<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_15_1622232</id>
	<title>US Intelligence Planned To Destroy WikiLeaks</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1268672340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"This document is a classified (SECRET/NOFORN), 32-page <a href="http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf">US counterintelligence investigation into WikiLeaks</a> (PDF). 'The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the US government are providing sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot be ruled out.' It concocts a plan to fatally marginalize the organization. Since WikiLeaks uses 'trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers or whistleblowers,' the report recommends 'The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the Wikileaks.org Web site.' [As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks' source exposed, it appears that this plan was ineffective.] As an odd justification for the plan, the report claims that 'Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org website.' The report provides further justification by enumerating embarrassing stories broken by WikiLeaks &mdash; US equipment expenditure in Iraq, probable US violations of the Chemical Warfare Convention Treaty in Iraq, the battle over the Iraqi town of Fallujah and human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " This document is a classified ( SECRET/NOFORN ) , 32-page US counterintelligence investigation into WikiLeaks ( PDF ) .
'The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the US government are providing sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org can not be ruled out .
' It concocts a plan to fatally marginalize the organization .
Since WikiLeaks uses 'trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the insiders , leakers or whistleblowers, ' the report recommends 'The identification , exposure , termination of employment , criminal prosecution , legal action against current or former insiders , leakers , or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the Wikileaks.org Web site .
' [ As two years have passed since the date of the report , with no WikiLeaks ' source exposed , it appears that this plan was ineffective .
] As an odd justification for the plan , the report claims that 'Several foreign countries including China , Israel , North Korea , Russia , Vietnam , and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org website .
' The report provides further justification by enumerating embarrassing stories broken by WikiLeaks    US equipment expenditure in Iraq , probable US violations of the Chemical Warfare Convention Treaty in Iraq , the battle over the Iraqi town of Fallujah and human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "This document is a classified (SECRET/NOFORN), 32-page US counterintelligence investigation into WikiLeaks (PDF).
'The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the US government are providing sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot be ruled out.
' It concocts a plan to fatally marginalize the organization.
Since WikiLeaks uses 'trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers or whistleblowers,' the report recommends 'The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the Wikileaks.org Web site.
' [As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks' source exposed, it appears that this plan was ineffective.
] As an odd justification for the plan, the report claims that 'Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org website.
' The report provides further justification by enumerating embarrassing stories broken by WikiLeaks — US equipment expenditure in Iraq, probable US violations of the Chemical Warfare Convention Treaty in Iraq, the battle over the Iraqi town of Fallujah and human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484288</id>
	<title>Re:Good job wikileaks beat them to it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268678100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...but it was not a good idea for them to take all the leaked documents offline without notice in order to show their value so that people will donate.</p></div><p>I agree.  I was only tangentially familiar with WikiLeaks when they did their call from donations.  I went to see what they had that was worth donated for only to discover that everything was unavailable.  Instead of moving me to donate, they instead blew their chance at picking me up as a reader and potential donor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but it was not a good idea for them to take all the leaked documents offline without notice in order to show their value so that people will donate.I agree .
I was only tangentially familiar with WikiLeaks when they did their call from donations .
I went to see what they had that was worth donated for only to discover that everything was unavailable .
Instead of moving me to donate , they instead blew their chance at picking me up as a reader and potential donor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...but it was not a good idea for them to take all the leaked documents offline without notice in order to show their value so that people will donate.I agree.
I was only tangentially familiar with WikiLeaks when they did their call from donations.
I went to see what they had that was worth donated for only to discover that everything was unavailable.
Instead of moving me to donate, they instead blew their chance at picking me up as a reader and potential donor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484052</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>Aequitarum Custos</author>
	<datestamp>1268677200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If left up to the government, it will end up with everything being classified as a National Secret.<br>
<br>
Majority of things I've heard about that were leaked, were only classified to avoid embarrassment and prevent protests against things people disagree with.<br>
<br>
Can't speak for your experience on the matter, but in my experience, if government had things it's way, FOIA would not exist, and everything would be kept a secret until no one who can suffer consequences for their actions involved with something are long gone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If left up to the government , it will end up with everything being classified as a National Secret .
