<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_28_1432203</id>
	<title>UK Bill Would Outlaw Open Wi-Fi</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1267370460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from ZDNet about another troubling aspect of the UK's much-maligned Digital Economy Bill:
<i>"The government will not exempt universities, libraries and small businesses providing open Wi-Fi services from its Digital Economy Bill copyright crackdown, according to official advice released earlier this week. This would leave many organizations open to the same penalties for copyright infringement as individual subscribers, potentially including disconnection from the Internet, leading legal experts to say it will become <a href="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,40057470,00.htm">impossible for small businesses and the like to offer Wi-Fi access</a>. 'This is going to be a very unfortunate measure for small businesses, particularly in a recession, many of whom are using open free Wi-Fi very effectively as a way to get the punters in. Even if they password protect, they then have two options &mdash; to pay someone like The Cloud to manage it for them, or take responsibility themselves for becoming an ISP effectively, and keep records for everyone they assign connections to, which is an impossible burden for a small cafe,' said Lilian Edwards, professor of Internet law at Sheffield University."</i>
Relatedly, an anonymous reader passes along a post which breaks down the question of <a href="http://allthatiswrong.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/is-making-use-of-unprotected-wi-fi-stealing/">whether using unprotected Wi-Fi is stealing</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from ZDNet about another troubling aspect of the UK 's much-maligned Digital Economy Bill : " The government will not exempt universities , libraries and small businesses providing open Wi-Fi services from its Digital Economy Bill copyright crackdown , according to official advice released earlier this week .
This would leave many organizations open to the same penalties for copyright infringement as individual subscribers , potentially including disconnection from the Internet , leading legal experts to say it will become impossible for small businesses and the like to offer Wi-Fi access .
'This is going to be a very unfortunate measure for small businesses , particularly in a recession , many of whom are using open free Wi-Fi very effectively as a way to get the punters in .
Even if they password protect , they then have two options    to pay someone like The Cloud to manage it for them , or take responsibility themselves for becoming an ISP effectively , and keep records for everyone they assign connections to , which is an impossible burden for a small cafe, ' said Lilian Edwards , professor of Internet law at Sheffield University .
" Relatedly , an anonymous reader passes along a post which breaks down the question of whether using unprotected Wi-Fi is stealing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from ZDNet about another troubling aspect of the UK's much-maligned Digital Economy Bill:
"The government will not exempt universities, libraries and small businesses providing open Wi-Fi services from its Digital Economy Bill copyright crackdown, according to official advice released earlier this week.
This would leave many organizations open to the same penalties for copyright infringement as individual subscribers, potentially including disconnection from the Internet, leading legal experts to say it will become impossible for small businesses and the like to offer Wi-Fi access.
'This is going to be a very unfortunate measure for small businesses, particularly in a recession, many of whom are using open free Wi-Fi very effectively as a way to get the punters in.
Even if they password protect, they then have two options — to pay someone like The Cloud to manage it for them, or take responsibility themselves for becoming an ISP effectively, and keep records for everyone they assign connections to, which is an impossible burden for a small cafe,' said Lilian Edwards, professor of Internet law at Sheffield University.
"
Relatedly, an anonymous reader passes along a post which breaks down the question of whether using unprotected Wi-Fi is stealing.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306802</id>
	<title>Re:What might make more sense....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267380060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if a pickpocket steals a wallet from a patron inside a restaurant, the restaurant owner is liable?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if a pickpocket steals a wallet from a patron inside a restaurant , the restaurant owner is liable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if a pickpocket steals a wallet from a patron inside a restaurant, the restaurant owner is liable?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305986</id>
	<title>Can't set up a secure access point?</title>
	<author>John3</author>
	<datestamp>1267374600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an owner of a small business I can't imagine leaving our WiFi open.  In addition to <a href="https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/pdfs/PCI\_DSS\_Wireless\_Guidelines.pdf" title="pcisecuritystandards.org" rel="nofollow">PCI requirements</a> [pcisecuritystandards.org] to protect credit card data it just doesn't make sense to leave your network open.  Would a business install a network hub on a wall outside their building?  As far as "managing" the wireless network, if the business has nobody that can implement a simple password protection scheme then they probably should not be maintaining their own network in the first place.  Odds are they'll wind up with compromised servers spewing spam and malware, and infecting people that hop on to their open wireless network.</p><p>Just get out the manual and fix your open access points.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an owner of a small business I ca n't imagine leaving our WiFi open .
In addition to PCI requirements [ pcisecuritystandards.org ] to protect credit card data it just does n't make sense to leave your network open .
Would a business install a network hub on a wall outside their building ?
As far as " managing " the wireless network , if the business has nobody that can implement a simple password protection scheme then they probably should not be maintaining their own network in the first place .
Odds are they 'll wind up with compromised servers spewing spam and malware , and infecting people that hop on to their open wireless network.Just get out the manual and fix your open access points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an owner of a small business I can't imagine leaving our WiFi open.
In addition to PCI requirements [pcisecuritystandards.org] to protect credit card data it just doesn't make sense to leave your network open.
Would a business install a network hub on a wall outside their building?
As far as "managing" the wireless network, if the business has nobody that can implement a simple password protection scheme then they probably should not be maintaining their own network in the first place.
Odds are they'll wind up with compromised servers spewing spam and malware, and infecting people that hop on to their open wireless network.Just get out the manual and fix your open access points.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306138</id>
	<title>Open wi-fi should be perfectly legal</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1267375740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Open wi-fi should be as legal as me, on my own property giving away things for free. No one would care if I was giving out free water bottles on a hot day, nor would anyone care if I was giving away books for free, but when I'm giving away something in essence unlimited* it becomes bad? <br> <br>

*yes, it does increase bandwidth and would slow down your internet use, but how often is someone going to notice that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open wi-fi should be as legal as me , on my own property giving away things for free .
No one would care if I was giving out free water bottles on a hot day , nor would anyone care if I was giving away books for free , but when I 'm giving away something in essence unlimited * it becomes bad ?
* yes , it does increase bandwidth and would slow down your internet use , but how often is someone going to notice that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open wi-fi should be as legal as me, on my own property giving away things for free.
No one would care if I was giving out free water bottles on a hot day, nor would anyone care if I was giving away books for free, but when I'm giving away something in essence unlimited* it becomes bad?
*yes, it does increase bandwidth and would slow down your internet use, but how often is someone going to notice that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31311994</id>
	<title>Another step closer to 1984</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267378800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is anyone really surprised that this is proposed in the UK? If any business or person wants to give away free services or goods (including WiFi/Internet) it should be up to them and legal. It's not any different than a hotel that has free telephone or faxing services for their customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone really surprised that this is proposed in the UK ?
If any business or person wants to give away free services or goods ( including WiFi/Internet ) it should be up to them and legal .
It 's not any different than a hotel that has free telephone or faxing services for their customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone really surprised that this is proposed in the UK?
If any business or person wants to give away free services or goods (including WiFi/Internet) it should be up to them and legal.
It's not any different than a hotel that has free telephone or faxing services for their customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305952</id>
	<title>I went to a drinking club once</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267374360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bars were outlawed. The only place that could serve drinks were private clubs.</p><p>So I paid a $7 "membership fee" at the door and had a great time. First drink was free!</p><p>To paraphrase the philosopher Ian Malcom, "Life finds a way".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bars were outlawed .
The only place that could serve drinks were private clubs.So I paid a $ 7 " membership fee " at the door and had a great time .
First drink was free ! To paraphrase the philosopher Ian Malcom , " Life finds a way " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bars were outlawed.
The only place that could serve drinks were private clubs.So I paid a $7 "membership fee" at the door and had a great time.
First drink was free!To paraphrase the philosopher Ian Malcom, "Life finds a way".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31309826</id>
	<title>VPN?</title>
	<author>drolli</author>
	<datestamp>1267359540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how about offering (free) transmission only to well known VPN services? In that case the internet access point is the VPN and the VPN provider is the internet provider? That would be reasonable because it also protects the users agains malicious free WIFI APs and other users. It would invoke that the shop does not keep and store data in an undefined way and therefore have no additional costs for the shop. It would require no contracts between the shop and the VPN providers, and therfore the shop could reasily offer as many services as desired.</p><p>Moreover it would educate users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how about offering ( free ) transmission only to well known VPN services ?
In that case the internet access point is the VPN and the VPN provider is the internet provider ?
That would be reasonable because it also protects the users agains malicious free WIFI APs and other users .
It would invoke that the shop does not keep and store data in an undefined way and therefore have no additional costs for the shop .
It would require no contracts between the shop and the VPN providers , and therfore the shop could reasily offer as many services as desired.Moreover it would educate users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how about offering (free) transmission only to well known VPN services?
In that case the internet access point is the VPN and the VPN provider is the internet provider?
That would be reasonable because it also protects the users agains malicious free WIFI APs and other users.
It would invoke that the shop does not keep and store data in an undefined way and therefore have no additional costs for the shop.
It would require no contracts between the shop and the VPN providers, and therfore the shop could reasily offer as many services as desired.Moreover it would educate users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310802</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267367040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course they will end open access Wi Fi- we can't have people disagreeing with their Jewish masters, can we!</p><p>The Jews are terrified that you will read the truth about them, and what they are doing to your countries...</p><p>They own the banks, they own YOU and your children because of that, they own the entire media, and decide EVERYTHING you read in print, and see on TV and in films.</p><p>What are they afraid of? You finding out the truth, that's what.</p><p>That's why they hate the internet. They hate freedom of speech, they hate freedom of association (because most white people would choose to live SEPARATELY from Jews and non-whites, if we knew the truth about what the Jews have done to us.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they will end open access Wi Fi- we ca n't have people disagreeing with their Jewish masters , can we ! The Jews are terrified that you will read the truth about them , and what they are doing to your countries...They own the banks , they own YOU and your children because of that , they own the entire media , and decide EVERYTHING you read in print , and see on TV and in films.What are they afraid of ?
You finding out the truth , that 's what.That 's why they hate the internet .
They hate freedom of speech , they hate freedom of association ( because most white people would choose to live SEPARATELY from Jews and non-whites , if we knew the truth about what the Jews have done to us .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they will end open access Wi Fi- we can't have people disagreeing with their Jewish masters, can we!The Jews are terrified that you will read the truth about them, and what they are doing to your countries...They own the banks, they own YOU and your children because of that, they own the entire media, and decide EVERYTHING you read in print, and see on TV and in films.What are they afraid of?
You finding out the truth, that's what.That's why they hate the internet.
They hate freedom of speech, they hate freedom of association (because most white people would choose to live SEPARATELY from Jews and non-whites, if we knew the truth about what the Jews have done to us.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31314662</id>
	<title>Re:Open wi-fi should be perfectly legal</title>
	<author>burlingk</author>
	<datestamp>1267452540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you actually been to Singapore, or studied their laws or culture?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you actually been to Singapore , or studied their laws or culture ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you actually been to Singapore, or studied their laws or culture?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31309388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31313408</id>
	<title>All-amendment attack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267438860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What's really needed is a multi-national organization to address what's clearly an all-out assault on internet freedom by a variety of vested interests."</p><p>Which constitutional amendment governs our "internet freedom"? Double-points if you can point to the British version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What 's really needed is a multi-national organization to address what 's clearly an all-out assault on internet freedom by a variety of vested interests .
" Which constitutional amendment governs our " internet freedom " ?
Double-points if you can point to the British version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What's really needed is a multi-national organization to address what's clearly an all-out assault on internet freedom by a variety of vested interests.
"Which constitutional amendment governs our "internet freedom"?
Double-points if you can point to the British version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306408</id>
	<title>Password as your SSID</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1267377540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There, its secure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There , its secure : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There, its secure :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306444</id>
	<title>Re:Can't set up a secure access point?</title>
	<author>profplump</author>
	<datestamp>1267377720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one is suggesting that you open your business network up. But you might want to setup a separate, Internet-only connection for customers and visitors that does not require authentication. For some businesses this is not an issue, but if you're a coffee shop/etc. it certainly is, and even businesses that just want to provide easy access Internet for clients/vendors/etc. that might be in their office would now be required to identify and authenticate users, which adds a significant amount of hassle for no good reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one is suggesting that you open your business network up .
But you might want to setup a separate , Internet-only connection for customers and visitors that does not require authentication .
For some businesses this is not an issue , but if you 're a coffee shop/etc .
it certainly is , and even businesses that just want to provide easy access Internet for clients/vendors/etc .
that might be in their office would now be required to identify and authenticate users , which adds a significant amount of hassle for no good reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one is suggesting that you open your business network up.
But you might want to setup a separate, Internet-only connection for customers and visitors that does not require authentication.
For some businesses this is not an issue, but if you're a coffee shop/etc.
it certainly is, and even businesses that just want to provide easy access Internet for clients/vendors/etc.
that might be in their office would now be required to identify and authenticate users, which adds a significant amount of hassle for no good reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310786</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267366860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA: "Even if they password protect, they then have two options &mdash; to pay someone like The Cloud to manage it for them, or take responsibility themselves for becoming an ISP effectively, and keep records for everyone they assign connections to, which is an impossible burden for a small caf&#233;.</p><p>This is a stealth Bill to help the likes of The Cloud (and it's investors), to monopolize WiFi access accross the country.  Obviously free WiFi access is hurting there business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA : " Even if they password protect , they then have two options    to pay someone like The Cloud to manage it for them , or take responsibility themselves for becoming an ISP effectively , and keep records for everyone they assign connections to , which is an impossible burden for a small caf   .This is a stealth Bill to help the likes of The Cloud ( and it 's investors ) , to monopolize WiFi access accross the country .
Obviously free WiFi access is hurting there business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA: "Even if they password protect, they then have two options — to pay someone like The Cloud to manage it for them, or take responsibility themselves for becoming an ISP effectively, and keep records for everyone they assign connections to, which is an impossible burden for a small café.This is a stealth Bill to help the likes of The Cloud (and it's investors), to monopolize WiFi access accross the country.
Obviously free WiFi access is hurting there business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305948</id>
	<title>First</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267374360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>First post.  I've given my credit card details, scan of passport and my fingerprint to the clerk.  Can I have WiFi now please?</htmltext>
<tokenext>First post .
I 've given my credit card details , scan of passport and my fingerprint to the clerk .
Can I have WiFi now please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First post.
I've given my credit card details, scan of passport and my fingerprint to the clerk.
Can I have WiFi now please?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310654</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1267365540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another facet of this I've been thinking, is that if open wifi spots disappear due to cost or accountability, there will be those out there who begin stealing it for want of a better avenue.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Worldwide, it isn't that there are so many making criminals of themselves as there are governments making people criminals.<br>At some point someone should condone revolution. I suppose it will be me.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Revolt people of the world. Take your government down and run an enema hose right up its butt!</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; There I've done my part. The rest is up to you. Let the WiFi Revolt begin!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another facet of this I 've been thinking , is that if open wifi spots disappear due to cost or accountability , there will be those out there who begin stealing it for want of a better avenue .
        Worldwide , it is n't that there are so many making criminals of themselves as there are governments making people criminals.At some point someone should condone revolution .
I suppose it will be me .
        Revolt people of the world .
Take your government down and run an enema hose right up its butt !
      There I 've done my part .
The rest is up to you .
Let the WiFi Revolt begin !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another facet of this I've been thinking, is that if open wifi spots disappear due to cost or accountability, there will be those out there who begin stealing it for want of a better avenue.
        Worldwide, it isn't that there are so many making criminals of themselves as there are governments making people criminals.At some point someone should condone revolution.
I suppose it will be me.
        Revolt people of the world.
Take your government down and run an enema hose right up its butt!
      There I've done my part.
The rest is up to you.
Let the WiFi Revolt begin!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31313332</id>
	<title>Summary is deliberately misleading</title>
	<author>neonKow</author>
	<datestamp>1267438140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Making it unfeasible for cafes to provide Wi-Fi because of liability issues is not OUTLAWING anything. It's a bad bill with poorly thought out wording written by stupid legislators, but it's not evil "we hate freedom and all it stands for" law that the OP makes it out to be.

