immediately abuse them in every conceivable way.Seriously , how long does it take to get a warrant ?
Unless somebody 's life is on the line right this second , we need 'em.It 's one of the few things that protects us from the police .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time you give the police more powers, they immediately abuse them in every conceivable way.Seriously, how long does it take to get a warrant?
Unless somebody's life is on the line right this second, we need 'em.It's one of the few things that protects us from the police.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260130</id>
	<title>Re:BB</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1265129820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; of course the one, where it's really hard to say no to such a bill.</p><p>Yep.   <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_they\_came" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_they\_came</a> [wikipedia.org]... comes to mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; of course the one , where it 's really hard to say no to such a bill.Yep .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First \ _they \ _came [ wikipedia.org ] ... comes to mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; of course the one, where it's really hard to say no to such a bill.Yep.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_they\_came [wikipedia.org]... comes to mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258686</id>
	<title>I think...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1265123040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Web traffic and where people go can be open to public, but the contents of emails can not.<br>Emails are used by companies as legal proof that communication has been made and could contain sensitive materials.<br>As far as where people go on the internet, is like tracking someone when they are driving their car somewhere, anyone can do it, and you should not be offended when someone sees you and says, "yeah....i saw you driving by the other day, I waved, but you didn't see me..." that is not worth controlling. As for cell phones, I consider that cell phones again are a way to communicate which could contain sensitive insider information, so no that should not have easy access without a warrant</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Web traffic and where people go can be open to public , but the contents of emails can not.Emails are used by companies as legal proof that communication has been made and could contain sensitive materials.As far as where people go on the internet , is like tracking someone when they are driving their car somewhere , anyone can do it , and you should not be offended when someone sees you and says , " yeah....i saw you driving by the other day , I waved , but you did n't see me... " that is not worth controlling .
As for cell phones , I consider that cell phones again are a way to communicate which could contain sensitive insider information , so no that should not have easy access without a warrant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web traffic and where people go can be open to public, but the contents of emails can not.Emails are used by companies as legal proof that communication has been made and could contain sensitive materials.As far as where people go on the internet, is like tracking someone when they are driving their car somewhere, anyone can do it, and you should not be offended when someone sees you and says, "yeah....i saw you driving by the other day, I waved, but you didn't see me..." that is not worth controlling.
As for cell phones, I consider that cell phones again are a way to communicate which could contain sensitive insider information, so no that should not have easy access without a warrant</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31266018</id>
	<title>Re: Child abuse is the new Godwin.</title>
	<author>dwillden</author>
	<datestamp>1265111400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed, can we call it JaredOfEuropa's Law</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , can we call it JaredOfEuropa 's Law</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, can we call it JaredOfEuropa's Law</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260206</id>
	<title>Re:And now</title>
	<author>WCMI92</author>
	<datestamp>1265130060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why they always start with "child porn" etc, to get the "thin end of the wedge" into the Constitution.  Then the hammer comes and they open it up to FAR more than "protecting the children".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why they always start with " child porn " etc , to get the " thin end of the wedge " into the Constitution .
Then the hammer comes and they open it up to FAR more than " protecting the children " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why they always start with "child porn" etc, to get the "thin end of the wedge" into the Constitution.
Then the hammer comes and they open it up to FAR more than "protecting the children".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259834</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1265128500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Legislature doesn&rsquo;t get to rule on whether laws are constitutional or unconstitutional. That is a function of the judicial branch. If you wanted to get a state to declare a law unconstitutional, you&rsquo;d have to do it through the state supreme court. Your plan would still be interesting, though, since if enough states&rsquo; supreme courts ruled that a law was unconstitutional, it wouldn&rsquo;t have to go to the federal supreme court for a ruling.</p><p>However, if enough of the states want something, they could introduce a bill in congress overturning the old law... that&rsquo;s basically the equivalent of what you asked for, I think, but it relies on your state representatives in congress rather than your state legislature (with representatives from each district) to put in a word for your state saying that you don&rsquo;t like the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Legislature doesn    t get to rule on whether laws are constitutional or unconstitutional .
That is a function of the judicial branch .
If you wanted to get a state to declare a law unconstitutional , you    d have to do it through the state supreme court .