Majority of things I 've heard about that were leaked , were only classified to avoid embarrassment and prevent protests against things people disagree with .
Ca n't speak for your experience on the matter , but in my experience , if government had things it 's way , FOIA would not exist , and everything would be kept a secret until no one who can suffer consequences for their actions involved with something are long gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If left up to the government, it will end up with everything being classified as a National Secret.
Majority of things I've heard about that were leaked, were only classified to avoid embarrassment and prevent protests against things people disagree with.
Can't speak for your experience on the matter, but in my experience, if government had things it's way, FOIA would not exist, and everything would be kept a secret until no one who can suffer consequences for their actions involved with something are long gone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484988</id>
	<title>Re:Two can play your game</title>
	<author>Issarlk</author>
	<datestamp>1268680560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483896</id>
	<title>Easier plan... have them run out of money</title>
	<author>gront</author>
	<datestamp>1268676600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikileaks appears to be down (not a slashdot effect, it's just down).<p>They also appear to be parked in fundraising mode, rather than spreading the word and fighting the good fight.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks</a> [wikipedia.org]
</p><p>So maybe the plan worked?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikileaks appears to be down ( not a slashdot effect , it 's just down ) .They also appear to be parked in fundraising mode , rather than spreading the word and fighting the good fight .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks [ wikipedia.org ] So maybe the plan worked ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikileaks appears to be down (not a slashdot effect, it's just down).They also appear to be parked in fundraising mode, rather than spreading the word and fighting the good fight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks [wikipedia.org]
So maybe the plan worked?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31488422</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1268650260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>should a soldier disobey orders that in his opinion are inhuman? a military officer would probably say no. i say yes.</p></div></blockquote><p>If a soldier does that, he should prosecuted. The disobeyed order being illegal (not "inhuman" &mdash; illegal) will be a valid defense for him, but if he fails to demonstrate, that the order was, indeed, illegal, he will be convicted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>should a soldier disobey orders that in his opinion are inhuman ?
a military officer would probably say no .
i say yes.If a soldier does that , he should prosecuted .
The disobeyed order being illegal ( not " inhuman "    illegal ) will be a valid defense for him , but if he fails to demonstrate , that the order was , indeed , illegal , he will be convicted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>should a soldier disobey orders that in his opinion are inhuman?
a military officer would probably say no.
i say yes.If a soldier does that, he should prosecuted.
The disobeyed order being illegal (not "inhuman" — illegal) will be a valid defense for him, but if he fails to demonstrate, that the order was, indeed, illegal, he will be convicted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486478</id>
	<title>Re:An easier plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268685960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Take a look at the doc itself, it seem to propose just that.<br>"This raises the possibility that the Wikileaks.org<br>Web site could be used to post fabricated information; to post misinformation, disinformation,<br>and propaganda; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed to<br>convey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site."</p></div><p>How do you now that this document itself is not "post fabricated information"?<br>Israel do not block WikiLeaks (I just checked it). And she never did.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at the doc itself , it seem to propose just that .
" This raises the possibility that the Wikileaks.orgWeb site could be used to post fabricated information ; to post misinformation , disinformation,and propaganda ; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed toconvey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site .
" How do you now that this document itself is not " post fabricated information " ? Israel do not block WikiLeaks ( I just checked it ) .
And she never did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at the doc itself, it seem to propose just that.
"This raises the possibility that the Wikileaks.orgWeb site could be used to post fabricated information; to post misinformation, disinformation,and propaganda; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed toconvey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site.
"How do you now that this document itself is not "post fabricated information"?Israel do not block WikiLeaks (I just checked it).