Fear mongering is bad whether you use it to deny gay rights or to stamp out stupid bills.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Making it unfeasible for cafes to provide Wi-Fi because of liability issues is not OUTLAWING anything .
It 's a bad bill with poorly thought out wording written by stupid legislators , but it 's not evil " we hate freedom and all it stands for " law that the OP makes it out to be .
Fear mongering is bad whether you use it to deny gay rights or to stamp out stupid bills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making it unfeasible for cafes to provide Wi-Fi because of liability issues is not OUTLAWING anything.
It's a bad bill with poorly thought out wording written by stupid legislators, but it's not evil "we hate freedom and all it stands for" law that the OP makes it out to be.
Fear mongering is bad whether you use it to deny gay rights or to stamp out stupid bills.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306132</id>
	<title>Extra! Extra!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267375680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>UK outlaws open wifi, mandates WEP for all secure connections!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>UK outlaws open wifi , mandates WEP for all secure connections !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UK outlaws open wifi, mandates WEP for all secure connections!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308202</id>
	<title>Re:very british</title>
	<author>horza</author>
	<datestamp>1267390080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government has already introduced a bill mandating you lodge all your private encryption keys with the government. It was called the Key Escrow Bill introduced by the Conservatives. Labour pledged to throw it out in their manifesto, then when elected promptly tried to steam-roller it into law. Headed by numerous ministers (off the top of my head, Mandelson, Hewitt, Straw) it was eventually watered<br>down into RIPA.</p><p>The only EU country that made encryption illegal AFAIK is France, until they found the States were passing on their key industrial secrets to their own corporations, which led to the fastest policy about turn I can remember.</p><p>Phillip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government has already introduced a bill mandating you lodge all your private encryption keys with the government .
It was called the Key Escrow Bill introduced by the Conservatives .
Labour pledged to throw it out in their manifesto , then when elected promptly tried to steam-roller it into law .
Headed by numerous ministers ( off the top of my head , Mandelson , Hewitt , Straw ) it was eventually watereddown into RIPA.The only EU country that made encryption illegal AFAIK is France , until they found the States were passing on their key industrial secrets to their own corporations , which led to the fastest policy about turn I can remember.Phillip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government has already introduced a bill mandating you lodge all your private encryption keys with the government.
It was called the Key Escrow Bill introduced by the Conservatives.
Labour pledged to throw it out in their manifesto, then when elected promptly tried to steam-roller it into law.
Headed by numerous ministers (off the top of my head, Mandelson, Hewitt, Straw) it was eventually watereddown into RIPA.The only EU country that made encryption illegal AFAIK is France, until they found the States were passing on their key industrial secrets to their own corporations, which led to the fastest policy about turn I can remember.Phillip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306628</id>
	<title>Re:Open wi-fi should be perfectly legal</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1267378980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have been detected as using a "think of the children" argument or related argument. This message is to inform you that you have summarily lost the argument.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have been detected as using a " think of the children " argument or related argument .
This message is to inform you that you have summarily lost the argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have been detected as using a "think of the children" argument or related argument.
This message is to inform you that you have summarily lost the argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307680</id>
	<title>Re:An interesting question...</title>
	<author>bazorg</author>
	<datestamp>1267386060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One could offer the point that an owner's failure to protect their WiFi from public use should be an indicator that it is intended for public use, but officially speaking, no real protocol for such an assumption actually exists</p></div><p>.</p><p> From the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bothy" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bothy</a> [wikipedia.org]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A bothy is a basic shelter, usually left unlocked and available for anyone to use free of charge. It was also a term for basic accommodation, usually for gardeners or other workers on an estate. Bothies are to be found in remote, mountainous areas of Scotland, northern England and Wales.</p></div><p>ie: yes, it is normal that people share useful things for no reward and without advance warning. I believe that in mountainous places this is very usual.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One could offer the point that an owner 's failure to protect their WiFi from public use should be an indicator that it is intended for public use , but officially speaking , no real protocol for such an assumption actually exists .
From the http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bothy [ wikipedia.org ] : A bothy is a basic shelter , usually left unlocked and available for anyone to use free of charge .
It was also a term for basic accommodation , usually for gardeners or other workers on an estate .
Bothies are to be found in remote , mountainous areas of Scotland , northern England and Wales.ie : yes , it is normal that people share useful things for no reward and without advance warning .
I believe that in mountainous places this is very usual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One could offer the point that an owner's failure to protect their WiFi from public use should be an indicator that it is intended for public use, but officially speaking, no real protocol for such an assumption actually exists.
From the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bothy [wikipedia.org] :A bothy is a basic shelter, usually left unlocked and available for anyone to use free of charge.
It was also a term for basic accommodation, usually for gardeners or other workers on an estate.
Bothies are to be found in remote, mountainous areas of Scotland, northern England and Wales.ie: yes, it is normal that people share useful things for no reward and without advance warning.
I believe that in mountainous places this is very usual.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306154</id>
	<title>Will they outlaw payphones too?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267375860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can be used for anonymous copyright infringement too. With enough quarters I can read a whole book to my friend who's transcribing on the other end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can be used for anonymous copyright infringement too .
With enough quarters I can read a whole book to my friend who 's transcribing on the other end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can be used for anonymous copyright infringement too.
With enough quarters I can read a whole book to my friend who's transcribing on the other end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306122</id>
	<title>Typical government document.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1267375620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; "This seems almost unprecedented to me, for a government document."</p><p>This seems quite ordinary to me, for a government document.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " This seems almost unprecedented to me , for a government document .
" This seems quite ordinary to me , for a government document .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; "This seems almost unprecedented to me, for a government document.
"This seems quite ordinary to me, for a government document.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31334342</id>
	<title>Re:All-fronts attack</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1267562880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What's really needed is a multi-national organization to address what's clearly an all-out assault on internet freedom by a variety of vested interests. </i></p><p>The Internet has had a temporary pass since governments react slowly to technology.  Now they're catching up "the Internet" with the rest of the society these entities control.</p><p>Goliath once again pursues David.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's really needed is a multi-national organization to address what 's clearly an all-out assault on internet freedom by a variety of vested interests .
The Internet has had a temporary pass since governments react slowly to technology .
Now they 're catching up " the Internet " with the rest of the society these entities control.Goliath once again pursues David .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's really needed is a multi-national organization to address what's clearly an all-out assault on internet freedom by a variety of vested interests.
The Internet has had a temporary pass since governments react slowly to technology.
Now they're catching up "the Internet" with the rest of the society these entities control.Goliath once again pursues David.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31312338</id>
	<title>The real reason they do this:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267383600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because an upcoming Internet censorship system would be worth shit, when everybody could just route around it via wifi.<br>You might see this in other countries too, in the future.<br>Then again, we can route around it, by moving to a still free country. Or founding our own. Or kicking the current government&rsquo;s ass.</p><p>Wouldn&rsquo;t exactly be the first time, you know. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because an upcoming Internet censorship system would be worth shit , when everybody could just route around it via wifi.You might see this in other countries too , in the future.Then again , we can route around it , by moving to a still free country .
Or founding our own .
Or kicking the current government    s ass.Wouldn    t exactly be the first time , you know .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because an upcoming Internet censorship system would be worth shit, when everybody could just route around it via wifi.You might see this in other countries too, in the future.Then again, we can route around it, by moving to a still free country.
Or founding our own.
Or kicking the current government’s ass.Wouldn’t exactly be the first time, you know.
^^</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308132</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267389660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why not? If I want to open my kitchen and give away free food, I can.</i></p><p>Not in France. Give away free soup and the government might come after you:</p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/europe/28soup.html" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/europe/28soup.html</a> [nytimes.com]</p><p>Similar things have occurred in the USA when charities try to give away food without restaurant permits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not ?
If I want to open my kitchen and give away free food , I can.Not in France .
Give away free soup and the government might come after you : http : //www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/europe/28soup.html [ nytimes.com ] Similar things have occurred in the USA when charities try to give away food without restaurant permits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not?
If I want to open my kitchen and give away free food, I can.Not in France.
Give away free soup and the government might come after you:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/europe/28soup.html [nytimes.com]Similar things have occurred in the USA when charities try to give away food without restaurant permits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31351308</id>
	<title>Re:very british</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1267615020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>* Make encryption illegal. No Secrets.</i></p><p>excepting State Secrets, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Make encryption illegal .
No Secrets.excepting State Secrets , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Make encryption illegal.
No Secrets.excepting State Secrets, of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306490</id>
	<title>Re:Srsly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267378080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yet another case where elected officials aren't really thinking, or they don't understand what they're doing.</p></div><p>Who said anything about elected officials? This bill has been put together by (the unelected) Baron Mandelson (AKA The Prince of Darkness) who is a life peer sitting in the House of Lords, currently First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, President of the Board of Trade and Lord President of the Council. (Never ever confuse the British system of government with democracy as they are two very different things).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another case where elected officials are n't really thinking , or they do n't understand what they 're doing.Who said anything about elected officials ?
This bill has been put together by ( the unelected ) Baron Mandelson ( AKA The Prince of Darkness ) who is a life peer sitting in the House of Lords , currently First Secretary of State , Secretary of State for Business , Innovation and Skills , President of the Board of Trade and Lord President of the Council .
( Never ever confuse the British system of government with democracy as they are two very different things ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another case where elected officials aren't really thinking, or they don't understand what they're doing.Who said anything about elected officials?
This bill has been put together by (the unelected) Baron Mandelson (AKA The Prince of Darkness) who is a life peer sitting in the House of Lords, currently First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, President of the Board of Trade and Lord President of the Council.
(Never ever confuse the British system of government with democracy as they are two very different things).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950</id>
	<title>Depends</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1267374360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It really depends upon how it is that they do it, but at the end of the day open access points aren't any more the cause of infringement than ones that one pays for. At any rate people shouldn't have truly open access points to begin with. I know that with PF you can set things up to redirect to a log in page that has them agree to the rules. You could always require they put some form of identification in which should get you off the hook for making it anonymous. Unless the new requirements would require an ID check. Which I'm sure there's some reasonable way of dealing with.<br> <br>