Your plan would still be interesting , though , since if enough states    supreme courts ruled that a law was unconstitutional , it wouldn    t have to go to the federal supreme court for a ruling.However , if enough of the states want something , they could introduce a bill in congress overturning the old law... that    s basically the equivalent of what you asked for , I think , but it relies on your state representatives in congress rather than your state legislature ( with representatives from each district ) to put in a word for your state saying that you don    t like the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legislature doesn’t get to rule on whether laws are constitutional or unconstitutional.
That is a function of the judicial branch.
If you wanted to get a state to declare a law unconstitutional, you’d have to do it through the state supreme court.
Your plan would still be interesting, though, since if enough states’ supreme courts ruled that a law was unconstitutional, it wouldn’t have to go to the federal supreme court for a ruling.However, if enough of the states want something, they could introduce a bill in congress overturning the old law... that’s basically the equivalent of what you asked for, I think, but it relies on your state representatives in congress rather than your state legislature (with representatives from each district) to put in a word for your state saying that you don’t like the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258798</id>
	<title>As your Government...</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1265123580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As your Government, I am in some fashion your parent, meaning you are in some fashion my child.  I want to come up with new laws so I can fuck up your rights.</p><p>Therefore, by extension, ALL wiretaps are related to child sex, and therefore all wiretaps should be allowed without a warrant.</p><p>Think of the CHILDREN!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As your Government , I am in some fashion your parent , meaning you are in some fashion my child .
I want to come up with new laws so I can fuck up your rights.Therefore , by extension , ALL wiretaps are related to child sex , and therefore all wiretaps should be allowed without a warrant.Think of the CHILDREN !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As your Government, I am in some fashion your parent, meaning you are in some fashion my child.
I want to come up with new laws so I can fuck up your rights.Therefore, by extension, ALL wiretaps are related to child sex, and therefore all wiretaps should be allowed without a warrant.Think of the CHILDREN!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259682</id>
	<title>Re:Apparently Constitution doesn't apply in Utah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265128020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why did they stop at only 'cell phones'. Why not land lines too? or is that to hard to do because of previous laws still on the books?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did they stop at only 'cell phones' .
Why not land lines too ?
or is that to hard to do because of previous laws still on the books ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did they stop at only 'cell phones'.
Why not land lines too?
or is that to hard to do because of previous laws still on the books?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259138</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, won't you think of the children?</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1265125380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not just child sex crimes. Dick Cheney leveraged terrorism and 9-11 to achieve two goals that he had been seeking long before anyone had ever heard of Osama Bin Laden--the restoration of pre-Watergate Presidential power and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just child sex crimes .
Dick Cheney leveraged terrorism and 9-11 to achieve two goals that he had been seeking long before anyone had ever heard of Osama Bin Laden--the restoration of pre-Watergate Presidential power and the invasion and occupation of Iraq .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just child sex crimes.
Dick Cheney leveraged terrorism and 9-11 to achieve two goals that he had been seeking long before anyone had ever heard of Osama Bin Laden--the restoration of pre-Watergate Presidential power and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258442</id>
	<title>Internet privacy is GONE.</title>
	<author>maillemaker</author>
	<datestamp>1265121480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The simple fact is, all this stuff we are hearing in the news lately about what tunes governments are making ISPs dance to is solely WHAT WE ARE HEARING ABOUT.</p><p>You can be quite certain that for every event we hear about, there are ten more we don't happening behind the scenes and gathering far more data.</p><p>Everyone should consider their internet connection completely open to (at least) government scrutiny at all times.  You should assume that everything that passes through your ISP is recorded and monitored by at least your ISP, and is available to any government agency at any time.</p><p>You know what the hell of it is?  If someone blew the whistle that the government was steaming open everyone's mail that passed through the USPS, people would be going ape-shit.</p><p>But the fact that they monitor all electronic communications?  Yawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The simple fact is , all this stuff we are hearing in the news lately about what tunes governments are making ISPs dance to is solely WHAT WE ARE HEARING ABOUT.You can be quite certain that for every event we hear about , there are ten more we do n't happening behind the scenes and gathering far more data.Everyone should consider their internet connection completely open to ( at least ) government scrutiny at all times .
You should assume that everything that passes through your ISP is recorded and monitored by at least your ISP , and is available to any government agency at any time.You know what the hell of it is ?
If someone blew the whistle that the government was steaming open everyone 's mail that passed through the USPS , people would be going ape-shit.But the fact that they monitor all electronic communications ?
Yawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The simple fact is, all this stuff we are hearing in the news lately about what tunes governments are making ISPs dance to is solely WHAT WE ARE HEARING ABOUT.You can be quite certain that for every event we hear about, there are ten more we don't happening behind the scenes and gathering far more data.Everyone should consider their internet connection completely open to (at least) government scrutiny at all times.