And she never did.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485250</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>Voline</author>
	<datestamp>1268681640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"I am pretty sure, the answer is a resounding 'Yes'."</p></div></blockquote><p>Only if you aren't concerned with democracy. Democracy requires that a government rule by the consent of the governed. We cannot consent to what we do not know. </p><p>We may elect government officials, but how meaningful is that really if their activities in office are secret from us? If we are choosing whether or not to re-elect an incumbent candidate, or selecting among candidates who have held previous government office, how can our approval or disapproval of their past performance be meaningful if we don't know what they have been doing?</p><p>You may say that the threats to our society from outside it are greater than the threats from government abuse of power. You may say that government officials' priorities are to protect us from those threats. You may say that government officials require secrecy to effectively protect us.</p><p>I think the greatest threats to my health and safety come from sources from which government officials have no interest in protecting me (see <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/business/10safety.html" title="nytimes.com">Toyota</a> [nytimes.com] product safety, <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/inside\_the\_great\_american\_bubble\_machine" title="rollingstone.com">Wall Street</a> [rollingstone.com] sub-prime mortgage derivatives and credit default swaps, etc). How many people have died as a result of terrorism in the US in the past 20 years? How many from <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.nr0.htm" title="bls.gov">on-the-job injuries</a> [bls.gov]?</p><p>If the largest and most powerful military in the world cannot effectively occupy a devastated, impoverished country a fraction of it's size, how am I supposed to believe that any outside force of Islamic radicals could occupy the US with it's 300 million (often armed) citizens and impose sharia law? I think the greatest threats to my freedom come from the US Government (USA PATRIOT spying, sneak-and-peek break-ins, wiretapping, COINTELPRO disruption of peaceful movements for social change).</p><p>In the main, I don't think that the Government is keeping secrets from me to protect me. Rather I believe that the Government keeps secrets from me to protect those in office from being held accountable by me and my fellow citizens.</p><p>I want to live in an effective democracy. That desire is greater than my fear of outside threats, threats that I don't believe government secrecy helps to combat anyway</p><p>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I am pretty sure , the answer is a resounding 'Yes' .
" Only if you are n't concerned with democracy .
Democracy requires that a government rule by the consent of the governed .
We can not consent to what we do not know .
We may elect government officials , but how meaningful is that really if their activities in office are secret from us ?
If we are choosing whether or not to re-elect an incumbent candidate , or selecting among candidates who have held previous government office , how can our approval or disapproval of their past performance be meaningful if we do n't know what they have been doing ? You may say that the threats to our society from outside it are greater than the threats from government abuse of power .
You may say that government officials ' priorities are to protect us from those threats .
You may say that government officials require secrecy to effectively protect us.I think the greatest threats to my health and safety come from sources from which government officials have no interest in protecting me ( see Toyota [ nytimes.com ] product safety , Wall Street [ rollingstone.com ] sub-prime mortgage derivatives and credit default swaps , etc ) .
How many people have died as a result of terrorism in the US in the past 20 years ?
How many from on-the-job injuries [ bls.gov ] ? If the largest and most powerful military in the world can not effectively occupy a devastated , impoverished country a fraction of it 's size , how am I supposed to believe that any outside force of Islamic radicals could occupy the US with it 's 300 million ( often armed ) citizens and impose sharia law ?
I think the greatest threats to my freedom come from the US Government ( USA PATRIOT spying , sneak-and-peek break-ins , wiretapping , COINTELPRO disruption of peaceful movements for social change ) .In the main , I do n't think that the Government is keeping secrets from me to protect me .
Rather I believe that the Government keeps secrets from me to protect those in office from being held accountable by me and my fellow citizens.I want to live in an effective democracy .
That desire is greater than my fear of outside threats , threats that I do n't believe government secrecy helps to combat anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I am pretty sure, the answer is a resounding 'Yes'.
"Only if you aren't concerned with democracy.
Democracy requires that a government rule by the consent of the governed.
We cannot consent to what we do not know.
We may elect government officials, but how meaningful is that really if their activities in office are secret from us?
If we are choosing whether or not to re-elect an incumbent candidate, or selecting among candidates who have held previous government office, how can our approval or disapproval of their past performance be meaningful if we don't know what they have been doing?You may say that the threats to our society from outside it are greater than the threats from government abuse of power.
You may say that government officials' priorities are to protect us from those threats.