This is mostly just an excuse to shake people down for their change than actually fight any kind of real problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It really depends upon how it is that they do it , but at the end of the day open access points are n't any more the cause of infringement than ones that one pays for .
At any rate people should n't have truly open access points to begin with .
I know that with PF you can set things up to redirect to a log in page that has them agree to the rules .
You could always require they put some form of identification in which should get you off the hook for making it anonymous .
Unless the new requirements would require an ID check .
Which I 'm sure there 's some reasonable way of dealing with .
This is mostly just an excuse to shake people down for their change than actually fight any kind of real problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really depends upon how it is that they do it, but at the end of the day open access points aren't any more the cause of infringement than ones that one pays for.
At any rate people shouldn't have truly open access points to begin with.
I know that with PF you can set things up to redirect to a log in page that has them agree to the rules.
You could always require they put some form of identification in which should get you off the hook for making it anonymous.
Unless the new requirements would require an ID check.
Which I'm sure there's some reasonable way of dealing with.
This is mostly just an excuse to shake people down for their change than actually fight any kind of real problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306248</id>
	<title>Re:Can't set up a secure access point?</title>
	<author>frith01</author>
	<datestamp>1267376520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have a WiFi  point that has access to any node which contains credit card data you are risking trouble.  There is no reason for a Wi-Fi point of any type to have access to the same network that contains credit card data.  You just setup the connections for the wifi point to go out to the web for your customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have a WiFi point that has access to any node which contains credit card data you are risking trouble .
There is no reason for a Wi-Fi point of any type to have access to the same network that contains credit card data .
You just setup the connections for the wifi point to go out to the web for your customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have a WiFi  point that has access to any node which contains credit card data you are risking trouble.
There is no reason for a Wi-Fi point of any type to have access to the same network that contains credit card data.
You just setup the connections for the wifi point to go out to the web for your customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306180</id>
	<title>Enforcement?  Not likely.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267376040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, not only a bad idea, but how the hell are you gonna enforce it?  I mean seriously, anybody driven down around  a couple of square blocks in Downtown, Anywhere with a sniffer lately?  What, at least 40 or 50 APs show up, most of which are unsecure?</p><p>Heh, if they do have some sort of WiFi goon squad running around with a scanner, one could keep them busy for a while with FakeAP...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , not only a bad idea , but how the hell are you gon na enforce it ?
I mean seriously , anybody driven down around a couple of square blocks in Downtown , Anywhere with a sniffer lately ?
What , at least 40 or 50 APs show up , most of which are unsecure ? Heh , if they do have some sort of WiFi goon squad running around with a scanner , one could keep them busy for a while with FakeAP.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, not only a bad idea, but how the hell are you gonna enforce it?
I mean seriously, anybody driven down around  a couple of square blocks in Downtown, Anywhere with a sniffer lately?
What, at least 40 or 50 APs show up, most of which are unsecure?Heh, if they do have some sort of WiFi goon squad running around with a scanner, one could keep them busy for a while with FakeAP...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308510</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>Mister Whirly</author>
	<datestamp>1267349280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, that is a nice theory, but try opening a kitchen and serving food to the public without having an inspection by the health department. I worked as a chef for years and we had a hard time even legally giving away food to charities. If we give them food, and they heat it improperly or do not refrigerate properly etc., we would be liable for any illness/death/monetary loss suffered by anyone eating the food, even if it was 100\% not our fault. (Same reason it is illegal to bring outside food into establishments that serve food. If you get sick on the outside food, they could still be held liable if eaten in the establishment. I am not saying it makes sense, but it IS the law.) Not to say I didn't send a lot of food out the back door to charities anyways, but I could only do so by breaking the law as well as company policies that were likely to get me fired if caught. I knew the risks, and was still willing to take them to do it. But had I gotten caught I wouldn't have whined about it. I knew the risks going in. So considering I was risking my own job and possible lawsuits if something went wrong, and there was absolutely nothing material for me to gain from giving food away, I would hardly say I have earned the "tyrant" moniker you so casually toss about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that is a nice theory , but try opening a kitchen and serving food to the public without having an inspection by the health department .
I worked as a chef for years and we had a hard time even legally giving away food to charities .
If we give them food , and they heat it improperly or do not refrigerate properly etc. , we would be liable for any illness/death/monetary loss suffered by anyone eating the food , even if it was 100 \ % not our fault .
( Same reason it is illegal to bring outside food into establishments that serve food .
If you get sick on the outside food , they could still be held liable if eaten in the establishment .
I am not saying it makes sense , but it IS the law .
) Not to say I did n't send a lot of food out the back door to charities anyways , but I could only do so by breaking the law as well as company policies that were likely to get me fired if caught .
I knew the risks , and was still willing to take them to do it .
But had I gotten caught I would n't have whined about it .
I knew the risks going in .
So considering I was risking my own job and possible lawsuits if something went wrong , and there was absolutely nothing material for me to gain from giving food away , I would hardly say I have earned the " tyrant " moniker you so casually toss about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that is a nice theory, but try opening a kitchen and serving food to the public without having an inspection by the health department.
I worked as a chef for years and we had a hard time even legally giving away food to charities.
If we give them food, and they heat it improperly or do not refrigerate properly etc., we would be liable for any illness/death/monetary loss suffered by anyone eating the food, even if it was 100\% not our fault.
(Same reason it is illegal to bring outside food into establishments that serve food.
If you get sick on the outside food, they could still be held liable if eaten in the establishment.
I am not saying it makes sense, but it IS the law.
) Not to say I didn't send a lot of food out the back door to charities anyways, but I could only do so by breaking the law as well as company policies that were likely to get me fired if caught.
I knew the risks, and was still willing to take them to do it.
But had I gotten caught I wouldn't have whined about it.
I knew the risks going in.
So considering I was risking my own job and possible lawsuits if something went wrong, and there was absolutely nothing material for me to gain from giving food away, I would hardly say I have earned the "tyrant" moniker you so casually toss about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306676</id>
	<title>Re:What might make more sense....</title>
	<author>Quantumstate</author>
	<datestamp>1267379280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read the article rather than the summary you would find out that they are in fact going to do what you said.  You can have an open access point but you will be liable for everything that goes through it unless you keep logs tied to a verified indentity recording everything that person does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the article rather than the summary you would find out that they are in fact going to do what you said .
You can have an open access point but you will be liable for everything that goes through it unless you keep logs tied to a verified indentity recording everything that person does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the article rather than the summary you would find out that they are in fact going to do what you said.
You can have an open access point but you will be liable for everything that goes through it unless you keep logs tied to a verified indentity recording everything that person does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306398</id>
	<title>Ridiculous</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1267377480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government have totally lost the plot. I'll be so glad when BRrown and his morons get voted out in May.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government have totally lost the plot .
I 'll be so glad when BRrown and his morons get voted out in May .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government have totally lost the plot.
I'll be so glad when BRrown and his morons get voted out in May.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31318670</id>
	<title>Re:very british</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267468380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we can't fire up a laptop\netbook near an open hotspot and surf anon., then we'll just have to learn how to hack into secured ones, won't we?</p><p>A nation of hackers will be the result!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we ca n't fire up a laptop \ netbook near an open hotspot and surf anon. , then we 'll just have to learn how to hack into secured ones , wo n't we ? A nation of hackers will be the result !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we can't fire up a laptop\netbook near an open hotspot and surf anon., then we'll just have to learn how to hack into secured ones, won't we?A nation of hackers will be the result!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31320242</id>
	<title>Re:First</title>
	<author>LeadSongDog</author>
	<datestamp>1267474680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's what the ankle bracelet's for...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what the ankle bracelet 's for.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what the ankle bracelet's for...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307114</id>
	<title>Tor worm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267382160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A better idea would be a Tor worm (perhaps even based on PortableTor) that simply installed itself to run at startup (defaulted as relay, with upnp enabled, of course). Perhaps modifying existing  to load such software from a free file hosting site? This would give plausible deniability to citizens under attack by  an authoritarian government (whether it be China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UK, or the United States).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A better idea would be a Tor worm ( perhaps even based on PortableTor ) that simply installed itself to run at startup ( defaulted as relay , with upnp enabled , of course ) .
Perhaps modifying existing to load such software from a free file hosting site ?
This would give plausible deniability to citizens under attack by an authoritarian government ( whether it be China , Iran , Saudi Arabia , the UK , or the United States ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A better idea would be a Tor worm (perhaps even based on PortableTor) that simply installed itself to run at startup (defaulted as relay, with upnp enabled, of course).
Perhaps modifying existing  to load such software from a free file hosting site?
This would give plausible deniability to citizens under attack by  an authoritarian government (whether it be China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UK, or the United States).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306004</id>
	<title>Dark City</title>
	<author>3seas</author>
	<datestamp>1267374720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"shut it down, shut it all down, forever"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" shut it down , shut it all down , forever "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"shut it down, shut it all down, forever"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307286</id>
	<title>I really have to start looking into moving...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267383240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...to move somewhere that isn't England.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...to move somewhere that is n't England .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to move somewhere that isn't England.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306798</id>
	<title>Re:Srsly?</title>
	<author>Grant The Great</author>
	<datestamp>1267380060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a network administrator for a small local ISP I have to say I would absolutely loathe this proposal. I can't even begin to imagine the infrastructure and management nightmare to do something like this at all of our locations.</p><p>So OK, you use encryption for your APs, which you then have to give the password out to your customers making the wireless in effect public anyway.</p><p>Or do you propose we only use WPA2-EAP? So what, we have to not only manage each account individually, but I assume we have to do personnel verification? We simply could have some sort of web based account creation, but would we be held liable if they forged/stole the information? Do we have to do some sort of credit card authorization to make sure the person is who they say they are or do we have to see their ID personally? This kind of defeats the purpose of wireless in some locales.</p><p>And I assume they will want us to log all of the traffic otherwise we'd have to route our public IPs. While in and of itself is not that difficult, most of the time this would be increasingly difficult. Have you priced peering lately? It's not cheap and we're running out of IPs, running NAT at these places is sometimes the only way to bring wireless there. If we can run NAT but have to log the traffic the kind of hardware necessary in order to retain logs for any length of time and keeping it low latency is pretty astronomical and economically infeasible.</p><p>So here's a list of services that they will have to run in order to comply with this: Account management/key storage(ldap), Authentication(RADIUS), Account Creation(web whatever), Packet Logging(ntop) OR Peering Connection/Routable IPs, some sort of database for log retention, and an AP capable of handling the processing power for WPA2-EAP/Authentication. Oh plus you'll need someone to implement and administrate it.</p><p>Does the government plan on paying for this? While the company I work for has the ability to do this and we do for some locations, doing it everywhere would be a nightmare. Not to mention how ripe for abuse this whole system would be. There's a reason why it's not already done. It's expensive, time consuming, hurts the service, and it's easy to get around.</p><p>This is a dumb idea and it won't work. It will put smaller ISPs out of business and even the big ones will have trouble with it. And what do we do about Mom and Pop that don't know how to secure their own wireless? Do they now become liable if someone uses their connection?</p><p>The hell happened to common carrier status?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a network administrator for a small local ISP I have to say I would absolutely loathe this proposal .
I ca n't even begin to imagine the infrastructure and management nightmare to do something like this at all of our locations.So OK , you use encryption for your APs , which you then have to give the password out to your customers making the wireless in effect public anyway.Or do you propose we only use WPA2-EAP ?
So what , we have to not only manage each account individually , but I assume we have to do personnel verification ?
We simply could have some sort of web based account creation , but would we be held liable if they forged/stole the information ?
Do we have to do some sort of credit card authorization to make sure the person is who they say they are or do we have to see their ID personally ?
This kind of defeats the purpose of wireless in some locales.And I assume they will want us to log all of the traffic otherwise we 'd have to route our public IPs .
While in and of itself is not that difficult , most of the time this would be increasingly difficult .
Have you priced peering lately ?
It 's not cheap and we 're running out of IPs , running NAT at these places is sometimes the only way to bring wireless there .
If we can run NAT but have to log the traffic the kind of hardware necessary in order to retain logs for any length of time and keeping it low latency is pretty astronomical and economically infeasible.So here 's a list of services that they will have to run in order to comply with this : Account management/key storage ( ldap ) , Authentication ( RADIUS ) , Account Creation ( web whatever ) , Packet Logging ( ntop ) OR Peering Connection/Routable IPs , some sort of database for log retention , and an AP capable of handling the processing power for WPA2-EAP/Authentication .
Oh plus you 'll need someone to implement and administrate it.Does the government plan on paying for this ?
While the company I work for has the ability to do this and we do for some locations , doing it everywhere would be a nightmare .
Not to mention how ripe for abuse this whole system would be .
There 's a reason why it 's not already done .
It 's expensive , time consuming , hurts the service , and it 's easy to get around.This is a dumb idea and it wo n't work .
It will put smaller ISPs out of business and even the big ones will have trouble with it .
And what do we do about Mom and Pop that do n't know how to secure their own wireless ?
Do they now become liable if someone uses their connection ? The hell happened to common carrier status ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a network administrator for a small local ISP I have to say I would absolutely loathe this proposal.
I can't even begin to imagine the infrastructure and management nightmare to do something like this at all of our locations.So OK, you use encryption for your APs, which you then have to give the password out to your customers making the wireless in effect public anyway.Or do you propose we only use WPA2-EAP?
So what, we have to not only manage each account individually, but I assume we have to do personnel verification?
We simply could have some sort of web based account creation, but would we be held liable if they forged/stole the information?
Do we have to do some sort of credit card authorization to make sure the person is who they say they are or do we have to see their ID personally?
This kind of defeats the purpose of wireless in some locales.And I assume they will want us to log all of the traffic otherwise we'd have to route our public IPs.
While in and of itself is not that difficult, most of the time this would be increasingly difficult.
Have you priced peering lately?
It's not cheap and we're running out of IPs, running NAT at these places is sometimes the only way to bring wireless there.
If we can run NAT but have to log the traffic the kind of hardware necessary in order to retain logs for any length of time and keeping it low latency is pretty astronomical and economically infeasible.So here's a list of services that they will have to run in order to comply with this: Account management/key storage(ldap), Authentication(RADIUS), Account Creation(web whatever), Packet Logging(ntop) OR Peering Connection/Routable IPs, some sort of database for log retention, and an AP capable of handling the processing power for WPA2-EAP/Authentication.
Oh plus you'll need someone to implement and administrate it.Does the government plan on paying for this?
While the company I work for has the ability to do this and we do for some locations, doing it everywhere would be a nightmare.
Not to mention how ripe for abuse this whole system would be.
There's a reason why it's not already done.
It's expensive, time consuming, hurts the service, and it's easy to get around.This is a dumb idea and it won't work.
It will put smaller ISPs out of business and even the big ones will have trouble with it.
And what do we do about Mom and Pop that don't know how to secure their own wireless?
Do they now become liable if someone uses their connection?The hell happened to common carrier status?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306266</id>
	<title>Brown envelopes</title>
	<author>Wowsers</author>
	<datestamp>1267376700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure if you paid Peter Mandelson* some brown envelope money then he would amend the law. But as it is, I think he's more interested in the kind of money that media moguls have when he goes mixing with them on yachts in the South of France for a "friendly chat." The man and the current UK government are evil.


* the chief architect of this whole bastard Digital Economy law</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure if you paid Peter Mandelson * some brown envelope money then he would amend the law .
But as it is , I think he 's more interested in the kind of money that media moguls have when he goes mixing with them on yachts in the South of France for a " friendly chat .
" The man and the current UK government are evil .
* the chief architect of this whole bastard Digital Economy law</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure if you paid Peter Mandelson* some brown envelope money then he would amend the law.
But as it is, I think he's more interested in the kind of money that media moguls have when he goes mixing with them on yachts in the South of France for a "friendly chat.
" The man and the current UK government are evil.
* the chief architect of this whole bastard Digital Economy law</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31314734</id>
	<title>Re:What might make more sense....</title>
	<author>burlingk</author>
	<datestamp>1267452960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, two points you are missing. ^^;

1) They are not talking about making open wifi illegal.  The subject line just suggests this is a step in that direction.
2) They can already hold the owner liable for illegal activity on his network.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , two points you are missing .
^ ^ ; 1 ) They are not talking about making open wifi illegal .
The subject line just suggests this is a step in that direction .
2 ) They can already hold the owner liable for illegal activity on his network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, two points you are missing.
^^;

1) They are not talking about making open wifi illegal.
The subject line just suggests this is a step in that direction.
2) They can already hold the owner liable for illegal activity on his network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307216</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267382820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter who you vote for , the Government always gets in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31309856</id>
	<title>Re:Can't set up a secure access point?</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1267359780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have our internal network on separate subnet from the public wiki.  Even then, people have to register their MAC address to get internet time.  However, all the terminals are all wired connections.</p><p>I wouldn't use wireless to transmit cc-details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have our internal network on separate subnet from the public wiki .
Even then , people have to register their MAC address to get internet time .
However , all the terminals are all wired connections.I would n't use wireless to transmit cc-details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have our internal network on separate subnet from the public wiki.
Even then, people have to register their MAC address to get internet time.
However, all the terminals are all wired connections.I wouldn't use wireless to transmit cc-details.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306512</id>
	<title>Re:Open wi-fi should be perfectly legal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267378260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If one day there's a murder and the police traces down the gun to you, they'd like to be able to continue following the chain to the last owner, but you kept no record so they can't</p></div><p>So this is all to make copyright law a little more convenient to enforce? Freedom means you have to take the occasional tradeoff somewhere. Being a little harder to catch people who might be breaking laws, is one consequence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If one day there 's a murder and the police traces down the gun to you , they 'd like to be able to continue following the chain to the last owner , but you kept no record so they can'tSo this is all to make copyright law a little more convenient to enforce ?
Freedom means you have to take the occasional tradeoff somewhere .
Being a little harder to catch people who might be breaking laws , is one consequence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one day there's a murder and the police traces down the gun to you, they'd like to be able to continue following the chain to the last owner, but you kept no record so they can'tSo this is all to make copyright law a little more convenient to enforce?
Freedom means you have to take the occasional tradeoff somewhere.
Being a little harder to catch people who might be breaking laws, is one consequence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310878</id>
	<title>Re:What about open streets?</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1267367820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Governments should be much more limited in their control of the internet. It is the one universal tool humanity has to exercise any small amount of control of their lives over and above blind deaf and stupid bureaucracies governing them. Transmission signals are no more controllable than the air we breath and therefore free to harvest.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Governments should be much more limited in their control of the internet .
It is the one universal tool humanity has to exercise any small amount of control of their lives over and above blind deaf and stupid bureaucracies governing them .
Transmission signals are no more controllable than the air we breath and therefore free to harvest .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Governments should be much more limited in their control of the internet.
It is the one universal tool humanity has to exercise any small amount of control of their lives over and above blind deaf and stupid bureaucracies governing them.
Transmission signals are no more controllable than the air we breath and therefore free to harvest.
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306016</id>
	<title>Quote from the second link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267374780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In countries where interest access is ridiculously limited such as Australia or in developing countries,</p></div><p>
wonder where this guy's from?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In countries where interest access is ridiculously limited such as Australia or in developing countries , wonder where this guy 's from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In countries where interest access is ridiculously limited such as Australia or in developing countries,
wonder where this guy's from?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307888</id>
	<title>Why is it so hard to see...</title>
	<author>thatbloke83</author>
	<datestamp>1267387740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...that the problem is not with the facilities provided (in this case WiFi/Internet) but instead with the people abusing the facilities?

If the media companies want these things to be policed they THEY should be paying for it and it should be policed in a way that does not impact services in any way (e.g. slowing things down).

Where money is involved, you are guilty until proven innocent, it seems</htmltext>
<tokenext>...that the problem is not with the facilities provided ( in this case WiFi/Internet ) but instead with the people abusing the facilities ?
If the media companies want these things to be policed they THEY should be paying for it and it should be policed in a way that does not impact services in any way ( e.g .
slowing things down ) .
Where money is involved , you are guilty until proven innocent , it seems</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that the problem is not with the facilities provided (in this case WiFi/Internet) but instead with the people abusing the facilities?
If the media companies want these things to be policed they THEY should be paying for it and it should be policed in a way that does not impact services in any way (e.g.
slowing things down).
Where money is involved, you are guilty until proven innocent, it seems</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306742</id>
	<title>TPTB</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267379760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's pretty obvious from this and similar legislation and obviously biased court decisions around the world, that TPTB are scared sh*tless of the enablement of free speech and open thought that the Internet, especially anonomous Internet connections provide. After all, how can they send the Brown Shirts to your home, or other forms of coercion, if they can't tell who you are. The kid glove is beginning to fray and we dumb sheep are beginning to see the mailed fists of our overlords, I mean elected representatives, beneath. If we don't wake up to the dangers soon, it will be too late.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty obvious from this and similar legislation and obviously biased court decisions around the world , that TPTB are scared sh * tless of the enablement of free speech and open thought that the Internet , especially anonomous Internet connections provide .
After all , how can they send the Brown Shirts to your home , or other forms of coercion , if they ca n't tell who you are .
The kid glove is beginning to fray and we dumb sheep are beginning to see the mailed fists of our overlords , I mean elected representatives , beneath .
If we do n't wake up to the dangers soon , it will be too late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty obvious from this and similar legislation and obviously biased court decisions around the world, that TPTB are scared sh*tless of the enablement of free speech and open thought that the Internet, especially anonomous Internet connections provide.
After all, how can they send the Brown Shirts to your home, or other forms of coercion, if they can't tell who you are.
The kid glove is beginning to fray and we dumb sheep are beginning to see the mailed fists of our overlords, I mean elected representatives, beneath.
If we don't wake up to the dangers soon, it will be too late.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306344</id>
	<title>Passive-Aggresive-Open wifi</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1267377240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Complementing the story about <a href="http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/02/25/1348241/Passive-Aggressive-Wi-Fi-Hotspots" title="slashdot.org">Passive-Aggresive wifi Hotspots</a> [slashdot.org], the new trend could putting them locked with password, and naming them ThePasswordIsXYZ9923. They are not open, but whoever wants to use them will be able to do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Complementing the story about Passive-Aggresive wifi Hotspots [ slashdot.org ] , the new trend could putting them locked with password , and naming them ThePasswordIsXYZ9923 .
They are not open , but whoever wants to use them will be able to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Complementing the story about Passive-Aggresive wifi Hotspots [slashdot.org], the new trend could putting them locked with password, and naming them ThePasswordIsXYZ9923.
They are not open, but whoever wants to use them will be able to do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306316</id>
	<title>Re:Open wi-fi should be perfectly legal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267377060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read even just the summary, you'll understand that the correct analogy would be you giving away guns for free without writing down the identity of the people you give them to. If one day there's a murder and the police traces down the gun to you, they'd like to be able to continue following the chain to the last owner, but you kept no record so they can't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read even just the summary , you 'll understand that the correct analogy would be you giving away guns for free without writing down the identity of the people you give them to .
If one day there 's a murder and the police traces down the gun to you , they 'd like to be able to continue following the chain to the last owner , but you kept no record so they ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read even just the summary, you'll understand that the correct analogy would be you giving away guns for free without writing down the identity of the people you give them to.
If one day there's a murder and the police traces down the gun to you, they'd like to be able to continue following the chain to the last owner, but you kept no record so they can't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310890</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>burlingk</author>
	<datestamp>1267367880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the message is that some people are gun toting nuts with minimal actual understanding/regard for the constitution, sure I got the message.

None of those really directly apply in this situation, nor would they apply even if this WAS a US situation.

Plain and simple, if you let someone use your property, and they use it to commit a crime, you can be held liable.  In cases where you can prove without a doubt that it was not you that did it, AND prove specifically WHO did it, then you MIGHT be let off.

If you have any doubt about that, look at the gun law that you seem so proud of.