You should assume that everything that passes through your ISP is recorded and monitored by at least your ISP, and is available to any government agency at any time.You know what the hell of it is?
If someone blew the whistle that the government was steaming open everyone's mail that passed through the USPS, people would be going ape-shit.But the fact that they monitor all electronic communications?
Yawn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260868</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, won't you think of the children?</title>
	<author>hoggoth</author>
	<datestamp>1265133000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Child sex crime is horrible.<br>&gt; No argument there. I have children. The mere idea indeed, horrifies me.<br>&gt; But...</p><p>Why do you have to preface your opinion with this disclaimer? Are you so afraid that any position that doesn't sound like you are "tough on pedophiles" will get you branded as a pedophile yourself?</p><p>This is exactly the attitude that permits politicians and law enforcement to get away with bullying people into handing over their rights. If you don't agree with this law you must be one of the pedophiles yourself!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Child sex crime is horrible. &gt; No argument there .
I have children .
The mere idea indeed , horrifies me. &gt; But...Why do you have to preface your opinion with this disclaimer ?
Are you so afraid that any position that does n't sound like you are " tough on pedophiles " will get you branded as a pedophile yourself ? This is exactly the attitude that permits politicians and law enforcement to get away with bullying people into handing over their rights .
If you do n't agree with this law you must be one of the pedophiles yourself !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Child sex crime is horrible.&gt; No argument there.
I have children.
The mere idea indeed, horrifies me.&gt; But...Why do you have to preface your opinion with this disclaimer?
Are you so afraid that any position that doesn't sound like you are "tough on pedophiles" will get you branded as a pedophile yourself?This is exactly the attitude that permits politicians and law enforcement to get away with bullying people into handing over their rights.
If you don't agree with this law you must be one of the pedophiles yourself!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31263770</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1265101800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Determining if a law is unconstitutional is a matter for the judiciary</p><p>First off the judiciary was never given the power to nullify Congressional laws.  They *usurped* that power.  Second, the judiciary isn't doing their job, which is why Congress now has the power to tell us how much food we're allowed to grow in our own backyards, how much electricity we can use via smart meters, limit our speech, and spy on us via our Telephone, internet and credit cards.</p><p>The judiciary is not enough.  We need more.  We need the power of the States to declare the U.S. laws are in violation of the constitution *in addition* to the courts that can't do the job properly.</p><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Passing it off to elected officials is silly, particularly in a two-party system where laws are likely to be struck down just based on who's in power at any given moment.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;</p><p>Given how many bad laws are still on the books (did you know you still pay a tax to fund the Spanish-American war of 1898???), I think that sounds like a good idea.  Nullify this crap.  If Congress wants to reinvoke a law, they can just pass it again (which is what usually happens after the SCOTUS declares a law unconstitutional).</p><p>Plus I don't think it would be as easy as you suggest.  Getting 25 States to agree on anything is very, very difficult, and while several laws would be declared unconstitutional, a lot would simply sit there due to not enough states agreeing to nullify them.  25 is a big enough hurdle that your concern about 2-party battles is unfounded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Determining if a law is unconstitutional is a matter for the judiciaryFirst off the judiciary was never given the power to nullify Congressional laws .
They * usurped * that power .
Second , the judiciary is n't doing their job , which is why Congress now has the power to tell us how much food we 're allowed to grow in our own backyards , how much electricity we can use via smart meters , limit our speech , and spy on us via our Telephone , internet and credit cards.The judiciary is not enough .
We need more .
We need the power of the States to declare the U.S. laws are in violation of the constitution * in addition * to the courts that ca n't do the job properly. &gt; &gt; &gt; Passing it off to elected officials is silly , particularly in a two-party system where laws are likely to be struck down just based on who 's in power at any given moment. &gt; &gt; &gt; Given how many bad laws are still on the books ( did you know you still pay a tax to fund the Spanish-American war of 1898 ? ? ?
) , I think that sounds like a good idea .
Nullify this crap .
If Congress wants to reinvoke a law , they can just pass it again ( which is what usually happens after the SCOTUS declares a law unconstitutional ) .Plus I do n't think it would be as easy as you suggest .
Getting 25 States to agree on anything is very , very difficult , and while several laws would be declared unconstitutional , a lot would simply sit there due to not enough states agreeing to nullify them .