You may say that government officials require secrecy to effectively protect us.I think the greatest threats to my health and safety come from sources from which government officials have no interest in protecting me (see Toyota [nytimes.com] product safety, Wall Street [rollingstone.com] sub-prime mortgage derivatives and credit default swaps, etc).
How many people have died as a result of terrorism in the US in the past 20 years?
How many from on-the-job injuries [bls.gov]?If the largest and most powerful military in the world cannot effectively occupy a devastated, impoverished country a fraction of it's size, how am I supposed to believe that any outside force of Islamic radicals could occupy the US with it's 300 million (often armed) citizens and impose sharia law?
I think the greatest threats to my freedom come from the US Government (USA PATRIOT spying, sneak-and-peek break-ins, wiretapping, COINTELPRO disruption of peaceful movements for social change).In the main, I don't think that the Government is keeping secrets from me to protect me.
Rather I believe that the Government keeps secrets from me to protect those in office from being held accountable by me and my fellow citizens.I want to live in an effective democracy.
That desire is greater than my fear of outside threats, threats that I don't believe government secrecy helps to combat anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31492216</id>
	<title>conspiracy!</title>
	<author>mauri</author>
	<datestamp>1268678340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This must be a conspiracy theory!<br>Oh wait, its conspiracy practice<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This must be a conspiracy theory ! Oh wait , its conspiracy practice : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This must be a conspiracy theory!Oh wait, its conspiracy practice :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968</id>
	<title>Be aware...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268676900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This information is marked SECRET and NOFORN (i.e. not for export or foreign eyes); simply accessing it without a security clearance may be committing a crime against national security.</p><p>Whether or not the US government will end up with a log of IP addresses that have downloaded it is a judgment for the reader.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This information is marked SECRET and NOFORN ( i.e .
not for export or foreign eyes ) ; simply accessing it without a security clearance may be committing a crime against national security.Whether or not the US government will end up with a log of IP addresses that have downloaded it is a judgment for the reader .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This information is marked SECRET and NOFORN (i.e.
not for export or foreign eyes); simply accessing it without a security clearance may be committing a crime against national security.Whether or not the US government will end up with a log of IP addresses that have downloaded it is a judgment for the reader.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31490702</id>
	<title>Re:Secrets ARE important</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1268663520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The information posted to WikiLeaks is (as far as I have seen at least) not the kind of information that represents a threat to national security.</p><p>Its not like they are posting the nuclear launch codes or the encryption keys for the secure telephone system. Or operational details of ongoing military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere.</p><p>If someone can show me a single document that has been leaked by WikiLeaks or any other similar site that would have compromised national security at the time it was leaked, maybe I will listen to the anti-WikiLeaks brigade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The information posted to WikiLeaks is ( as far as I have seen at least ) not the kind of information that represents a threat to national security.Its not like they are posting the nuclear launch codes or the encryption keys for the secure telephone system .
Or operational details of ongoing military operations in Iraq , Afghanistan or elsewhere.If someone can show me a single document that has been leaked by WikiLeaks or any other similar site that would have compromised national security at the time it was leaked , maybe I will listen to the anti-WikiLeaks brigade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The information posted to WikiLeaks is (as far as I have seen at least) not the kind of information that represents a threat to national security.Its not like they are posting the nuclear launch codes or the encryption keys for the secure telephone system.
Or operational details of ongoing military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere.If someone can show me a single document that has been leaked by WikiLeaks or any other similar site that would have compromised national security at the time it was leaked, maybe I will listen to the anti-WikiLeaks brigade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31493536</id>
	<title>Israel?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268742840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are they listing Israel with North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe? There is no internet censorship in Israel, and there are very few people in the government who know what the internet is, let alone denouncing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are they listing Israel with North Korea , Russia , Vietnam , and Zimbabwe ?
There is no internet censorship in Israel , and there are very few people in the government who know what the internet is , let alone denouncing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are they listing Israel with North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe?
There is no internet censorship in Israel, and there are very few people in the government who know what the internet is, let alone denouncing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485188</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1268681400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What torture at Guantanamo? Please do not use as an example of torture anything that is part of the training regime of U.S. military special ops forces.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What torture at Guantanamo ?