P.S. I AM an American, and proud of it, and I actually know what the constitution says without having to use guessing and conjecture based on popular myth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the message is that some people are gun toting nuts with minimal actual understanding/regard for the constitution , sure I got the message .
None of those really directly apply in this situation , nor would they apply even if this WAS a US situation .
Plain and simple , if you let someone use your property , and they use it to commit a crime , you can be held liable .
In cases where you can prove without a doubt that it was not you that did it , AND prove specifically WHO did it , then you MIGHT be let off .
If you have any doubt about that , look at the gun law that you seem so proud of .
P.S. I AM an American , and proud of it , and I actually know what the constitution says without having to use guessing and conjecture based on popular myth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the message is that some people are gun toting nuts with minimal actual understanding/regard for the constitution, sure I got the message.
None of those really directly apply in this situation, nor would they apply even if this WAS a US situation.
Plain and simple, if you let someone use your property, and they use it to commit a crime, you can be held liable.
In cases where you can prove without a doubt that it was not you that did it, AND prove specifically WHO did it, then you MIGHT be let off.
If you have any doubt about that, look at the gun law that you seem so proud of.
P.S. I AM an American, and proud of it, and I actually know what the constitution says without having to use guessing and conjecture based on popular myth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307946</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1267388220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Putting the conspiracy nut jobs aside for a second there is a reason why they don't want open WiFi.   It's so that they can send a bill if someone pirates something on your internet connection.</p><p>You would be perfectly free to give away Wi-Fi but if someone downloaded a movie and you were sued you couldn't use the defense "oh well I have an open wifi connection so it must have been someone else.</p><p>It's a no-win scenario.  If they simply try to sue the owner of the internet connection then you are facing an uphill battle because you have to prove they were actually the human being who committed the violation. Getting a conviction would be all but impossible.  If they pass a law saying that the coffee shop is responsible for all traffic then they have to also include ISPs in that definition.  You can't apply a law to an ISP but not a coffee shop since they're fundamentally the same.  ISPs would rightfully point out that it is impossible to police their networks, nor is it their responsibility.   So the policy makers jumped of the first and stupid solution they saw which is to say that ISPs aren't responsible for what happens on their networks but they must be able to identify all their customers in the event of a lawsuit.   And the only way for a micro-isp such as a coffee shop to comply with that is to close down open access in order to identify all users.</p><p>Orrrrr... it's an illuminati plot by a communists to silence you before putting you in an H1N1 internment camp.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting the conspiracy nut jobs aside for a second there is a reason why they do n't want open WiFi .
It 's so that they can send a bill if someone pirates something on your internet connection.You would be perfectly free to give away Wi-Fi but if someone downloaded a movie and you were sued you could n't use the defense " oh well I have an open wifi connection so it must have been someone else.It 's a no-win scenario .
If they simply try to sue the owner of the internet connection then you are facing an uphill battle because you have to prove they were actually the human being who committed the violation .
Getting a conviction would be all but impossible .
If they pass a law saying that the coffee shop is responsible for all traffic then they have to also include ISPs in that definition .
You ca n't apply a law to an ISP but not a coffee shop since they 're fundamentally the same .
ISPs would rightfully point out that it is impossible to police their networks , nor is it their responsibility .
So the policy makers jumped of the first and stupid solution they saw which is to say that ISPs are n't responsible for what happens on their networks but they must be able to identify all their customers in the event of a lawsuit .
And the only way for a micro-isp such as a coffee shop to comply with that is to close down open access in order to identify all users.Orrrrr... it 's an illuminati plot by a communists to silence you before putting you in an H1N1 internment camp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting the conspiracy nut jobs aside for a second there is a reason why they don't want open WiFi.
It's so that they can send a bill if someone pirates something on your internet connection.You would be perfectly free to give away Wi-Fi but if someone downloaded a movie and you were sued you couldn't use the defense "oh well I have an open wifi connection so it must have been someone else.It's a no-win scenario.
If they simply try to sue the owner of the internet connection then you are facing an uphill battle because you have to prove they were actually the human being who committed the violation.
Getting a conviction would be all but impossible.
If they pass a law saying that the coffee shop is responsible for all traffic then they have to also include ISPs in that definition.
You can't apply a law to an ISP but not a coffee shop since they're fundamentally the same.
ISPs would rightfully point out that it is impossible to police their networks, nor is it their responsibility.
So the policy makers jumped of the first and stupid solution they saw which is to say that ISPs aren't responsible for what happens on their networks but they must be able to identify all their customers in the event of a lawsuit.
And the only way for a micro-isp such as a coffee shop to comply with that is to close down open access in order to identify all users.Orrrrr... it's an illuminati plot by a communists to silence you before putting you in an H1N1 internment camp.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307412</id>
	<title>Re:All-fronts attack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267384200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A conspiracy theory does not nessecarily need to be an unsupported conspiracy theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A conspiracy theory does not nessecarily need to be an unsupported conspiracy theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A conspiracy theory does not nessecarily need to be an unsupported conspiracy theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31314460</id>
	<title>Telcos don't want broadly interconnected Wifi</title>
	<author>DoctorLard</author>
	<datestamp>1267451040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Telcos don't want interconnected community wifi spots all over urban areas, because everyone with a phone or laptop would bypass their precious mobile networks and use VoIP over Wifi instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Telcos do n't want interconnected community wifi spots all over urban areas , because everyone with a phone or laptop would bypass their precious mobile networks and use VoIP over Wifi instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Telcos don't want interconnected community wifi spots all over urban areas, because everyone with a phone or laptop would bypass their precious mobile networks and use VoIP over Wifi instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306456</id>
	<title>Imprisonment In The Community is here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267377780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every call will be logged, every transaction filed, what you do, where you go, who you see and what you think will be traceable. You will be watched, profiled, targeted, and the number plate of your vehicle registered at each motorway intersection.</p><p>There will be no cheating and you will do what you are told - though to be fair, for the milch cows amongst us that will not be a problem.</p><p>The UK government introduced the quaintly named. "Care in the community" in order to allow them to cut costs by dumping people with serious psychological disorders out of the hospitals and on to the streets.</p><p>Now they are taking it a step further. Welcome to, "Imprisonment in the Community". No need for the concentration camps. You are already under control right where you are - going about your daily business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every call will be logged , every transaction filed , what you do , where you go , who you see and what you think will be traceable .
You will be watched , profiled , targeted , and the number plate of your vehicle registered at each motorway intersection.There will be no cheating and you will do what you are told - though to be fair , for the milch cows amongst us that will not be a problem.The UK government introduced the quaintly named .
" Care in the community " in order to allow them to cut costs by dumping people with serious psychological disorders out of the hospitals and on to the streets.Now they are taking it a step further .
Welcome to , " Imprisonment in the Community " .
No need for the concentration camps .
You are already under control right where you are - going about your daily business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every call will be logged, every transaction filed, what you do, where you go, who you see and what you think will be traceable.
You will be watched, profiled, targeted, and the number plate of your vehicle registered at each motorway intersection.There will be no cheating and you will do what you are told - though to be fair, for the milch cows amongst us that will not be a problem.The UK government introduced the quaintly named.
"Care in the community" in order to allow them to cut costs by dumping people with serious psychological disorders out of the hospitals and on to the streets.Now they are taking it a step further.
Welcome to, "Imprisonment in the Community".
No need for the concentration camps.
You are already under control right where you are - going about your daily business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31309388</id>
	<title>Re:Open wi-fi should be perfectly legal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267356180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So far, you haven't articulated a good reason against this one.</p></div><p>If you want to introduce a ban on anything, the onus is on you to show that such a ban is necessary, and its benefits significantly overweigh the freedom it takes away.</p><p>One does not need to articulate reasons for why personal freedom is good regardless of its practical applications. It's an inherent assumption in our culture.</p><p>If you feel like having some laws just for the sake of it, there are some countries out there that match your views - like, say, Singapore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So far , you have n't articulated a good reason against this one.If you want to introduce a ban on anything , the onus is on you to show that such a ban is necessary , and its benefits significantly overweigh the freedom it takes away.One does not need to articulate reasons for why personal freedom is good regardless of its practical applications .
It 's an inherent assumption in our culture.If you feel like having some laws just for the sake of it , there are some countries out there that match your views - like , say , Singapore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far, you haven't articulated a good reason against this one.If you want to introduce a ban on anything, the onus is on you to show that such a ban is necessary, and its benefits significantly overweigh the freedom it takes away.One does not need to articulate reasons for why personal freedom is good regardless of its practical applications.
It's an inherent assumption in our culture.If you feel like having some laws just for the sake of it, there are some countries out there that match your views - like, say, Singapore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306236</id>
	<title>Re:Open wi-fi should be perfectly legal</title>
	<author>BradleyUffner</author>
	<datestamp>1267376460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>No one would care if I was giving out free water bottles on a hot day, nor would anyone care if I was giving away books for free, but when I'm giving away something in essence unlimited* it becomes bad?</p></div> </blockquote><p>I 100\% agree with you, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here.</p><p>Once you start handing out child pornography it's bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one would care if I was giving out free water bottles on a hot day , nor would anyone care if I was giving away books for free , but when I 'm giving away something in essence unlimited * it becomes bad ?
I 100 \ % agree with you , but I 'm going to play Devil 's Advocate here.Once you start handing out child pornography it 's bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one would care if I was giving out free water bottles on a hot day, nor would anyone care if I was giving away books for free, but when I'm giving away something in essence unlimited* it becomes bad?
I 100\% agree with you, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here.Once you start handing out child pornography it's bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307980</id>
	<title>uhm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267388460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>my access point is plain OPEN, all connection must pass trough a vpn.<br>this is even MORE secure than wpa1, possibly even wpa2, and i'm still outlaw, uh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my access point is plain OPEN , all connection must pass trough a vpn.this is even MORE secure than wpa1 , possibly even wpa2 , and i 'm still outlaw , uh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my access point is plain OPEN, all connection must pass trough a vpn.this is even MORE secure than wpa1, possibly even wpa2, and i'm still outlaw, uh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31311322</id>
	<title>Oh the irony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267371300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The linked info at the Open Rights group is a Microsoft Word document.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The linked info at the Open Rights group is a Microsoft Word document .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The linked info at the Open Rights group is a Microsoft Word document.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305968</id>
	<title>Srsly?</title>
	<author>lorenlal</author>
	<datestamp>1267374480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another case where elected officials aren't really thinking, or they don't understand what they're doing.</p><p>1) They think everyone can still have free Wi-Fi in public places, but it'll be "protected."<br>or<br>2) Someone's paying them off...  Maybe the ISPs since they can swoop in and say, "Hey!  Even though you can't offer free (beer) wi-fi, we can help you out!  We can set it up so any BT subscriber can use your wi-fi, and that's like X\% of the population.  That'll be almost as good."</p><p>Or, it could just be innocent rampant stupidity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another case where elected officials are n't really thinking , or they do n't understand what they 're doing.1 ) They think everyone can still have free Wi-Fi in public places , but it 'll be " protected .
" or2 ) Someone 's paying them off... Maybe the ISPs since they can swoop in and say , " Hey !
Even though you ca n't offer free ( beer ) wi-fi , we can help you out !
We can set it up so any BT subscriber can use your wi-fi , and that 's like X \ % of the population .
That 'll be almost as good .
" Or , it could just be innocent rampant stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another case where elected officials aren't really thinking, or they don't understand what they're doing.1) They think everyone can still have free Wi-Fi in public places, but it'll be "protected.
"or2) Someone's paying them off...  Maybe the ISPs since they can swoop in and say, "Hey!
Even though you can't offer free (beer) wi-fi, we can help you out!
We can set it up so any BT subscriber can use your wi-fi, and that's like X\% of the population.
That'll be almost as good.
"Or, it could just be innocent rampant stupidity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307284</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>History's Coming To</author>
	<datestamp>1267383240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lawyers and money, as with so many other things.<br> <br>

You CAN set up a free WiFi network under this legislation, but you are responsible for what happens on the network.  If somebody downloads child porn then you take the rap for it...unless you can prove who they are, that they did it, and that they did it against the T&amp;C they agreed to.  The point is that the onus is on the provider not the user, and the provider frequently can't afford even the threat of a lawsuit, let alone actually losing one.<br> <br>

It's the same as much of the "Health and Safety" nonsense you hear about in the UK papers....the HSE (UK H&amp;S govt body) have never suggested that children should wear safety goggles to use blu-tak, but a school decided that they couldn't afford a blu-tak related lawsuit, so they insisted on goggles.  It's an attempted defence against lawyers and litigation, not a reaction to government imposed restrictions.<br> <br>

What's needed is legislation opening and more clearly defining a little personal responsibility...the word "reasonably" in legislation is what the lawyers frequently use for cases that are often close to extortion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawyers and money , as with so many other things .
You CAN set up a free WiFi network under this legislation , but you are responsible for what happens on the network .
If somebody downloads child porn then you take the rap for it...unless you can prove who they are , that they did it , and that they did it against the T&amp;C they agreed to .
The point is that the onus is on the provider not the user , and the provider frequently ca n't afford even the threat of a lawsuit , let alone actually losing one .
It 's the same as much of the " Health and Safety " nonsense you hear about in the UK papers....the HSE ( UK H&amp;S govt body ) have never suggested that children should wear safety goggles to use blu-tak , but a school decided that they could n't afford a blu-tak related lawsuit , so they insisted on goggles .
It 's an attempted defence against lawyers and litigation , not a reaction to government imposed restrictions .
What 's needed is legislation opening and more clearly defining a little personal responsibility...the word " reasonably " in legislation is what the lawyers frequently use for cases that are often close to extortion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawyers and money, as with so many other things.
You CAN set up a free WiFi network under this legislation, but you are responsible for what happens on the network.
If somebody downloads child porn then you take the rap for it...unless you can prove who they are, that they did it, and that they did it against the T&amp;C they agreed to.
The point is that the onus is on the provider not the user, and the provider frequently can't afford even the threat of a lawsuit, let alone actually losing one.
It's the same as much of the "Health and Safety" nonsense you hear about in the UK papers....the HSE (UK H&amp;S govt body) have never suggested that children should wear safety goggles to use blu-tak, but a school decided that they couldn't afford a blu-tak related lawsuit, so they insisted on goggles.
It's an attempted defence against lawyers and litigation, not a reaction to government imposed restrictions.
What's needed is legislation opening and more clearly defining a little personal responsibility...the word "reasonably" in legislation is what the lawyers frequently use for cases that are often close to extortion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31325954</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267460340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All they need to do is require verbose logging, surely? Really, is the world becoming such a place that we are not allowed to simply give stuff away without governments requiring us to get urine samples? I'm glad my dad decided to move to Australia in 1955. As crap as Australia is becoming, if something is mine, it's mine to give away to others, too... for now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All they need to do is require verbose logging , surely ?
Really , is the world becoming such a place that we are not allowed to simply give stuff away without governments requiring us to get urine samples ?
I 'm glad my dad decided to move to Australia in 1955 .
As crap as Australia is becoming , if something is mine , it 's mine to give away to others , too... for now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All they need to do is require verbose logging, surely?
Really, is the world becoming such a place that we are not allowed to simply give stuff away without governments requiring us to get urine samples?
I'm glad my dad decided to move to Australia in 1955.
As crap as Australia is becoming, if something is mine, it's mine to give away to others, too... for now...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310782</id>
	<title>Re:I went to a drinking club once</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267366800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Welcome to Utah!<br><br>Utah, the land of Mormons, snow, sheep, mountains, and more sheep.  Good luck in your endeavor to purchase alcohol from the state run liquor bunker facility.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to Utah ! Utah , the land of Mormons , snow , sheep , mountains , and more sheep .
Good luck in your endeavor to purchase alcohol from the state run liquor bunker facility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to Utah!Utah, the land of Mormons, snow, sheep, mountains, and more sheep.
Good luck in your endeavor to purchase alcohol from the state run liquor bunker facility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31320634</id>
	<title>Re:An interesting question...</title>
	<author>LeadSongDog</author>
	<datestamp>1267476240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, IANAL, but section 342.1.2 reads to me as if cupping my hand behind my ear to listen (with "better than normal hearing") to the sound of someone else's obnoxious ringtone would be just as much a violation.