25 is a big enough hurdle that your concern about 2-party battles is unfounded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Determining if a law is unconstitutional is a matter for the judiciaryFirst off the judiciary was never given the power to nullify Congressional laws.
They *usurped* that power.
Second, the judiciary isn't doing their job, which is why Congress now has the power to tell us how much food we're allowed to grow in our own backyards, how much electricity we can use via smart meters, limit our speech, and spy on us via our Telephone, internet and credit cards.The judiciary is not enough.
We need more.
We need the power of the States to declare the U.S. laws are in violation of the constitution *in addition* to the courts that can't do the job properly.&gt;&gt;&gt;Passing it off to elected officials is silly, particularly in a two-party system where laws are likely to be struck down just based on who's in power at any given moment.&gt;&gt;&gt;Given how many bad laws are still on the books (did you know you still pay a tax to fund the Spanish-American war of 1898???
), I think that sounds like a good idea.
Nullify this crap.
If Congress wants to reinvoke a law, they can just pass it again (which is what usually happens after the SCOTUS declares a law unconstitutional).Plus I don't think it would be as easy as you suggest.
Getting 25 States to agree on anything is very, very difficult, and while several laws would be declared unconstitutional, a lot would simply sit there due to not enough states agreeing to nullify them.
25 is a big enough hurdle that your concern about 2-party battles is unfounded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268</id>
	<title>I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265120160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's hard to see how this can possibly be legal. A warrant being issued without judicial review first? That's like an omelet without a egg.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's hard to see how this can possibly be legal .
A warrant being issued without judicial review first ?
That 's like an omelet without a egg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's hard to see how this can possibly be legal.
A warrant being issued without judicial review first?
That's like an omelet without a egg.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31261580</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1265135880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While we are on the topic of constitutional amendments, can we make one that states that no legislative body can legally pass a law that requires more page space than the constitution itself? I mean really, any law that requires more than a dozen or so pages to describe itself is far too complicated to be beneficial. We may make an exception for budget laws, but I'm kind of skeptical of even that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While we are on the topic of constitutional amendments , can we make one that states that no legislative body can legally pass a law that requires more page space than the constitution itself ?
I mean really , any law that requires more than a dozen or so pages to describe itself is far too complicated to be beneficial .
We may make an exception for budget laws , but I 'm kind of skeptical of even that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we are on the topic of constitutional amendments, can we make one that states that no legislative body can legally pass a law that requires more page space than the constitution itself?
I mean really, any law that requires more than a dozen or so pages to describe itself is far too complicated to be beneficial.
We may make an exception for budget laws, but I'm kind of skeptical of even that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262508</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>s73v3r</author>
	<datestamp>1265139480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In order for the Supreme Court to nullify a law, the case has to be brought before them by someone adversely affected by it first. They can't just say, "We don't think this law is Constitutional" whenever legislation is passed. The question has to be posed to them first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order for the Supreme Court to nullify a law , the case has to be brought before them by someone adversely affected by it first .
They ca n't just say , " We do n't think this law is Constitutional " whenever legislation is passed .
The question has to be posed to them first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order for the Supreme Court to nullify a law, the case has to be brought before them by someone adversely affected by it first.
They can't just say, "We don't think this law is Constitutional" whenever legislation is passed.
The question has to be posed to them first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259866</id>
	<title>My advice to you is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265128740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get off the Internet...<br>NOW!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get off the Internet...NOW ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get off the Internet...NOW!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260768</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>Nukenbar</author>
	<datestamp>1265132640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's incorrect.  The Patriot Act allows state and local investigators to make Patriot Act requests for certain things such as pen registers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's incorrect .
The Patriot Act allows state and local investigators to make Patriot Act requests for certain things such as pen registers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's incorrect.
The Patriot Act allows state and local investigators to make Patriot Act requests for certain things such as pen registers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>schwit1</author>
	<datestamp>1265120760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Patriot Act made this SOP at the federal level for anything related to a terrorism investigation. My guess is the same standard will soon apply to child porn investigations.
<p>
Under the Patriot Act, FBI agents may issue National Security Letters to obtain comprehensive financial and communications records about anyone, including people suspected of no wrongdoing and no connection to terrorists or foreign powers. To do this, the FBI merely needs to claim the information is relevant to an investigation. Anyone receiving one of these orders is prohibited by law from speaking about it to anyone else, except their attorney. The FBI issues tens of thousands of NSLs each year, most of them directed at U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Patriot Act made this SOP at the federal level for anything related to a terrorism investigation .