Please do not use as an example of torture anything that is part of the training regime of U.S. military special ops forces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What torture at Guantanamo?
Please do not use as an example of torture anything that is part of the training regime of U.S. military special ops forces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484306</id>
	<title>Re:You hit the nail on the head</title>
	<author>trurl7</author>
	<datestamp>1268678220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequences.</p></div><p>Uhm...citation needed?</p><p>It couldn't be because people think that Guantanamo is morally offensive, could it?  No, it's because people are irresponsible little twits who need a stern government hand to keep them in line, right?  I don't know what your background is, be it security, espionage, or military that you hold such adamant views, but let me suggest this:  the aggregate "harm" of all wikileaks' activities is less than the active harm caused by the Bush administration outing Valerie Plame.  And those bastards did it on purpose.</p><p>Now, talk to me again about "lack of consequences".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe ( mostly accurately ) that there will be no consequences.Uhm...citation needed ? It could n't be because people think that Guantanamo is morally offensive , could it ?
No , it 's because people are irresponsible little twits who need a stern government hand to keep them in line , right ?
I do n't know what your background is , be it security , espionage , or military that you hold such adamant views , but let me suggest this : the aggregate " harm " of all wikileaks ' activities is less than the active harm caused by the Bush administration outing Valerie Plame .
And those bastards did it on purpose.Now , talk to me again about " lack of consequences " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequences.Uhm...citation needed?It couldn't be because people think that Guantanamo is morally offensive, could it?
No, it's because people are irresponsible little twits who need a stern government hand to keep them in line, right?
I don't know what your background is, be it security, espionage, or military that you hold such adamant views, but let me suggest this:  the aggregate "harm" of all wikileaks' activities is less than the active harm caused by the Bush administration outing Valerie Plame.
And those bastards did it on purpose.Now, talk to me again about "lack of consequences".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484770</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>1stworld</author>
	<datestamp>1268679660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>When do you plan to stop beating your wife/significant other/anime collection?</htmltext>
<tokenext>When do you plan to stop beating your wife/significant other/anime collection ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When do you plan to stop beating your wife/significant other/anime collection?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486280</id>
	<title>Re:Be aware...</title>
	<author>dbet</author>
	<datestamp>1268685300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The US government has taps on all internet backbones. Even if you go through a proxy, they will be able to identify your IP address if you access such information.</p></div><p>That's what bringing your laptop to Starbucks is for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US government has taps on all internet backbones .
Even if you go through a proxy , they will be able to identify your IP address if you access such information.That 's what bringing your laptop to Starbucks is for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US government has taps on all internet backbones.
Even if you go through a proxy, they will be able to identify your IP address if you access such information.That's what bringing your laptop to Starbucks is for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484550</id>
	<title>The document is fake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268679060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no derivative classification marking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no derivative classification marking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no derivative classification marking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484110</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268677440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Any "leakers" inside the government usurp that decision-making to themselves and to the Wikileaks. Instead of relying on the judgment of people charged with making it, we will depend on the judgment of the "leaker" and of the Wikileaks editors. Personally, I'd prefer the government officials...</p></div><p>Thing is, government failures in this area tend to be, for a variety of reasons, false positives. In some cases just because all bureucracies are inherently secretive, in some because they are actively concealing information that is embarassing or damaging to powerful individuals and political parties. In this case, a "leak-proof" government is inherently somewhat anti-democratic - it will tend to conceal it's own failures and corruption. If you want to <i>regularize</i> this function by instituting panels composed of randomly selected (and subsequently security-cleared) citizens who get to access classified information and decide if it really needs to be classified, that's one thing. But to argue that the last word in concealing information should be given to people whose political influence and / or salary depends on concealing their own screw-ups is a serious failure of democratic hygiene.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any " leakers " inside the government usurp that decision-making to themselves and to the Wikileaks .
Instead of relying on the judgment of people charged with making it , we will depend on the judgment of the " leaker " and of the Wikileaks editors .
Personally , I 'd prefer the government officials...Thing is , government failures in this area tend to be , for a variety of reasons , false positives .