Sidebar: When I was a kid, there was only one ringtone. It sounded like a bell. And we liked it that way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , IANAL , but section 342.1.2 reads to me as if cupping my hand behind my ear to listen ( with " better than normal hearing " ) to the sound of someone else 's obnoxious ringtone would be just as much a violation .
Sidebar : When I was a kid , there was only one ringtone .
It sounded like a bell .
And we liked it that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, IANAL, but section 342.1.2 reads to me as if cupping my hand behind my ear to listen (with "better than normal hearing") to the sound of someone else's obnoxious ringtone would be just as much a violation.
Sidebar: When I was a kid, there was only one ringtone.
It sounded like a bell.
And we liked it that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306198</id>
	<title>An interesting question...</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1267376160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Of course using unprotected WiFi isn't stealing.  Public wifi is generally unprotected, and using it isn't stealing.
</p><p>
The point should instead be, perhaps, whether using unprotected WiFi without permission is stealing.
</p><p>
But then, I suppose, that ultimately amounts to whether or not using anybody else's WiFi without permission, whether or not they had it protected, is stealing.
</p><p>
Because the measure of someone's ability to access the facilities should not be an indicator of whether or not they are allowed to use it, the only thing that ought to matter is whether or not they ever had any real permission to access it in the first place.
</p><p>
One could offer the point that an owner's failure to protect their WiFi from public use should be an indicator that it is intended for public use, but officially speaking, no real protocol for such an assumption actually exists.
</p><p>
I personally don't care whether or not it's called stealing or not... using somebody else's things without their actual permission is rude at best and can be illegal at worst (in the case of computer facilities such as WiFi, it actually is illegal in Canada.  See sec 342.1 of the Canada Criminal code)... so really, what does it matter if it's actually called stealing or not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course using unprotected WiFi is n't stealing .
Public wifi is generally unprotected , and using it is n't stealing .
The point should instead be , perhaps , whether using unprotected WiFi without permission is stealing .
But then , I suppose , that ultimately amounts to whether or not using anybody else 's WiFi without permission , whether or not they had it protected , is stealing .
Because the measure of someone 's ability to access the facilities should not be an indicator of whether or not they are allowed to use it , the only thing that ought to matter is whether or not they ever had any real permission to access it in the first place .
One could offer the point that an owner 's failure to protect their WiFi from public use should be an indicator that it is intended for public use , but officially speaking , no real protocol for such an assumption actually exists .
I personally do n't care whether or not it 's called stealing or not... using somebody else 's things without their actual permission is rude at best and can be illegal at worst ( in the case of computer facilities such as WiFi , it actually is illegal in Canada .
See sec 342.1 of the Canada Criminal code ) ... so really , what does it matter if it 's actually called stealing or not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Of course using unprotected WiFi isn't stealing.
Public wifi is generally unprotected, and using it isn't stealing.
The point should instead be, perhaps, whether using unprotected WiFi without permission is stealing.
But then, I suppose, that ultimately amounts to whether or not using anybody else's WiFi without permission, whether or not they had it protected, is stealing.
Because the measure of someone's ability to access the facilities should not be an indicator of whether or not they are allowed to use it, the only thing that ought to matter is whether or not they ever had any real permission to access it in the first place.
One could offer the point that an owner's failure to protect their WiFi from public use should be an indicator that it is intended for public use, but officially speaking, no real protocol for such an assumption actually exists.
I personally don't care whether or not it's called stealing or not... using somebody else's things without their actual permission is rude at best and can be illegal at worst (in the case of computer facilities such as WiFi, it actually is illegal in Canada.
See sec 342.1 of the Canada Criminal code)... so really, what does it matter if it's actually called stealing or not?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307038</id>
	<title>bizNatch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267381560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">or make loud noises least of which is of the above fucking confirmed: example, if you ccolect any spilled</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>or make loud noises least of which is of the above fucking confirmed : example , if you ccolect any spilled [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or make loud noises least of which is of the above fucking confirmed: example, if you ccolect any spilled [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306362</id>
	<title>Legal, yes it should be</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1267377360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But, it might be a violation of your TOS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But , it might be a violation of your TOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, it might be a violation of your TOS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31311408</id>
	<title>Not a new problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267372320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whilst the non-RTFAers above have failed to read that no-one is banning open Wifi (instead they're imposing some new responsibilities on ISPs and different responsibilities on subscribers), this is in addition to existing responsibilities that could already be construed as making it "impossible for small businesses and the like to offer Wi-Fi access".</p><p>ISPs in the UK don't have US-style "common carrier" status.  See "Godfrey vs Demon" for one example of this - e.g. read the "analysis" section in here:<br><a href="http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm" title="cyber-rights.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm</a> [cyber-rights.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whilst the non-RTFAers above have failed to read that no-one is banning open Wifi ( instead they 're imposing some new responsibilities on ISPs and different responsibilities on subscribers ) , this is in addition to existing responsibilities that could already be construed as making it " impossible for small businesses and the like to offer Wi-Fi access " .ISPs in the UK do n't have US-style " common carrier " status .
See " Godfrey vs Demon " for one example of this - e.g .
read the " analysis " section in here : http : //www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm [ cyber-rights.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whilst the non-RTFAers above have failed to read that no-one is banning open Wifi (instead they're imposing some new responsibilities on ISPs and different responsibilities on subscribers), this is in addition to existing responsibilities that could already be construed as making it "impossible for small businesses and the like to offer Wi-Fi access".ISPs in the UK don't have US-style "common carrier" status.
See "Godfrey vs Demon" for one example of this - e.g.
read the "analysis" section in here:http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm [cyber-rights.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305958</id>
	<title>Ad-hoc too?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267374420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happens when your diners start sharing across an ad-hoc wireless network in your shop? Are you obliged to jam signals?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens when your diners start sharing across an ad-hoc wireless network in your shop ?
Are you obliged to jam signals ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens when your diners start sharing across an ad-hoc wireless network in your shop?
Are you obliged to jam signals?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307206</id>
	<title>Re:Open wi-fi should be perfectly legal</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1267382760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the risk of certain photographs being circulated is something a society should be prepared to accept as the cost of freedom. It used to involve dying, and now we're balking at photographs?   I don't think so!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the risk of certain photographs being circulated is something a society should be prepared to accept as the cost of freedom .
It used to involve dying , and now we 're balking at photographs ?
I do n't think so !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the risk of certain photographs being circulated is something a society should be prepared to accept as the cost of freedom.
It used to involve dying, and now we're balking at photographs?
I don't think so!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306264</id>
	<title>Re:First</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267376700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You lied about the first post, how are we to believe any other information you gave us is truthful?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You lied about the first post , how are we to believe any other information you gave us is truthful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You lied about the first post, how are we to believe any other information you gave us is truthful?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306928</id>
	<title>Re:Open wi-fi should be perfectly legal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267380840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You have been detected as using a "think of the children" argument or related argument. This message is to inform you that you have summarily lost the argument.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Hey, did you hear that whooshing sound above your head?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have been detected as using a " think of the children " argument or related argument .
This message is to inform you that you have summarily lost the argument .
Hey , did you hear that whooshing sound above your head ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have been detected as using a "think of the children" argument or related argument.
This message is to inform you that you have summarily lost the argument.
Hey, did you hear that whooshing sound above your head?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306188</id>
	<title>Re:Can't set up a secure access point?</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1267376100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because we all know that coffee shops hide servers behind the counter.... Most of the time the free wi-fi they provide is simply an extra consumer-level connection that goes to a cheap-as-free router, they change the SSD and let people use it. Its no big deal if someone uses it and doesn't buy a coffee either, they pay the same for it if someone drank 1000000 cups of coffee or if someone drank one. Its a good advertising scheme too, traveler is walking downtown sees an open access point for a coffee shop, goes in has a coffee and uses the wi-fi.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because we all know that coffee shops hide servers behind the counter.... Most of the time the free wi-fi they provide is simply an extra consumer-level connection that goes to a cheap-as-free router , they change the SSD and let people use it .
Its no big deal if someone uses it and does n't buy a coffee either , they pay the same for it if someone drank 1000000 cups of coffee or if someone drank one .
Its a good advertising scheme too , traveler is walking downtown sees an open access point for a coffee shop , goes in has a coffee and uses the wi-fi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because we all know that coffee shops hide servers behind the counter.... Most of the time the free wi-fi they provide is simply an extra consumer-level connection that goes to a cheap-as-free router, they change the SSD and let people use it.
Its no big deal if someone uses it and doesn't buy a coffee either, they pay the same for it if someone drank 1000000 cups of coffee or if someone drank one.
Its a good advertising scheme too, traveler is walking downtown sees an open access point for a coffee shop, goes in has a coffee and uses the wi-fi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267378500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;people shouldn't have truly open access points to begin with.</p><p>Why not?  If I want to open my kitchen and give away free food, I can.  If I want to buy a bunch of blank CDs and hand-out copies of Ubuntu Linux, I can.  Why can't I give-away free access to Wi-Fi in my home or restaurant?</p><p>No reason I can think of, except to limit free speech/protest and give the government even more control over public policy (i.e. push their one true agenda).</p><p>Alex Jones the Nutter was just discussing this on his radio show: <a href="http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-station.pls?id=175591" title="shoutcast.com">http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-station.pls?id=175591</a> [shoutcast.com] - about how Microsoft, corporations, and government are colluding to silence the people and control what we hear or read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; people should n't have truly open access points to begin with.Why not ?
If I want to open my kitchen and give away free food , I can .
If I want to buy a bunch of blank CDs and hand-out copies of Ubuntu Linux , I can .
Why ca n't I give-away free access to Wi-Fi in my home or restaurant ? No reason I can think of , except to limit free speech/protest and give the government even more control over public policy ( i.e .
push their one true agenda ) .Alex Jones the Nutter was just discussing this on his radio show : http : //yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-station.pls ? id = 175591 [ shoutcast.com ] - about how Microsoft , corporations , and government are colluding to silence the people and control what we hear or read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;people shouldn't have truly open access points to begin with.Why not?
If I want to open my kitchen and give away free food, I can.
If I want to buy a bunch of blank CDs and hand-out copies of Ubuntu Linux, I can.
Why can't I give-away free access to Wi-Fi in my home or restaurant?No reason I can think of, except to limit free speech/protest and give the government even more control over public policy (i.e.
push their one true agenda).Alex Jones the Nutter was just discussing this on his radio show: http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-station.pls?id=175591 [shoutcast.com] - about how Microsoft, corporations, and government are colluding to silence the people and control what we hear or read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307390</id>
	<title>In the US we have CALEA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267384020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US law of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications\_Assistance\_for\_Law\_Enforcement\_Act" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">CALEA</a> [wikipedia.org] is for wiretapping purposes and force EVERY last connection provider to be able to sniff real time. This means that if you have an open wifi, you're the last connection, and you're lliable. 10 grand a day for non compliance. You have to comply, you can't just turn it off. Oh and you can't talk about getting served either, that's illegal too. Wonder how long before CALEA is tweaked to match the UK bill to catch copyright infringers too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US law of CALEA [ wikipedia.org ] is for wiretapping purposes and force EVERY last connection provider to be able to sniff real time .
This means that if you have an open wifi , you 're the last connection , and you 're lliable .
10 grand a day for non compliance .
You have to comply , you ca n't just turn it off .
Oh and you ca n't talk about getting served either , that 's illegal too .
Wonder how long before CALEA is tweaked to match the UK bill to catch copyright infringers too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US law of CALEA [wikipedia.org] is for wiretapping purposes and force EVERY last connection provider to be able to sniff real time.
This means that if you have an open wifi, you're the last connection, and you're lliable.
10 grand a day for non compliance.
You have to comply, you can't just turn it off.
Oh and you can't talk about getting served either, that's illegal too.
Wonder how long before CALEA is tweaked to match the UK bill to catch copyright infringers too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306904</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267380660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I want to open my kitchen and give away free food, I can.</p></div><p>As long as you pass a health inspection to make sure you aren't going to kill or make ill any large groups of people.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If I want to buy a bunch of blank CDs and hand-out copies of Ubuntu Linux, I can.</p></div><p>Because the authors allow you to do so.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why can't I give-away free access to Wi-Fi in my home or restaurant?</p></div><p>
You can! Nobody is going to put out a firmware revision that works on all wireless access points that will not allow them to have open access. However if you do chose to provide access as such, know that you are responsible for what happens. <br> <br>
Say you got a land line, and ran an extension phone out to the sidewalk in front of your house for anyone to use. Someone calls a $1.99 per minute pay line, and talks for an hour. Should you not be responsible for the phone bill? If no, why not?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I want to open my kitchen and give away free food , I can.As long as you pass a health inspection to make sure you are n't going to kill or make ill any large groups of people.If I want to buy a bunch of blank CDs and hand-out copies of Ubuntu Linux , I can.Because the authors allow you to do so.Why ca n't I give-away free access to Wi-Fi in my home or restaurant ?
You can !
Nobody is going to put out a firmware revision that works on all wireless access points that will not allow them to have open access .
However if you do chose to provide access as such , know that you are responsible for what happens .
Say you got a land line , and ran an extension phone out to the sidewalk in front of your house for anyone to use .
Someone calls a $ 1.99 per minute pay line , and talks for an hour .
Should you not be responsible for the phone bill ?
If no , why not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I want to open my kitchen and give away free food, I can.As long as you pass a health inspection to make sure you aren't going to kill or make ill any large groups of people.If I want to buy a bunch of blank CDs and hand-out copies of Ubuntu Linux, I can.Because the authors allow you to do so.Why can't I give-away free access to Wi-Fi in my home or restaurant?
You can!
Nobody is going to put out a firmware revision that works on all wireless access points that will not allow them to have open access.
However if you do chose to provide access as such, know that you are responsible for what happens.
Say you got a land line, and ran an extension phone out to the sidewalk in front of your house for anyone to use.
Someone calls a $1.99 per minute pay line, and talks for an hour.
Should you not be responsible for the phone bill?
If no, why not?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306524</id>
	<title>On the wi-fi stealing article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267378320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't get why slashdot made this 1.5 articles, as it makes discussion of this other article semi-offtopic, but:<br> <br>

The guy may have some decent points, but other than mentioning a counter-argument in order to then tear it apart, he has zero balance to his post, which makes it not so much a thorough evaluation of the issue as much as a vent for someone with an ax to grind. The part that I really didn't agree with is how he goes on about how people get enough warnings to use password protection and whatnot that making wifi unsecured has to be effectively an active decision to want to allow people to connect. It has been commonly mentioned on slashdot that bad users pay no attention to warnings, so they never read them, therefore they don't actually know what is wrong.  While you could say they deserve to have others connect to their network, this guy takes it as implicit authorization to connect- these people are not likely aware enough to consider other people at all. He likes to make lots of assumptions about what the uninformed user would do, despite the fact that it isn't that hard to actually talk to one of these people and no longer have to assume anything. I get the feeling if you asked this guy for tech help, he would patronize you to no end.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get why slashdot made this 1.5 articles , as it makes discussion of this other article semi-offtopic , but : The guy may have some decent points , but other than mentioning a counter-argument in order to then tear it apart , he has zero balance to his post , which makes it not so much a thorough evaluation of the issue as much as a vent for someone with an ax to grind .
The part that I really did n't agree with is how he goes on about how people get enough warnings to use password protection and whatnot that making wifi unsecured has to be effectively an active decision to want to allow people to connect .
It has been commonly mentioned on slashdot that bad users pay no attention to warnings , so they never read them , therefore they do n't actually know what is wrong .
While you could say they deserve to have others connect to their network , this guy takes it as implicit authorization to connect- these people are not likely aware enough to consider other people at all .
He likes to make lots of assumptions about what the uninformed user would do , despite the fact that it is n't that hard to actually talk to one of these people and no longer have to assume anything .
I get the feeling if you asked this guy for tech help , he would patronize you to no end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get why slashdot made this 1.5 articles, as it makes discussion of this other article semi-offtopic, but: 