My guess is the same standard will soon apply to child porn investigations .
Under the Patriot Act , FBI agents may issue National Security Letters to obtain comprehensive financial and communications records about anyone , including people suspected of no wrongdoing and no connection to terrorists or foreign powers .
To do this , the FBI merely needs to claim the information is relevant to an investigation .
Anyone receiving one of these orders is prohibited by law from speaking about it to anyone else , except their attorney .
The FBI issues tens of thousands of NSLs each year , most of them directed at U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Patriot Act made this SOP at the federal level for anything related to a terrorism investigation.
My guess is the same standard will soon apply to child porn investigations.
Under the Patriot Act, FBI agents may issue National Security Letters to obtain comprehensive financial and communications records about anyone, including people suspected of no wrongdoing and no connection to terrorists or foreign powers.
To do this, the FBI merely needs to claim the information is relevant to an investigation.
Anyone receiving one of these orders is prohibited by law from speaking about it to anyone else, except their attorney.
The FBI issues tens of thousands of NSLs each year, most of them directed at U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258684</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>Jonesy69</author>
	<datestamp>1265123040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mormons across the state are up in arms!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mormons across the state are up in arms !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mormons across the state are up in arms!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260988</id>
	<title>Re:Apparently Constitution doesn't apply in Utah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265133480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, utah is the home of clueless Mormon clones</p><p>i know i live here</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , utah is the home of clueless Mormon clonesi know i live here</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, utah is the home of clueless Mormon clonesi know i live here</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31321276</id>
	<title>DEFEATED!</title>
	<author>pr0f3550r</author>
	<datestamp>1267435380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Luckily this was defeated on Friday. Seems like enough people with sense voted against this in the end. Unfortunately, the good senator that put forth this bill is not giving up on the idea and it may return. Luckily I know a lot of people in Orem (his home city) and come next election I will put some influence to get him out of there.

Alternately, he could put forward legislation that deems mailboxes as inviolate as post office boxen. Then I might forgive him....might.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Luckily this was defeated on Friday .
Seems like enough people with sense voted against this in the end .
Unfortunately , the good senator that put forth this bill is not giving up on the idea and it may return .
Luckily I know a lot of people in Orem ( his home city ) and come next election I will put some influence to get him out of there .
Alternately , he could put forward legislation that deems mailboxes as inviolate as post office boxen .
Then I might forgive him....might .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luckily this was defeated on Friday.
Seems like enough people with sense voted against this in the end.
Unfortunately, the good senator that put forth this bill is not giving up on the idea and it may return.
Luckily I know a lot of people in Orem (his home city) and come next election I will put some influence to get him out of there.
Alternately, he could put forward legislation that deems mailboxes as inviolate as post office boxen.
Then I might forgive him....might.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31271834</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>vxice</author>
	<datestamp>1267111860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The people who use the fear of terrorists to make their job easier at the expense of liberties meant to protect citizens, guilty or not remember like you said they can be issued against almost anyone for little justification, ARE the TERRORISTS that hate your freedoms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who use the fear of terrorists to make their job easier at the expense of liberties meant to protect citizens , guilty or not remember like you said they can be issued against almost anyone for little justification , ARE the TERRORISTS that hate your freedoms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who use the fear of terrorists to make their job easier at the expense of liberties meant to protect citizens, guilty or not remember like you said they can be issued against almost anyone for little justification, ARE the TERRORISTS that hate your freedoms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31261854</id>
	<title>Re:Rationale: personal preferences</title>
	<author>Rob the Bold</author>
	<datestamp>1265136900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>How do you rationalize positions like that?</p></div><p>"Those are my personal opinions.  Yours may be different."</p><p>That's, roughly speaking, how you do it.</p></div><p>That's not a rationalization, that's a description.  Of course it's an opinion.  By rationalization, we'd be looking for a way a person can square these seemingly contradictory opinions.  As in, "your opinions on these two similar issues seem to be inconsistent, can you explain that?"  Rationalize: "to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable." </p><p>Sure a person can hold contradictory opinions, whether or not anyone else agrees or thinks they are "right".  But that's not the point.  When you have contradictory opinions on two similar subjects, you appear to be making an argument against yourself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you rationalize positions like that ?
" Those are my personal opinions .
Yours may be different .
" That 's , roughly speaking , how you do it.That 's not a rationalization , that 's a description .