In some cases just because all bureucracies are inherently secretive , in some because they are actively concealing information that is embarassing or damaging to powerful individuals and political parties .
In this case , a " leak-proof " government is inherently somewhat anti-democratic - it will tend to conceal it 's own failures and corruption .
If you want to regularize this function by instituting panels composed of randomly selected ( and subsequently security-cleared ) citizens who get to access classified information and decide if it really needs to be classified , that 's one thing .
But to argue that the last word in concealing information should be given to people whose political influence and / or salary depends on concealing their own screw-ups is a serious failure of democratic hygiene .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any "leakers" inside the government usurp that decision-making to themselves and to the Wikileaks.
Instead of relying on the judgment of people charged with making it, we will depend on the judgment of the "leaker" and of the Wikileaks editors.
Personally, I'd prefer the government officials...Thing is, government failures in this area tend to be, for a variety of reasons, false positives.
In some cases just because all bureucracies are inherently secretive, in some because they are actively concealing information that is embarassing or damaging to powerful individuals and political parties.
In this case, a "leak-proof" government is inherently somewhat anti-democratic - it will tend to conceal it's own failures and corruption.
If you want to regularize this function by instituting panels composed of randomly selected (and subsequently security-cleared) citizens who get to access classified information and decide if it really needs to be classified, that's one thing.
But to argue that the last word in concealing information should be given to people whose political influence and / or salary depends on concealing their own screw-ups is a serious failure of democratic hygiene.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486784</id>
	<title>Re:An easier plan</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1268643720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"...could be used to post fabricated information; to post misinformation, disinformation,<br>and propaganda; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed to<br>convey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site."</p></div><p>Excuse me, isn't that the de facto definition of the term Wiki?  I'm not naming names, but it seems to be the trend.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...could be used to post fabricated information ; to post misinformation , disinformation,and propaganda ; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed toconvey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site .
" Excuse me , is n't that the de facto definition of the term Wiki ?
I 'm not naming names , but it seems to be the trend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...could be used to post fabricated information; to post misinformation, disinformation,and propaganda; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed toconvey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site.
"Excuse me, isn't that the de facto definition of the term Wiki?
I'm not naming names, but it seems to be the trend.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31489970</id>
	<title>Re:Two can play your game</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268659080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would you prefer another major terrorist attack that kills thousands of people?</p></div><p>If an attack cannot be prevented in any way other than torturing people, who may or may not even be guilty of what they are incriminated with (because they are denied the proper judicial process, and there is no outside review of the members of executive who decide on who's a "terrorist" and who is not), then - yes, definitely.</p><p>I mean, killing off the First and the Second Amendments could also easily help prevent "another major terrorist attack that kills thousands of people". Should it be done, then, in the name of security?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you prefer another major terrorist attack that kills thousands of people ? If an attack can not be prevented in any way other than torturing people , who may or may not even be guilty of what they are incriminated with ( because they are denied the proper judicial process , and there is no outside review of the members of executive who decide on who 's a " terrorist " and who is not ) , then - yes , definitely.I mean , killing off the First and the Second Amendments could also easily help prevent " another major terrorist attack that kills thousands of people " .
Should it be done , then , in the name of security ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you prefer another major terrorist attack that kills thousands of people?If an attack cannot be prevented in any way other than torturing people, who may or may not even be guilty of what they are incriminated with (because they are denied the proper judicial process, and there is no outside review of the members of executive who decide on who's a "terrorist" and who is not), then - yes, definitely.I mean, killing off the First and the Second Amendments could also easily help prevent "another major terrorist attack that kills thousands of people".
Should it be done, then, in the name of security?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31489522</id>
	<title>Re:Be aware...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268656440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mod parent wrong</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mod parent wrong</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mod parent wrong</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484088</id>
	<title>Idiots</title>
	<author>trurl7</author>
	<datestamp>1268677380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers...</p></div><p>I can understand that the government can harass, hound, and persecute those it does not like into oblivion.  Comes with the turf.  But if their objective is to destroy wikileaks, then this method, is, to put it bluntly, bass ackwards.  How is it that the armchair wafflebutt who came up with this crock of sh*t never heard of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand\_effect" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Streisand Effect</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p><p>Seriously, these are the people keeping the US safe?  That their brilliant plan is to do precisely the kind of thing the Internet is really good at defeating?</p><p>Epic fail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>identification , exposure , termination of employment , criminal prosecution , legal action against current or former insiders , leakers , or whistleblowers...I can understand that the government can harass , hound , and persecute those it does not like into oblivion .