The guy may have some decent points, but other than mentioning a counter-argument in order to then tear it apart, he has zero balance to his post, which makes it not so much a thorough evaluation of the issue as much as a vent for someone with an ax to grind.
The part that I really didn't agree with is how he goes on about how people get enough warnings to use password protection and whatnot that making wifi unsecured has to be effectively an active decision to want to allow people to connect.
It has been commonly mentioned on slashdot that bad users pay no attention to warnings, so they never read them, therefore they don't actually know what is wrong.
While you could say they deserve to have others connect to their network, this guy takes it as implicit authorization to connect- these people are not likely aware enough to consider other people at all.
He likes to make lots of assumptions about what the uninformed user would do, despite the fact that it isn't that hard to actually talk to one of these people and no longer have to assume anything.
I get the feeling if you asked this guy for tech help, he would patronize you to no end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306254</id>
	<title>Re:Quote from the second link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267376640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interest access is limited for geeks world-wide.  No interest in you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interest access is limited for geeks world-wide .
No interest in you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interest access is limited for geeks world-wide.
No interest in you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307966</id>
	<title>Microsoft is another entity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267388340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft, corporations, and government are colluding to silence the people and control what we hear or read.</p></div><p>When did Microsoft not considered a corporation?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft , corporations , and government are colluding to silence the people and control what we hear or read.When did Microsoft not considered a corporation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft, corporations, and government are colluding to silence the people and control what we hear or read.When did Microsoft not considered a corporation?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31317800</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1267465320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Plain and simple, if you let someone use your property, and they use it to commit a crime, you can be held liable. In cases where you can prove without a doubt that it was not you that did it, AND prove specifically WHO did it, then you MIGHT be let off."</i> <p>
Actually, I think it is up to the STATE to prove that YOU committed the crime, beyond a reasonable doubt. You do not have to prove your innocence. During the course of the trial, you would introduce testimony/evidence that while the crime may in fact have happened on your property, you were not a party to it, nor gave permission for said activities, but that someone else had done this, without your knowledge. You would then point the finger at the most likely suspect.</p><p>
While this sounds similar to what you described, it is in fact..VERY different. You are not guilty until proven innocent, it is the other way around. They have to prove YOU did it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Plain and simple , if you let someone use your property , and they use it to commit a crime , you can be held liable .
In cases where you can prove without a doubt that it was not you that did it , AND prove specifically WHO did it , then you MIGHT be let off .
" Actually , I think it is up to the STATE to prove that YOU committed the crime , beyond a reasonable doubt .
You do not have to prove your innocence .
During the course of the trial , you would introduce testimony/evidence that while the crime may in fact have happened on your property , you were not a party to it , nor gave permission for said activities , but that someone else had done this , without your knowledge .
You would then point the finger at the most likely suspect .
While this sounds similar to what you described , it is in fact..VERY different .
You are not guilty until proven innocent , it is the other way around .
They have to prove YOU did it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Plain and simple, if you let someone use your property, and they use it to commit a crime, you can be held liable.
In cases where you can prove without a doubt that it was not you that did it, AND prove specifically WHO did it, then you MIGHT be let off.
" 
Actually, I think it is up to the STATE to prove that YOU committed the crime, beyond a reasonable doubt.
You do not have to prove your innocence.
During the course of the trial, you would introduce testimony/evidence that while the crime may in fact have happened on your property, you were not a party to it, nor gave permission for said activities, but that someone else had done this, without your knowledge.
You would then point the finger at the most likely suspect.
While this sounds similar to what you described, it is in fact..VERY different.
You are not guilty until proven innocent, it is the other way around.
They have to prove YOU did it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307210</id>
	<title>Hmmmm</title>
	<author>DaMattster</author>
	<datestamp>1267382760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems like this law could be easily rendered null and void through mass civil disobedience on the part of the small business owners.  If one person or a small few break the law, it is a crime whereas if many break the law and do it as part of an organized group, it is a call for change.  It will take some bravery for people to thumb their noses at government.  Free WiFi is almost everywhere in the states and there is no definitive research to suggest that an open WiFi access point is responsible for more cyber attacks.  This is just a UK politco's jump to conclusion in the attempt to gain political influence for himself.  The enforceability of the law is virtually impossible and would require people to invariably report on their neighbors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like this law could be easily rendered null and void through mass civil disobedience on the part of the small business owners .
If one person or a small few break the law , it is a crime whereas if many break the law and do it as part of an organized group , it is a call for change .
It will take some bravery for people to thumb their noses at government .
Free WiFi is almost everywhere in the states and there is no definitive research to suggest that an open WiFi access point is responsible for more cyber attacks .
This is just a UK politco 's jump to conclusion in the attempt to gain political influence for himself .
The enforceability of the law is virtually impossible and would require people to invariably report on their neighbors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like this law could be easily rendered null and void through mass civil disobedience on the part of the small business owners.
If one person or a small few break the law, it is a crime whereas if many break the law and do it as part of an organized group, it is a call for change.
It will take some bravery for people to thumb their noses at government.
Free WiFi is almost everywhere in the states and there is no definitive research to suggest that an open WiFi access point is responsible for more cyber attacks.
This is just a UK politco's jump to conclusion in the attempt to gain political influence for himself.
The enforceability of the law is virtually impossible and would require people to invariably report on their neighbors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31309998</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267360620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As long as you pass a health inspection to make sure you aren't going to kill or make ill any large groups of people.</i></p><p>Blimey, if you come round to my house, no tea and biscuits for you!</p><p><i>Because the authors allow you to do so.</i></p><p>Yes, the authors, not the Government. So why is it any different about what I do with my network?</p><p><i>Say you got a land line, and ran an extension phone out to the sidewalk in front of your house for anyone to use. Someone calls a $1.99 per minute pay line, and talks for an hour. Should you not be responsible for the phone bill? If no, why not?</i></p><p>Can the analogies get any worse? No one is talking about who pays for it - obviously the person should still pay his ISP. The question is liability for copyright infringement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as you pass a health inspection to make sure you are n't going to kill or make ill any large groups of people.Blimey , if you come round to my house , no tea and biscuits for you ! Because the authors allow you to do so.Yes , the authors , not the Government .
So why is it any different about what I do with my network ? Say you got a land line , and ran an extension phone out to the sidewalk in front of your house for anyone to use .
Someone calls a $ 1.99 per minute pay line , and talks for an hour .
Should you not be responsible for the phone bill ?
If no , why not ? Can the analogies get any worse ?
No one is talking about who pays for it - obviously the person should still pay his ISP .
The question is liability for copyright infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as you pass a health inspection to make sure you aren't going to kill or make ill any large groups of people.Blimey, if you come round to my house, no tea and biscuits for you!Because the authors allow you to do so.Yes, the authors, not the Government.
So why is it any different about what I do with my network?Say you got a land line, and ran an extension phone out to the sidewalk in front of your house for anyone to use.
Someone calls a $1.99 per minute pay line, and talks for an hour.
Should you not be responsible for the phone bill?
If no, why not?Can the analogies get any worse?
No one is talking about who pays for it - obviously the person should still pay his ISP.
The question is liability for copyright infringement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306992</id>
	<title>Why is this still in parliament?</title>
	<author>funkatron</author>
	<datestamp>1267381320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which idiots have still not got round to throwing this out? I hope they have a really good excuse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which idiots have still not got round to throwing this out ?
I hope they have a really good excuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which idiots have still not got round to throwing this out?
I hope they have a really good excuse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310190</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>Zen Hash</author>
	<datestamp>1267361700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At any rate people shouldn't have truly open access points to begin with. I know that with PF you can set things up to redirect to a log in page that has them agree to the rules.</p></div><p>I have a router serving as an open access point for public use. No registration required. In fact, a registration page like you suggest probably wouldn't work so well for embedded devices with wifi, like handheld game consoles. (One of the motivating factors for setting it up was to allow a family member to use their Nintendo DS online, which only supports WEP encryption.) I just use iptables to drop traffic from the public network destined for anything on the private network, or the AP/router itself (with exceptions for DHCP and DNS), and also mark the traffic so that it goes to a lower-priority queue for traffic shaping.

Why should I not be doing this?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At any rate people should n't have truly open access points to begin with .
I know that with PF you can set things up to redirect to a log in page that has them agree to the rules.I have a router serving as an open access point for public use .
No registration required .
In fact , a registration page like you suggest probably would n't work so well for embedded devices with wifi , like handheld game consoles .
( One of the motivating factors for setting it up was to allow a family member to use their Nintendo DS online , which only supports WEP encryption .
) I just use iptables to drop traffic from the public network destined for anything on the private network , or the AP/router itself ( with exceptions for DHCP and DNS ) , and also mark the traffic so that it goes to a lower-priority queue for traffic shaping .
Why should I not be doing this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At any rate people shouldn't have truly open access points to begin with.
I know that with PF you can set things up to redirect to a log in page that has them agree to the rules.I have a router serving as an open access point for public use.
No registration required.
In fact, a registration page like you suggest probably wouldn't work so well for embedded devices with wifi, like handheld game consoles.
(One of the motivating factors for setting it up was to allow a family member to use their Nintendo DS online, which only supports WEP encryption.
) I just use iptables to drop traffic from the public network destined for anything on the private network, or the AP/router itself (with exceptions for DHCP and DNS), and also mark the traffic so that it goes to a lower-priority queue for traffic shaping.
Why should I not be doing this?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306234</id>
	<title>Re:Open wi-fi should be perfectly legal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267376460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd care if you giving away those free water bottles or books lead to an increase in traffic in my residential neighborhood.   Or even just at inconvenient hours of the night.</p><p>Believe it or not, what happens on your property can bleed over into mine.  Maybe you're a reasonable chap, and will stop doing things when you realize that the things you do bother me...or maybe you're not.</p><p>But sometimes across a whole country it helps to have some laws.</p><p>So far, you haven't articulated a good reason against this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd care if you giving away those free water bottles or books lead to an increase in traffic in my residential neighborhood .
Or even just at inconvenient hours of the night.Believe it or not , what happens on your property can bleed over into mine .
Maybe you 're a reasonable chap , and will stop doing things when you realize that the things you do bother me...or maybe you 're not.But sometimes across a whole country it helps to have some laws.So far , you have n't articulated a good reason against this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd care if you giving away those free water bottles or books lead to an increase in traffic in my residential neighborhood.
Or even just at inconvenient hours of the night.Believe it or not, what happens on your property can bleed over into mine.
Maybe you're a reasonable chap, and will stop doing things when you realize that the things you do bother me...or maybe you're not.But sometimes across a whole country it helps to have some laws.So far, you haven't articulated a good reason against this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31317486</id>
	<title>Not again...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267464060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you seen the Bill itself? http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.i-ii.html</p><p>It's some scary reading, like a 1,2,3 of how to spy on you.  Why does any of this have to be legislated? It looks like a horrible mess thrown together by a few lobby groups.</p><p>The headings say it all really: "Obligation to provide infringements lists to copyright holders" "Obligation to limit internet access".  This is all about limiting, secret-policing and draconian snooping. What a horrible law!</p><p>Can we get to vote on this now so that I can say no?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you seen the Bill itself ?
http : //www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.i-ii.htmlIt 's some scary reading , like a 1,2,3 of how to spy on you .
Why does any of this have to be legislated ?
It looks like a horrible mess thrown together by a few lobby groups.The headings say it all really : " Obligation to provide infringements lists to copyright holders " " Obligation to limit internet access " .
This is all about limiting , secret-policing and draconian snooping .
What a horrible law ! Can we get to vote on this now so that I can say no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you seen the Bill itself?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.i-ii.htmlIt's some scary reading, like a 1,2,3 of how to spy on you.
Why does any of this have to be legislated?
It looks like a horrible mess thrown together by a few lobby groups.The headings say it all really: "Obligation to provide infringements lists to copyright holders" "Obligation to limit internet access".
This is all about limiting, secret-policing and draconian snooping.
What a horrible law!Can we get to vote on this now so that I can say no?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306210</id>
	<title>Re:Can't set up a secure access point?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1267376220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As an owner of a small business I can't imagine leaving our WiFi open.</p></div><p>I've not yet met a single company that keeps their internal network open, but I've met many companies that have an open guest wifi - completely firewalled off, but for visitors and contractors and whatnot that need it. The internal network usually comes with a ton of restrictions and mandatory proxies and whatnot that makes it near impossible to let guests on it without providing them with corporate laptops, which is overkill for say an online demonstration. For example it means I can pull up my company's VPN solution from a client site, something I can't do using their computers, 1) because they don't have the software and 2) because our policy wouldn't allow it.</p><p>Even those coffee shops and such that offer wireless against purchase aren't really interested in who you are, just getting some sales. If you pay cash and get a receipt code, that's normally good enough for them. More remote places where it's not practical to "hang out" nearby and leech just won't bother at all, because they get your business anyway. Lots of places just see the convienience as a plus, not a problem. It only becomes a problem if the police come knocking and say "Hey, I think there's been some nasty things going on from this access point". In which case you need a properly recorded ID to get anywhere, a MAC or knowing he bought a cheesemeal won't help you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an owner of a small business I ca n't imagine leaving our WiFi open.I 've not yet met a single company that keeps their internal network open , but I 've met many companies that have an open guest wifi - completely firewalled off , but for visitors and contractors and whatnot that need it .
The internal network usually comes with a ton of restrictions and mandatory proxies and whatnot that makes it near impossible to let guests on it without providing them with corporate laptops , which is overkill for say an online demonstration .
For example it means I can pull up my company 's VPN solution from a client site , something I ca n't do using their computers , 1 ) because they do n't have the software and 2 ) because our policy would n't allow it.Even those coffee shops and such that offer wireless against purchase are n't really interested in who you are , just getting some sales .
If you pay cash and get a receipt code , that 's normally good enough for them .
More remote places where it 's not practical to " hang out " nearby and leech just wo n't bother at all , because they get your business anyway .
Lots of places just see the convienience as a plus , not a problem .
It only becomes a problem if the police come knocking and say " Hey , I think there 's been some nasty things going on from this access point " .
In which case you need a properly recorded ID to get anywhere , a MAC or knowing he bought a cheesemeal wo n't help you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an owner of a small business I can't imagine leaving our WiFi open.I've not yet met a single company that keeps their internal network open, but I've met many companies that have an open guest wifi - completely firewalled off, but for visitors and contractors and whatnot that need it.
The internal network usually comes with a ton of restrictions and mandatory proxies and whatnot that makes it near impossible to let guests on it without providing them with corporate laptops, which is overkill for say an online demonstration.
For example it means I can pull up my company's VPN solution from a client site, something I can't do using their computers, 1) because they don't have the software and 2) because our policy wouldn't allow it.Even those coffee shops and such that offer wireless against purchase aren't really interested in who you are, just getting some sales.
If you pay cash and get a receipt code, that's normally good enough for them.
More remote places where it's not practical to "hang out" nearby and leech just won't bother at all, because they get your business anyway.
Lots of places just see the convienience as a plus, not a problem.
It only becomes a problem if the police come knocking and say "Hey, I think there's been some nasty things going on from this access point".
In which case you need a properly recorded ID to get anywhere, a MAC or knowing he bought a cheesemeal won't help you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305966</id>
	<title>Yes but at least t's not Italiy</title>
	<author>For a Free Internet</author>
	<datestamp>1267374480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Italiy they are full of Mexican anarcho-Islamic professors who know about books that are seditious that sometimes insult our National sensibilities of British meats not mad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Italiy they are full of Mexican anarcho-Islamic professors who know about books that are seditious that sometimes insult our National sensibilities of British meats not mad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Italiy they are full of Mexican anarcho-Islamic professors who know about books that are seditious that sometimes insult our National sensibilities of British meats not mad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306936</id>
	<title>Re:Brown envelopes</title>
	<author>MonTemplar</author>
	<datestamp>1267380900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is, apparently, that the big copyright holders already did that - except they probably used a brown wheelbarrow.</p><p>What is most troubling is that the Digital Britain bill will give Lord Voldem^H^H^H^H^H^HMandelson the ability to do pretty much as he wishes regarding controls over the Internet, without having to trouble himself with asking Parliament if it's OK.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>-MT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , apparently , that the big copyright holders already did that - except they probably used a brown wheelbarrow.What is most troubling is that the Digital Britain bill will give Lord Voldem ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ HMandelson the ability to do pretty much as he wishes regarding controls over the Internet , without having to trouble himself with asking Parliament if it 's OK. : ( -MT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, apparently, that the big copyright holders already did that - except they probably used a brown wheelbarrow.What is most troubling is that the Digital Britain bill will give Lord Voldem^H^H^H^H^H^HMandelson the ability to do pretty much as he wishes regarding controls over the Internet, without having to trouble himself with asking Parliament if it's OK. :(-MT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306384</id>
	<title>Re:Enforcement? Not likely.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267377420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just create a new government department to do those door to door searches if they triangulate an open wifi to your home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just create a new government department to do those door to door searches if they triangulate an open wifi to your home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just create a new government department to do those door to door searches if they triangulate an open wifi to your home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308058</id>
	<title>It's not open...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267389120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The access point name just happens to be "Password = 'screw you Digital Economy Bill'".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The access point name just happens to be " Password = 'screw you Digital Economy Bill ' " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The access point name just happens to be "Password = 'screw you Digital Economy Bill'".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31309894</id>
	<title>Loophole:</title>
	<author>uvajed\_ekil</author>
	<datestamp>1267360020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If people who want to provide open access become prohibited from doing so, the workaround will be to sort of standardize on a universally-known password, meaning users would know to try a particular password anywhere, any time when looking for otherwise-open access. I suppose this wink-and-a-nod method might cause problems, since users would then technically be using a network without authorization, but it could work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If people who want to provide open access become prohibited from doing so , the workaround will be to sort of standardize on a universally-known password , meaning users would know to try a particular password anywhere , any time when looking for otherwise-open access .
I suppose this wink-and-a-nod method might cause problems , since users would then technically be using a network without authorization , but it could work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people who want to provide open access become prohibited from doing so, the workaround will be to sort of standardize on a universally-known password, meaning users would know to try a particular password anywhere, any time when looking for otherwise-open access.
I suppose this wink-and-a-nod method might cause problems, since users would then technically be using a network without authorization, but it could work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307362</id>
	<title>Re:What might make more sense....</title>
	<author>DaMattster</author>
	<datestamp>1267383840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you advocate the nazist approach.  Wonderful!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you advocate the nazist approach .
Wonderful !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you advocate the nazist approach.
Wonderful!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307452</id>
	<title>You are helping paedophiles</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1267384440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't have that.</p><p>At least, that's what'll end up on your criminal record.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't have that.At least , that 's what 'll end up on your criminal record .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't have that.At least, that's what'll end up on your criminal record.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306532</id>
	<title>very british</title>
	<author>molecular</author>
	<datestamp>1267378380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>* Shut down the last hiding-place. Anonymity be gone.</p><p>* Make encryption illegal. No Secrets.</p><p>* Make people sign every ip-packet with their government-issued key and make ISPs drop all unsigned packets. Total accountability.</p><p>
&nbsp; =&gt; Everyone <a href="http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/big\_brother\_f.jpg" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">secure beneath watchfull eyes</a> [wired.com] (especially our children)</p><p>creepy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Shut down the last hiding-place .
Anonymity be gone .
* Make encryption illegal .
No Secrets .
* Make people sign every ip-packet with their government-issued key and make ISPs drop all unsigned packets .
Total accountability .
  = &gt; Everyone secure beneath watchfull eyes [ wired.com ] ( especially our children ) creepy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Shut down the last hiding-place.
Anonymity be gone.
* Make encryption illegal.
No Secrets.
* Make people sign every ip-packet with their government-issued key and make ISPs drop all unsigned packets.
Total accountability.
  =&gt; Everyone secure beneath watchfull eyes [wired.com] (especially our children)creepy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306794</id>
	<title>Re:Srsly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267380060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>All correct except your use of the word 'elected'.  Lord Mandelson who is heading this bill is not elected at all.  He is a Lord and that apparently means it is ok for him impose rules on us.  Secondly, Brown our prime minister was never elected as prime minister, he just 'took over' after Blair stood down.  So in short this is a c**p bill imposed my unelected morons.  However, on the up side there will be a general election with in three months, so it will probably never reach the statute books.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All correct except your use of the word 'elected' .
Lord Mandelson who is heading this bill is not elected at all .
He is a Lord and that apparently means it is ok for him impose rules on us .
Secondly , Brown our prime minister was never elected as prime minister , he just 'took over ' after Blair stood down .
So in short this is a c * * p bill imposed my unelected morons .
However , on the up side there will be a general election with in three months , so it will probably never reach the statute books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All correct except your use of the word 'elected'.
Lord Mandelson who is heading this bill is not elected at all.
He is a Lord and that apparently means it is ok for him impose rules on us.
Secondly, Brown our prime minister was never elected as prime minister, he just 'took over' after Blair stood down.
So in short this is a c**p bill imposed my unelected morons.
However, on the up side there will be a general election with in three months, so it will probably never reach the statute books.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306276</id>
	<title>What might make more sense....</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1267376820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...if if instead of making open Wi-Fi illegal, they instead make the owner of any any open Wi-Fi access point liable for any illegal activity that is detected on their network, whether or not they knew about the activity.
</p><p>
Making open WiFi itself illegal in what is otherwise a relatively free nation is just so lacking in even the slightest bit of thought into the matter that it defies all attempts to logically rationalize it.  I'm speechless at the idea that the concept could even actually make it as far as a bill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...if if instead of making open Wi-Fi illegal , they instead make the owner of any any open Wi-Fi access point liable for any illegal activity that is detected on their network , whether or not they knew about the activity .
Making open WiFi itself illegal in what is otherwise a relatively free nation is just so lacking in even the slightest bit of thought into the matter that it defies all attempts to logically rationalize it .
I 'm speechless at the idea that the concept could even actually make it as far as a bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...if if instead of making open Wi-Fi illegal, they instead make the owner of any any open Wi-Fi access point liable for any illegal activity that is detected on their network, whether or not they knew about the activity.
Making open WiFi itself illegal in what is otherwise a relatively free nation is just so lacking in even the slightest bit of thought into the matter that it defies all attempts to logically rationalize it.
I'm speechless at the idea that the concept could even actually make it as far as a bill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305932</id>
	<title>UK government do something stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267374240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Film at 11, streamed live via. WiFi!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Film at 11 , streamed live via .
WiFi !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Film at 11, streamed live via.
WiFi!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306298</id>
	<title>What about open streets?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267376940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>At any rate people shouldn't have truly open access points to begin with</p></div></blockquote><p>Would you allow us to have open streets, sir, or should we wear <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/German\_concentration\_camp\_chart\_of\_prisoner\_markings.jpg" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow">tags</a> [wikimedia.org] to identify us while we walk outside?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At any rate people should n't have truly open access points to begin withWould you allow us to have open streets , sir , or should we wear tags [ wikimedia.org ] to identify us while we walk outside ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At any rate people shouldn't have truly open access points to begin withWould you allow us to have open streets, sir, or should we wear tags [wikimedia.org] to identify us while we walk outside?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308128</id>
	<title>Only a matter or time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267389660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the end, you are going to be held liable for your internet access. If your access point is used to trigger a road-side bomb, spread copies of Hollywood movies, spread embarassing rumors of school kids or launch a DoS attack on some bank, you must be prepared to lead the authorities to the culprit. If you don't maintain the appropriate logs or are careless about trojans or viruses, you might face penalties for negligence. Not there yet, but I believe it's bound to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the end , you are going to be held liable for your internet access .
If your access point is used to trigger a road-side bomb , spread copies of Hollywood movies , spread embarassing rumors of school kids or launch a DoS attack on some bank , you must be prepared to lead the authorities to the culprit .
If you do n't maintain the appropriate logs or are careless about trojans or viruses , you might face penalties for negligence .
Not there yet , but I believe it 's bound to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the end, you are going to be held liable for your internet access.
If your access point is used to trigger a road-side bomb, spread copies of Hollywood movies, spread embarassing rumors of school kids or launch a DoS attack on some bank, you must be prepared to lead the authorities to the culprit.
If you don't maintain the appropriate logs or are careless about trojans or viruses, you might face penalties for negligence.
Not there yet, but I believe it's bound to happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310978</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>burlingk</author>
	<datestamp>1267368540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only solidly safe way is to require a username and login, and a verifiable way to identify them.