Of course it 's an opinion .
By rationalization , we 'd be looking for a way a person can square these seemingly contradictory opinions .
As in , " your opinions on these two similar issues seem to be inconsistent , can you explain that ?
" Rationalize : " to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable .
" Sure a person can hold contradictory opinions , whether or not anyone else agrees or thinks they are " right " .
But that 's not the point .
When you have contradictory opinions on two similar subjects , you appear to be making an argument against yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you rationalize positions like that?
"Those are my personal opinions.
Yours may be different.
"That's, roughly speaking, how you do it.That's not a rationalization, that's a description.
Of course it's an opinion.
By rationalization, we'd be looking for a way a person can square these seemingly contradictory opinions.
As in, "your opinions on these two similar issues seem to be inconsistent, can you explain that?
"  Rationalize: "to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable.
" Sure a person can hold contradictory opinions, whether or not anyone else agrees or thinks they are "right".
But that's not the point.
When you have contradictory opinions on two similar subjects, you appear to be making an argument against yourself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260254</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>Dhalka226</author>
	<datestamp>1265130420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, no.  Stupid laws are bad, but destroying the separation of powers is equally bad.  Determining if a law is unconstitutional is a matter for the judiciary who are, at least supposedly, legal experts qualified to make such judgments and largely immune from retaliation for those decisions.  Passing it off to elected officials is silly, particularly in a two-party system where laws are likely to be struck down just based on who's in power at any given moment.

</p><p>What I would like to see, however, is a method of challenging laws--perhaps even going so far as to get a ruling on constitutionality before the law is even passed--that can be requested by parties without other standing.  At the very least, allow politicians to do so; I'm sure the opposition party will take advantage many times.  I remember cases in the warrantless wiretapping debacle being thrown out because people who didn't know they were spied on didn't have legal standing to sue for information about whether or not they had been spied on.  Talk about retardedly circular logic.  Luckily a handful of judges saw through it, but I digress.

</p><p>The problem, of course, is that it would seriously overwork an already overtaxed judicial system and it might delay passage of important bills.  (How long, I wonder, would an average judicial pass over a bill take to complete?)  I still think it would be worthwhile to set up some sort of constitutional court and pay some judges to do nothing but examine the constitutionality of legislation without prior prompting.  Why should people have to be hurt (arrested, fined, jailed, shamed, etc) by a law that is unconstitutional before it can be declared such?  It would also stop legislatures passing clearly unconstitutional laws, either due to disregard of the Constitution or just so they can talk about how tough on \_X\_ they are.  It also opens up the possibility to completely block laws from being passed if they're determined to be unconstitutional in the drafting/debate stages.

</p><p>As an added benefit, I think it's hard to vote against.  The only real argument I can see against it is delay on legislation, which I think can be worked around with some clever language amounting to "we can pass this while the review takes place, but if it comes back unconstitutional it's automatically void" (perhaps with a larger majority?).  Which is, really, quite like the system we have right now -- just significantly faster.  The decision would be, of course, appealable up to the USSC, but like the current situation most of them would not see a hearing there.  There would also probably need to be an intermediate appeal, probably working like current appeals courts: A judge or panel or judges hears the original case, which can then be appealed up to a panel (if a single judge started it) or the full court before going up to the USSC.

</p><p>Anyway, the idea is rough in details, but the jist is pretty simple: Don't hurt people with an unconstitutional law before it is struck down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , no .
Stupid laws are bad , but destroying the separation of powers is equally bad .
Determining if a law is unconstitutional is a matter for the judiciary who are , at least supposedly , legal experts qualified to make such judgments and largely immune from retaliation for those decisions .
Passing it off to elected officials is silly , particularly in a two-party system where laws are likely to be struck down just based on who 's in power at any given moment .
What I would like to see , however , is a method of challenging laws--perhaps even going so far as to get a ruling on constitutionality before the law is even passed--that can be requested by parties without other standing .
At the very least , allow politicians to do so ; I 'm sure the opposition party will take advantage many times .
I remember cases in the warrantless wiretapping debacle being thrown out because people who did n't know they were spied on did n't have legal standing to sue for information about whether or not they had been spied on .
Talk about retardedly circular logic .
Luckily a handful of judges saw through it , but I digress .
The problem , of course , is that it would seriously overwork an already overtaxed judicial system and it might delay passage of important bills .
( How long , I wonder , would an average judicial pass over a bill take to complete ?