Comes with the turf .
But if their objective is to destroy wikileaks , then this method , is , to put it bluntly , bass ackwards .
How is it that the armchair wafflebutt who came up with this crock of sh * t never heard of the Streisand Effect [ wikipedia.org ] ? Seriously , these are the people keeping the US safe ?
That their brilliant plan is to do precisely the kind of thing the Internet is really good at defeating ? Epic fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers...I can understand that the government can harass, hound, and persecute those it does not like into oblivion.
Comes with the turf.
But if their objective is to destroy wikileaks, then this method, is, to put it bluntly, bass ackwards.
How is it that the armchair wafflebutt who came up with this crock of sh*t never heard of the Streisand Effect [wikipedia.org]?Seriously, these are the people keeping the US safe?
That their brilliant plan is to do precisely the kind of thing the Internet is really good at defeating?Epic fail.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31496194</id>
	<title>typical /. overreaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268756520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks' source exposed, it appears that this plan was ineffective.</p></div><p>No, it means that they never put any such plan into action. A report discussing wikileaks, its possible threats to some gov't departments, and possible ways to discredit it if needed, does not equate to an active ongoing effort to do so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As two years have passed since the date of the report , with no WikiLeaks ' source exposed , it appears that this plan was ineffective.No , it means that they never put any such plan into action .
A report discussing wikileaks , its possible threats to some gov't departments , and possible ways to discredit it if needed , does not equate to an active ongoing effort to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks' source exposed, it appears that this plan was ineffective.No, it means that they never put any such plan into action.
A report discussing wikileaks, its possible threats to some gov't departments, and possible ways to discredit it if needed, does not equate to an active ongoing effort to do so.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485626</id>
	<title>Shocked, I tell you!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268683080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm shocked, just SHOCKED.  US Counterintelligence was actually planning to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... engage in counterintelligence!</p><p>That sure warrants a couple hundred replies to the submission from the usual Slashdot knee-jerks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>Why was this even news?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm shocked , just SHOCKED .
US Counterintelligence was actually planning to .... engage in counterintelligence ! That sure warrants a couple hundred replies to the submission from the usual Slashdot knee-jerks ....Why was this even news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm shocked, just SHOCKED.
US Counterintelligence was actually planning to .... engage in counterintelligence!That sure warrants a couple hundred replies to the submission from the usual Slashdot knee-jerks ....Why was this even news?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486464</id>
	<title>Re:George Bush at it again</title>
	<author>grub</author>
	<datestamp>1268685960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br> <i>Wow that evil George Bush is at it again. Wait, what?</i> <br> <br>That paper was from 2 years ago when he was in office, if that's what you mean.<br> <br>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow that evil George Bush is at it again .
Wait , what ?
That paper was from 2 years ago when he was in office , if that 's what you mean .
.</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Wow that evil George Bush is at it again.
Wait, what?
That paper was from 2 years ago when he was in office, if that's what you mean.