i.e. If they do something illegal and you are not in a position to turn states evidence on them, you will be heald liable.  This is the way it is with a lot of laws though, this is not unique to networks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only solidly safe way is to require a username and login , and a verifiable way to identify them .
i.e. If they do something illegal and you are not in a position to turn states evidence on them , you will be heald liable .
This is the way it is with a lot of laws though , this is not unique to networks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only solidly safe way is to require a username and login, and a verifiable way to identify them.
i.e. If they do something illegal and you are not in a position to turn states evidence on them, you will be heald liable.
This is the way it is with a lot of laws though, this is not unique to networks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306874</id>
	<title>Foerster's razor</title>
	<author>SteveFoerster</author>
	<datestamp>1267380480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Or, it could just be innocent rampant stupidity.</em></p><p>With politicians, never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , it could just be innocent rampant stupidity.With politicians , never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, it could just be innocent rampant stupidity.With politicians, never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306634</id>
	<title>Re:Enforcement? Not likely.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267379040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Businesses will comply or be put out of business. I doubt the government will care that you can leach bandwidth from you neighbour. If someone offers open access and it becomes publicly known, they will be shut down and fined too.</p><p>Don't kid yourself that this isn't enforceable. That just allows you to feel all cosy about it and lets the government off the hook. You need to fight it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Businesses will comply or be put out of business .
I doubt the government will care that you can leach bandwidth from you neighbour .
If someone offers open access and it becomes publicly known , they will be shut down and fined too.Do n't kid yourself that this is n't enforceable .
That just allows you to feel all cosy about it and lets the government off the hook .
You need to fight it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Businesses will comply or be put out of business.
I doubt the government will care that you can leach bandwidth from you neighbour.
If someone offers open access and it becomes publicly known, they will be shut down and fined too.Don't kid yourself that this isn't enforceable.
That just allows you to feel all cosy about it and lets the government off the hook.
You need to fight it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307640</id>
	<title>Re:Open wi-fi should be perfectly legal</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1267385760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've actually given an argument in favour there. If you hand out bottles of water you become as liable for them as a retail store. You also become liable for anything that happens to anyone on your property, as a retail store would. Letting the neighbours use your pool? Better make sure you have the right signs and fencing up. </p><p>But there is the key difference that the legislation is protecting nobody on your property, it favours a third party. A more appropriate analogy is to say that it is the equivalent of you being held responsible if you allow a visitor to use your CDs but then the visitor also (without your knowledge) copies them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've actually given an argument in favour there .
If you hand out bottles of water you become as liable for them as a retail store .
You also become liable for anything that happens to anyone on your property , as a retail store would .
Letting the neighbours use your pool ?
Better make sure you have the right signs and fencing up .
But there is the key difference that the legislation is protecting nobody on your property , it favours a third party .
A more appropriate analogy is to say that it is the equivalent of you being held responsible if you allow a visitor to use your CDs but then the visitor also ( without your knowledge ) copies them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've actually given an argument in favour there.
If you hand out bottles of water you become as liable for them as a retail store.
You also become liable for anything that happens to anyone on your property, as a retail store would.
Letting the neighbours use your pool?
Better make sure you have the right signs and fencing up.
But there is the key difference that the legislation is protecting nobody on your property, it favours a third party.
A more appropriate analogy is to say that it is the equivalent of you being held responsible if you allow a visitor to use your CDs but then the visitor also (without your knowledge) copies them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308462</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267348860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is this hell thing anyway and what about those silly numbers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this hell thing anyway and what about those silly numbers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this hell thing anyway and what about those silly numbers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307290</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267383300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No reason I can think of, except to limit free speech/protest and give the government even more control over public policy (i.e. push their one true agenda).</p></div><p>Your imagination seems limited<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)  I'll begin to say that I don't agree with the reason I'll give but it's easy to imagine it's the main point.</p><p>They want to be capable to trace illegal activities the best they can. Open access points are more anonymous. So illegal activities can't be tracked easily there. If somebody steal a bank through an open access point, it's easy to say that it could be made harder.</p><p>Where I mostly do not agree is what is considered illegal activity. It's probably to protect big copyright owners. And I don't think peoples not doing any money while sharing data should convinced of wrongdoing. But that's another matter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No reason I can think of , except to limit free speech/protest and give the government even more control over public policy ( i.e .
push their one true agenda ) .Your imagination seems limited ; - ) I 'll begin to say that I do n't agree with the reason I 'll give but it 's easy to imagine it 's the main point.They want to be capable to trace illegal activities the best they can .
Open access points are more anonymous .
So illegal activities ca n't be tracked easily there .
If somebody steal a bank through an open access point , it 's easy to say that it could be made harder.Where I mostly do not agree is what is considered illegal activity .
It 's probably to protect big copyright owners .
And I do n't think peoples not doing any money while sharing data should convinced of wrongdoing .
But that 's another matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No reason I can think of, except to limit free speech/protest and give the government even more control over public policy (i.e.
push their one true agenda).Your imagination seems limited ;-)  I'll begin to say that I don't agree with the reason I'll give but it's easy to imagine it's the main point.They want to be capable to trace illegal activities the best they can.
Open access points are more anonymous.
So illegal activities can't be tracked easily there.
If somebody steal a bank through an open access point, it's easy to say that it could be made harder.Where I mostly do not agree is what is considered illegal activity.
It's probably to protect big copyright owners.
And I don't think peoples not doing any money while sharing data should convinced of wrongdoing.
But that's another matter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308006</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>Superdarion</author>
	<datestamp>1267388640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to open your arsenal to the public -with legally owned weapons-, I certainly hope you WILL be punished if one of those guns is to kill somebody, even if it's in the hands of an ignorant teenager who just grabbed it and started shooting.<br> <br>

This is a stretch, an exaggeration, obviously, but that's the kind of logic they're using.<br> <br>