) I still think it would be worthwhile to set up some sort of constitutional court and pay some judges to do nothing but examine the constitutionality of legislation without prior prompting .
Why should people have to be hurt ( arrested , fined , jailed , shamed , etc ) by a law that is unconstitutional before it can be declared such ?
It would also stop legislatures passing clearly unconstitutional laws , either due to disregard of the Constitution or just so they can talk about how tough on \ _X \ _ they are .
It also opens up the possibility to completely block laws from being passed if they 're determined to be unconstitutional in the drafting/debate stages .
As an added benefit , I think it 's hard to vote against .
The only real argument I can see against it is delay on legislation , which I think can be worked around with some clever language amounting to " we can pass this while the review takes place , but if it comes back unconstitutional it 's automatically void " ( perhaps with a larger majority ? ) .
Which is , really , quite like the system we have right now -- just significantly faster .
The decision would be , of course , appealable up to the USSC , but like the current situation most of them would not see a hearing there .
There would also probably need to be an intermediate appeal , probably working like current appeals courts : A judge or panel or judges hears the original case , which can then be appealed up to a panel ( if a single judge started it ) or the full court before going up to the USSC .
Anyway , the idea is rough in details , but the jist is pretty simple : Do n't hurt people with an unconstitutional law before it is struck down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, no.
Stupid laws are bad, but destroying the separation of powers is equally bad.
Determining if a law is unconstitutional is a matter for the judiciary who are, at least supposedly, legal experts qualified to make such judgments and largely immune from retaliation for those decisions.
Passing it off to elected officials is silly, particularly in a two-party system where laws are likely to be struck down just based on who's in power at any given moment.
What I would like to see, however, is a method of challenging laws--perhaps even going so far as to get a ruling on constitutionality before the law is even passed--that can be requested by parties without other standing.
At the very least, allow politicians to do so; I'm sure the opposition party will take advantage many times.
I remember cases in the warrantless wiretapping debacle being thrown out because people who didn't know they were spied on didn't have legal standing to sue for information about whether or not they had been spied on.
Talk about retardedly circular logic.
Luckily a handful of judges saw through it, but I digress.
The problem, of course, is that it would seriously overwork an already overtaxed judicial system and it might delay passage of important bills.
(How long, I wonder, would an average judicial pass over a bill take to complete?
)  I still think it would be worthwhile to set up some sort of constitutional court and pay some judges to do nothing but examine the constitutionality of legislation without prior prompting.
Why should people have to be hurt (arrested, fined, jailed, shamed, etc) by a law that is unconstitutional before it can be declared such?
It would also stop legislatures passing clearly unconstitutional laws, either due to disregard of the Constitution or just so they can talk about how tough on \_X\_ they are.
It also opens up the possibility to completely block laws from being passed if they're determined to be unconstitutional in the drafting/debate stages.
As an added benefit, I think it's hard to vote against.
The only real argument I can see against it is delay on legislation, which I think can be worked around with some clever language amounting to "we can pass this while the review takes place, but if it comes back unconstitutional it's automatically void" (perhaps with a larger majority?).
Which is, really, quite like the system we have right now -- just significantly faster.
The decision would be, of course, appealable up to the USSC, but like the current situation most of them would not see a hearing there.
There would also probably need to be an intermediate appeal, probably working like current appeals courts: A judge or panel or judges hears the original case, which can then be appealed up to a panel (if a single judge started it) or the full court before going up to the USSC.
Anyway, the idea is rough in details, but the jist is pretty simple: Don't hurt people with an unconstitutional law before it is struck down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262370</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no lawyer but..</title>
	<author>lamer01</author>
	<datestamp>1265138820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In addition, I also suggest that if enough of these warrant-less subpoenas  (or any other similar law)  have a hit ratio (that is, finding the crime the subpoena is intended to find) that is less than the corresponding warranted laws then they should be struck down because it would mean that they are being used with inadequate due diligence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition , I also suggest that if enough of these warrant-less subpoenas ( or any other similar law ) have a hit ratio ( that is , finding the crime the subpoena is intended to find ) that is less than the corresponding warranted laws then they should be struck down because it would mean that they are being used with inadequate due diligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition, I also suggest that if enough of these warrant-less subpoenas  (or any other similar law)  have a hit ratio (that is, finding the crime the subpoena is intended to find) that is less than the corresponding warranted laws then they should be struck down because it would mean that they are being used with inadequate due diligence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258502</id>
	<title>Re:If they would prosecute subverters of these law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265121900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Laws like this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/always/ end up being subverted for lots of other purposes.</p><p>I believe that if people who were found to have subverted it were vigorously prosecuted, then eventually, law enforcement/prosecutors would quit asking for such laws in the first place.</p></div><p>So in other words, what you are saying is we should "shut the f#$k up and do what we are told."<br>I hope I'm mis-interpreting what you wrote.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Laws like this /always/ end up being subverted for lots of other purposes.I believe that if people who were found to have subverted it were vigorously prosecuted , then eventually , law enforcement/prosecutors would quit asking for such laws in the first place.So in other words , what you are saying is we should " shut the f # $ k up and do what we are told .
" I hope I 'm mis-interpreting what you wrote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laws like this /always/ end up being subverted for lots of other purposes.I believe that if people who were found to have subverted it were vigorously prosecuted, then eventually, law enforcement/prosecutors would quit asking for such laws in the first place.So in other words, what you are saying is we should "shut the f#$k up and do what we are told.
"I hope I'm mis-interpreting what you wrote.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259460</id>
	<title>Re:Apparently Constitution doesn't apply in Utah</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1265127180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy, both major parties are for Big Government.  The difference is just what areas of the government that they want bigger.  And, of course, for all their protests, neither party will really try to shrink government too much when they take power.  They'll just slow/freeze the growth of the "bad big government" sections and increase the growth of the "good big government" sections.  This applies to the states as well as the federal government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy , both major parties are for Big Government .
The difference is just what areas of the government that they want bigger .
And , of course , for all their protests , neither party will really try to shrink government too much when they take power .
They 'll just slow/freeze the growth of the " bad big government " sections and increase the growth of the " good big government " sections .
This applies to the states as well as the federal government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy, both major parties are for Big Government.
The difference is just what areas of the government that they want bigger.
And, of course, for all their protests, neither party will really try to shrink government too much when they take power.
They'll just slow/freeze the growth of the "bad big government" sections and increase the growth of the "good big government" sections.
This applies to the states as well as the federal government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258388</id>
	<title>Apparently Constitution doesn't apply in Utah</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1265120940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>..the ability to demand customer information from Internet or cell phone companies via an administrative subpoena, with no judicial review (text of the HB150).</i>

</p><p>I don't get it.  Isn't Utah the home of a lot of those militant constitutional crusaders?  So giving health care coverage to poor people and making people have health insurance to cut out the freeloaders in the health care system is socialism and unconstitutional, but law enforcement reviewing GPS cellphone data and their ISP logs without a warrant is all okay?  You want the government out of our lives...unless it's abortion or right to die, then government intervention is okay.

</p><p>How do you rationalize positions like that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..the ability to demand customer information from Internet or cell phone companies via an administrative subpoena , with no judicial review ( text of the HB150 ) .
I do n't get it .
Is n't Utah the home of a lot of those militant constitutional crusaders ?
So giving health care coverage to poor people and making people have health insurance to cut out the freeloaders in the health care system is socialism and unconstitutional , but law enforcement reviewing GPS cellphone data and their ISP logs without a warrant is all okay ?
You want the government out of our lives...unless it 's abortion or right to die , then government intervention is okay .
How do you rationalize positions like that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ..the ability to demand customer information from Internet or cell phone companies via an administrative subpoena, with no judicial review (text of the HB150).
I don't get it.
Isn't Utah the home of a lot of those militant constitutional crusaders?
So giving health care coverage to poor people and making people have health insurance to cut out the freeloaders in the health care system is socialism and unconstitutional, but law enforcement reviewing GPS cellphone data and their ISP logs without a warrant is all okay?
You want the government out of our lives...unless it's abortion or right to die, then government intervention is okay.
How do you rationalize positions like that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31263770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31261198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31265088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31261854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31261586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31264184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31263356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31265882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31263784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31271834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31266018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31261818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31264646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31263656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31266576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31264418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31263970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31263394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31261580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_025225_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31266018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31264418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31263784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31263970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31261818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258356
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31271834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258598
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260658
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31261586
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31264184
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262790
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262630
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262370
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262508
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259834
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31261198
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31265088
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31261580
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260254
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31263770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258442
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31264646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258566
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262892
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31321276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31266002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31263394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31263356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31265882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262948
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31266576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31263656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31259084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31261854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31260028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31262486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_025225.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_025225.31258454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