Now the question is: are they going to punish you, the owner of the open WiFi as if you had personally commited the crime or are you going to get away with a milder penalty? I vote for the latter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to open your arsenal to the public -with legally owned weapons- , I certainly hope you WILL be punished if one of those guns is to kill somebody , even if it 's in the hands of an ignorant teenager who just grabbed it and started shooting .
This is a stretch , an exaggeration , obviously , but that 's the kind of logic they 're using .
Now the question is : are they going to punish you , the owner of the open WiFi as if you had personally commited the crime or are you going to get away with a milder penalty ?
I vote for the latter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to open your arsenal to the public -with legally owned weapons-, I certainly hope you WILL be punished if one of those guns is to kill somebody, even if it's in the hands of an ignorant teenager who just grabbed it and started shooting.
This is a stretch, an exaggeration, obviously, but that's the kind of logic they're using.
Now the question is: are they going to punish you, the owner of the open WiFi as if you had personally commited the crime or are you going to get away with a milder penalty?
I vote for the latter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308276</id>
	<title>Re:Enforcement? Not likely.</title>
	<author>lucifron</author>
	<datestamp>1267390560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Selective enforcement is key here. Locking up anyone you don't like is easy when everyone's a criminal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Selective enforcement is key here .
Locking up anyone you do n't like is easy when everyone 's a criminal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Selective enforcement is key here.
Locking up anyone you don't like is easy when everyone's a criminal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307244</id>
	<title>cost/benefit</title>
	<author>jirka</author>
	<datestamp>1267383060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ignoring any moral arguments against these laws, did anyone actually do the analysis of the cost vs. benefits?  I mean these laws have direct costs for 1) ISPs 2) small businesses/libraries/etc...3) the increased costs to the state for enforcing such laws.  There will be indirect costs for 4) all internet users as the cost of connection is raised.  Finally, this will mean loss of connectivity, either in certain contexts or simply due to rising costs hence there will be a cost 5) the economy as a whole.</p><p>Alright, what about benefits.  Did someone do actual accounting how much the entertainment industry will gain from these rules (I am assuming they are the biggest beneficiary).  Not how much they are saying they are losing.  That's a made up number.  But in reality, did anyone analyze how higher the profits will be with these rules in place?  What needs to be taken into account is that some people who download illegal content would not buy it legally, and further what needs to be taken into account is that such rules will only reduce the rate of piracy (presumably) and will definitely not eliminate it.  People copied content before the internet and they will continue to do so.  Perhaps less so, but it will continue to occur.</p><p>Finally, did anyone independent really analyze the benefit to society and economy from the increased profit of the entertainment industry?  Is there a pressing need?  Are there fewer artists that create content?  Are movie studios not making new movies?  Would really more content be generated with these rules in place?  Do make sure to figure into any analysis that decreased connectivity will to some degree stifle content creation, and besides the negative effect on society that this may have, this will also have a negative effect on the very industry which they are trying to "protect."</p><p>Another perhaps strange effect is that people ARE willing to pay for things even when it is possible to get them for free.  Economists often forget to figure in this effect.  If you look at statistics of album sales during the napster days, you will notice that sales were up when napster was around and there was plenty of illegal music sharing, and sales went down around the same time that napster got shut down.  Without drawing a conclusion of causality, such correlations should be on better scientific footing that simply the "obvious" conclusion that the music industry could have made even more money if napster wasn't around.</p><p>I have not seen any such analysis done anywhere.  The only arguments for are the faux-common-sense arguments that espouse the obviousness of the benefits of such rules and therefore there is no need to actually figure out what the benefits are.</p><p>Of course I am assuming that internet access does contribute to value creation in an economy and it is not true that internet is used solely for viewing porn and downloading illegal music.  If I am wrong in this assumption then of course these rules are a boon to the economy.  It will be a double whammy, less illegal downloads AND people will probably do actual work out of boredom from not being able to access porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignoring any moral arguments against these laws , did anyone actually do the analysis of the cost vs. benefits ? I mean these laws have direct costs for 1 ) ISPs 2 ) small businesses/libraries/etc...3 ) the increased costs to the state for enforcing such laws .
There will be indirect costs for 4 ) all internet users as the cost of connection is raised .
Finally , this will mean loss of connectivity , either in certain contexts or simply due to rising costs hence there will be a cost 5 ) the economy as a whole.Alright , what about benefits .
Did someone do actual accounting how much the entertainment industry will gain from these rules ( I am assuming they are the biggest beneficiary ) .
Not how much they are saying they are losing .
That 's a made up number .
But in reality , did anyone analyze how higher the profits will be with these rules in place ?
What needs to be taken into account is that some people who download illegal content would not buy it legally , and further what needs to be taken into account is that such rules will only reduce the rate of piracy ( presumably ) and will definitely not eliminate it .
People copied content before the internet and they will continue to do so .
Perhaps less so , but it will continue to occur.Finally , did anyone independent really analyze the benefit to society and economy from the increased profit of the entertainment industry ?
Is there a pressing need ?
Are there fewer artists that create content ?
Are movie studios not making new movies ?
Would really more content be generated with these rules in place ?
Do make sure to figure into any analysis that decreased connectivity will to some degree stifle content creation , and besides the negative effect on society that this may have , this will also have a negative effect on the very industry which they are trying to " protect .
" Another perhaps strange effect is that people ARE willing to pay for things even when it is possible to get them for free .
Economists often forget to figure in this effect .
If you look at statistics of album sales during the napster days , you will notice that sales were up when napster was around and there was plenty of illegal music sharing , and sales went down around the same time that napster got shut down .
Without drawing a conclusion of causality , such correlations should be on better scientific footing that simply the " obvious " conclusion that the music industry could have made even more money if napster was n't around.I have not seen any such analysis done anywhere .
The only arguments for are the faux-common-sense arguments that espouse the obviousness of the benefits of such rules and therefore there is no need to actually figure out what the benefits are.Of course I am assuming that internet access does contribute to value creation in an economy and it is not true that internet is used solely for viewing porn and downloading illegal music .
If I am wrong in this assumption then of course these rules are a boon to the economy .
It will be a double whammy , less illegal downloads AND people will probably do actual work out of boredom from not being able to access porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ignoring any moral arguments against these laws, did anyone actually do the analysis of the cost vs. benefits?  I mean these laws have direct costs for 1) ISPs 2) small businesses/libraries/etc...3) the increased costs to the state for enforcing such laws.
There will be indirect costs for 4) all internet users as the cost of connection is raised.
Finally, this will mean loss of connectivity, either in certain contexts or simply due to rising costs hence there will be a cost 5) the economy as a whole.Alright, what about benefits.
Did someone do actual accounting how much the entertainment industry will gain from these rules (I am assuming they are the biggest beneficiary).
Not how much they are saying they are losing.
That's a made up number.
But in reality, did anyone analyze how higher the profits will be with these rules in place?
What needs to be taken into account is that some people who download illegal content would not buy it legally, and further what needs to be taken into account is that such rules will only reduce the rate of piracy (presumably) and will definitely not eliminate it.
People copied content before the internet and they will continue to do so.
Perhaps less so, but it will continue to occur.Finally, did anyone independent really analyze the benefit to society and economy from the increased profit of the entertainment industry?
Is there a pressing need?
Are there fewer artists that create content?
Are movie studios not making new movies?
Would really more content be generated with these rules in place?
Do make sure to figure into any analysis that decreased connectivity will to some degree stifle content creation, and besides the negative effect on society that this may have, this will also have a negative effect on the very industry which they are trying to "protect.
"Another perhaps strange effect is that people ARE willing to pay for things even when it is possible to get them for free.
Economists often forget to figure in this effect.
If you look at statistics of album sales during the napster days, you will notice that sales were up when napster was around and there was plenty of illegal music sharing, and sales went down around the same time that napster got shut down.
Without drawing a conclusion of causality, such correlations should be on better scientific footing that simply the "obvious" conclusion that the music industry could have made even more money if napster wasn't around.I have not seen any such analysis done anywhere.
The only arguments for are the faux-common-sense arguments that espouse the obviousness of the benefits of such rules and therefore there is no need to actually figure out what the benefits are.Of course I am assuming that internet access does contribute to value creation in an economy and it is not true that internet is used solely for viewing porn and downloading illegal music.
If I am wrong in this assumption then of course these rules are a boon to the economy.
It will be a double whammy, less illegal downloads AND people will probably do actual work out of boredom from not being able to access porn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31314706</id>
	<title>Re:All-fronts attack</title>
	<author>burlingk</author>
	<datestamp>1267452840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do not misunderstand.  I actually agree on this issue.  The media industry has gotten out of control and is taking over the world (or at least giving it a darned good try). ^^;;

It is kind of scary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not misunderstand .
I actually agree on this issue .
The media industry has gotten out of control and is taking over the world ( or at least giving it a darned good try ) .
^ ^ ; ; It is kind of scary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not misunderstand.
I actually agree on this issue.
The media industry has gotten out of control and is taking over the world (or at least giving it a darned good try).
^^;;

It is kind of scary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308032</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1267388880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;If I want to open my kitchen and give away free food, I can.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;As long as you pass a health inspection to make sure you aren't going to kill or make ill any large groups of people.</p><p>Oh really???<br>Burn in hell tyrant.<br>I will exercise my right (9th)<br>to give away food to anyone I please,<br>because it is my Christian duty (1st) to help others.</p><p>If you issue illegal laws to stop me (10th)<br>and send police to perform an illegal seizure (4th)<br>I will shoot you full of holes (2nd),<br>abolish your government &amp; your leadership, and install a new one (Declaration of Independence).</p><p>Got the message?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; If I want to open my kitchen and give away free food , I can. &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; As long as you pass a health inspection to make sure you are n't going to kill or make ill any large groups of people.Oh really ? ?
? Burn in hell tyrant.I will exercise my right ( 9th ) to give away food to anyone I please,because it is my Christian duty ( 1st ) to help others.If you issue illegal laws to stop me ( 10th ) and send police to perform an illegal seizure ( 4th ) I will shoot you full of holes ( 2nd ) ,abolish your government &amp; your leadership , and install a new one ( Declaration of Independence ) .Got the message ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;If I want to open my kitchen and give away free food, I can.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;As long as you pass a health inspection to make sure you aren't going to kill or make ill any large groups of people.Oh really??
?Burn in hell tyrant.I will exercise my right (9th)to give away food to anyone I please,because it is my Christian duty (1st) to help others.If you issue illegal laws to stop me (10th)and send police to perform an illegal seizure (4th)I will shoot you full of holes (2nd),abolish your government &amp; your leadership, and install a new one (Declaration of Independence).Got the message?
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307010</id>
	<title>Re:Open wi-fi should be perfectly legal</title>
	<author>BeerCat</author>
	<datestamp>1267381440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You have been detected as using a "think of the children" argument or related argument. This message is to inform you that you have summarily lost the argument.</p></div><p>Looks like you have defined a variation on Godwin's Law. Congratulations on defining "Duradin's Law"!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have been detected as using a " think of the children " argument or related argument .
This message is to inform you that you have summarily lost the argument.Looks like you have defined a variation on Godwin 's Law .
Congratulations on defining " Duradin 's Law " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have been detected as using a "think of the children" argument or related argument.
This message is to inform you that you have summarily lost the argument.Looks like you have defined a variation on Godwin's Law.
Congratulations on defining "Duradin's Law"!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306620</id>
	<title>I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267378920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's to stop coffee shops from setting a password protected wifi spot and then putting a big poster with the password on it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's to stop coffee shops from setting a password protected wifi spot and then putting a big poster with the password on it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's to stop coffee shops from setting a password protected wifi spot and then putting a big poster with the password on it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305954</id>
	<title>If they outlaw open wifi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267374360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then only outlaws will have open wifi.  Lucky bastards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then only outlaws will have open wifi .
Lucky bastards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then only outlaws will have open wifi.
Lucky bastards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307198</id>
	<title>Already in India</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267382700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This idea, goddamn stupid as it is, was introduced in India after they found the wifi was used by criminals to send an email INFORMING THE MEDIA WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO.<br>cough. Ok, so this law was passed, cause politicians are stupid and people don't give a damn about wifi when they struggle to earn food.<br>The effect? Nothing.<br>Chill, people. But yeah fight the stupid law and the waste of resources it will entail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This idea , goddamn stupid as it is , was introduced in India after they found the wifi was used by criminals to send an email INFORMING THE MEDIA WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO.cough .
Ok , so this law was passed , cause politicians are stupid and people do n't give a damn about wifi when they struggle to earn food.The effect ?
Nothing.Chill , people .
But yeah fight the stupid law and the waste of resources it will entail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This idea, goddamn stupid as it is, was introduced in India after they found the wifi was used by criminals to send an email INFORMING THE MEDIA WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO.cough.
Ok, so this law was passed, cause politicians are stupid and people don't give a damn about wifi when they struggle to earn food.The effect?
Nothing.Chill, people.
But yeah fight the stupid law and the waste of resources it will entail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306924</id>
	<title>All hail the police state of UK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267380840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is simply a bald faced abuse of power.  The state wants total control.  And don't think it is just Gordon Brown doing this - any government wants this kind of power and control.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is simply a bald faced abuse of power .
The state wants total control .
And do n't think it is just Gordon Brown doing this - any government wants this kind of power and control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is simply a bald faced abuse of power.
The state wants total control.
And don't think it is just Gordon Brown doing this - any government wants this kind of power and control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306274</id>
	<title>All-fronts attack</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1267376760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> What's really needed is a multi-national organization to address what's clearly an all-out assault on internet freedom by a variety of vested interests.  Governments, patent trolls, multi-national entertainment corporations...all of them are pushing in the same direction, and there doesn't seem to be any unified push back. </p><p> Let's be clear:  I'm not alleging a conspiracy.  What I'm saying is that these groups all know where their best interests lie (screwing the consumer/citizen/user/whatever) and they sense that if they don't get their boot on our throat, no matter how badly they have to bend the various constitutions of the democracies they use for cover, the opportunity will slip away. They aren't about to let that happen if they can possibly help it. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's really needed is a multi-national organization to address what 's clearly an all-out assault on internet freedom by a variety of vested interests .
Governments , patent trolls , multi-national entertainment corporations...all of them are pushing in the same direction , and there does n't seem to be any unified push back .
Let 's be clear : I 'm not alleging a conspiracy .
What I 'm saying is that these groups all know where their best interests lie ( screwing the consumer/citizen/user/whatever ) and they sense that if they do n't get their boot on our throat , no matter how badly they have to bend the various constitutions of the democracies they use for cover , the opportunity will slip away .
They are n't about to let that happen if they can possibly help it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What's really needed is a multi-national organization to address what's clearly an all-out assault on internet freedom by a variety of vested interests.
Governments, patent trolls, multi-national entertainment corporations...all of them are pushing in the same direction, and there doesn't seem to be any unified push back.
Let's be clear:  I'm not alleging a conspiracy.
What I'm saying is that these groups all know where their best interests lie (screwing the consumer/citizen/user/whatever) and they sense that if they don't get their boot on our throat, no matter how badly they have to bend the various constitutions of the democracies they use for cover, the opportunity will slip away.
They aren't about to let that happen if they can possibly help it. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306470</id>
	<title>Re:Can't set up a secure access point?</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1267377900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure.  And that's probably how the lobbyists sold it.  The problem, at least in the States, is that we no longer seem capable of electing politicians who \_think\_.  The good ones just \_deal\_ and justify it as the way pragmatic realpolitik works.  The bad ones purposefully deal for dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure .
And that 's probably how the lobbyists sold it .
The problem , at least in the States , is that we no longer seem capable of electing politicians who \ _think \ _ .
The good ones just \ _deal \ _ and justify it as the way pragmatic realpolitik works .
The bad ones purposefully deal for dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure.
And that's probably how the lobbyists sold it.
The problem, at least in the States, is that we no longer seem capable of electing politicians who \_think\_.
The good ones just \_deal\_ and justify it as the way pragmatic realpolitik works.
The bad ones purposefully deal for dollars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310840</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>burlingk</author>
	<datestamp>1267367460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem is that people who provide services  have long been held liable for the actions of people using those services.  The precedent is here.</p><p>If someone is in your place of business, and they get hurt by another customer,  you can be heald liable.</p><p>It may not be right, but it is the way that it is.  There is precedent.</p><p>If you make your Wi-Fi completely open, and someone uses it for a crime, then you are liable.  You should have secured your network better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is that people who provide services have long been held liable for the actions of people using those services .
The precedent is here.If someone is in your place of business , and they get hurt by another customer , you can be heald liable.It may not be right , but it is the way that it is .
There is precedent.If you make your Wi-Fi completely open , and someone uses it for a crime , then you are liable .
You should have secured your network better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is that people who provide services  have long been held liable for the actions of people using those services.
The precedent is here.If someone is in your place of business, and they get hurt by another customer,  you can be heald liable.It may not be right, but it is the way that it is.
There is precedent.If you make your Wi-Fi completely open, and someone uses it for a crime, then you are liable.
You should have secured your network better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306106</id>
	<title>Re:Can't set up a secure access point?</title>
	<author>Enleth</author>
	<datestamp>1267375500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe this is about coffe shops and universities, where the network accessible through those APs is completely separate from the "work" network and absolutely intended to be open, for the convinience of the customers and students. Thus, it's got nothing to do with what you said at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe this is about coffe shops and universities , where the network accessible through those APs is completely separate from the " work " network and absolutely intended to be open , for the convinience of the customers and students .
Thus , it 's got nothing to do with what you said at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe this is about coffe shops and universities, where the network accessible through those APs is completely separate from the "work" network and absolutely intended to be open, for the convinience of the customers and students.
Thus, it's got nothing to do with what you said at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31311786</id>
	<title>Re:What about open streets?</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1267376580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should wear tags. The British government wants people to carry ID cards. Not carrying a cellphone (which allows you to be tracked) is likely to be regarded as suspicious. Then there is Britain network of CCTV cameras.</p><p>You may to wear a tag, but you might as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should wear tags .
The British government wants people to carry ID cards .
Not carrying a cellphone ( which allows you to be tracked ) is likely to be regarded as suspicious .
Then there is Britain network of CCTV cameras.You may to wear a tag , but you might as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should wear tags.
The British government wants people to carry ID cards.
Not carrying a cellphone (which allows you to be tracked) is likely to be regarded as suspicious.
Then there is Britain network of CCTV cameras.You may to wear a tag, but you might as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306250</id>
	<title>2 choices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267376520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Cafes, libraries, and such would simply have to shut down their access points. Hotels would either have to shut it down, or charge quite a bit more for internet access, this includes both in room wired and wifi access.</p><p>
&nbsp; Monitoring for illegal file sharing is not a simple task. You can't simply "shut down" bittorrent, or rapidshare, or edonkey, or any of the evolving sharing protocols. You have to do content monitoring. With full encryption (protocol and payload), this becomes even more difficult and very expensive. How about VPN connections? The list goes on and on.</p><p>
&nbsp; The technology is such that you can't stop it, you can only hinder it. So the only choices are to either shut down the expansion of internet technologies (always on), or offer a viable and attractive alternative to the people doing the sharing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cafes , libraries , and such would simply have to shut down their access points .
Hotels would either have to shut it down , or charge quite a bit more for internet access , this includes both in room wired and wifi access .
  Monitoring for illegal file sharing is not a simple task .
You ca n't simply " shut down " bittorrent , or rapidshare , or edonkey , or any of the evolving sharing protocols .
You have to do content monitoring .
With full encryption ( protocol and payload ) , this becomes even more difficult and very expensive .
How about VPN connections ?
The list goes on and on .
  The technology is such that you ca n't stop it , you can only hinder it .
So the only choices are to either shut down the expansion of internet technologies ( always on ) , or offer a viable and attractive alternative to the people doing the sharing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Cafes, libraries, and such would simply have to shut down their access points.
Hotels would either have to shut it down, or charge quite a bit more for internet access, this includes both in room wired and wifi access.
  Monitoring for illegal file sharing is not a simple task.
You can't simply "shut down" bittorrent, or rapidshare, or edonkey, or any of the evolving sharing protocols.
You have to do content monitoring.
With full encryption (protocol and payload), this becomes even more difficult and very expensive.
How about VPN connections?
The list goes on and on.
  The technology is such that you can't stop it, you can only hinder it.
So the only choices are to either shut down the expansion of internet technologies (always on), or offer a viable and attractive alternative to the people doing the sharing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31318670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31351308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31320634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31325954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31334342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31314734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31317800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31309856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31320242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31309388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31314662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31309894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31314706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31309998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31313408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31311786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1432203_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31309856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306628
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306928
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31309388
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31314662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31311786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31325954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306904
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31309998
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308032
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310890
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31317800
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308462
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31309894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31311322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31310782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31351308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31318670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31308202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31320242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31320634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31305968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31314734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1432203.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31306274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31313408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31314706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31334342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1432203.31307412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