.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31488958</id>
	<title>Re:An easier easier plan</title>
	<author>reshin</author>
	<datestamp>1268653080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An even simpler explanation is that this story itself was planted by US counterintelligence as part of a plan to discredit Wikileaks.org by using it to publish details of US counterintelligence plans that do not exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An even simpler explanation is that this story itself was planted by US counterintelligence as part of a plan to discredit Wikileaks.org by using it to publish details of US counterintelligence plans that do not exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An even simpler explanation is that this story itself was planted by US counterintelligence as part of a plan to discredit Wikileaks.org by using it to publish details of US counterintelligence plans that do not exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484162</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268677680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you prefer that the torture at Guantanamo had been kept secret?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you prefer that the torture at Guantanamo had been kept secret ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you prefer that the torture at Guantanamo had been kept secret?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485370</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1268682060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Any "leakers" inside the government usurp that decision-making to themselves and to the Wikileaks. Instead of relying on the judgment of people charged with making it, we will depend on the judgment of the "leaker" and of the Wikileaks editors. Personally, I'd prefer the government officials...</p> </div><p>So you only trust the criminals to make law to stop the actions they desire to get away with.</p><p>Well, I suppose it's good we know where you stand on the subject.  But that is a pretty immoral stance.</p><p>This is why the fact <a href="http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture\_in\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">America tortures</a> [wikipedia.org] people and have gotten away with it for so long.  People like you who want to see the torturers and murderers make up silly excuses why they should be allowed to do so, and then make the choice that it is a crime <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">punishable by death</a> [wikipedia.org] if you rat out their illegal crimes.</p><p>There are billions of people against such practices, and only at most a million people still desiring it.<br>Best part is, there was maybe 20 people in charge of deciding we should do this.</p><p>Fuck those 20, and fuck you for stating they are more right than the other billions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any " leakers " inside the government usurp that decision-making to themselves and to the Wikileaks .
Instead of relying on the judgment of people charged with making it , we will depend on the judgment of the " leaker " and of the Wikileaks editors .
Personally , I 'd prefer the government officials... So you only trust the criminals to make law to stop the actions they desire to get away with.Well , I suppose it 's good we know where you stand on the subject .
But that is a pretty immoral stance.This is why the fact America tortures [ wikipedia.org ] people and have gotten away with it for so long .
People like you who want to see the torturers and murderers make up silly excuses why they should be allowed to do so , and then make the choice that it is a crime punishable by death [ wikipedia.org ] if you rat out their illegal crimes.There are billions of people against such practices , and only at most a million people still desiring it.Best part is , there was maybe 20 people in charge of deciding we should do this.Fuck those 20 , and fuck you for stating they are more right than the other billions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any "leakers" inside the government usurp that decision-making to themselves and to the Wikileaks.
Instead of relying on the judgment of people charged with making it, we will depend on the judgment of the "leaker" and of the Wikileaks editors.
Personally, I'd prefer the government officials... So you only trust the criminals to make law to stop the actions they desire to get away with.Well, I suppose it's good we know where you stand on the subject.
But that is a pretty immoral stance.This is why the fact America tortures [wikipedia.org] people and have gotten away with it for so long.
People like you who want to see the torturers and murderers make up silly excuses why they should be allowed to do so, and then make the choice that it is a crime punishable by death [wikipedia.org] if you rat out their illegal crimes.There are billions of people against such practices, and only at most a million people still desiring it.Best part is, there was maybe 20 people in charge of deciding we should do this.Fuck those 20, and fuck you for stating they are more right than the other billions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483952</id>
	<title>Re:An easier plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268676840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take a look at the doc itself, it seem to propose just that.
"This raises the possibility that the Wikileaks.org
Web site could be used to post fabricated information; to post misinformation, disinformation,
and propaganda; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed to
convey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at the doc itself , it seem to propose just that .
" This raises the possibility that the Wikileaks.org Web site could be used to post fabricated information ; to post misinformation , disinformation , and propaganda ; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed to convey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at the doc itself, it seem to propose just that.
"This raises the possibility that the Wikileaks.org
Web site could be used to post fabricated information; to post misinformation, disinformation,
and propaganda; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed to
convey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484176</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>metrometro</author>
	<datestamp>1268677680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Thus any leakers (and the Wikileaks personnel) are to be prosecuted </i></p><p>The risk of "unauthorized" public scrutiny of government actions is a powerful deterrent. The system you suggest we punish -- where individuals can make a moral decision which benefits the public regardless of orders or rank -- is a primary factor in the difference in conduct between the conduct of armies in democracies and armies of autocratic states. The moral responsibility that comes with military service is taught from day one, and these whistleblowers are in its best tradition. It is a transfer of some powers from the military machine back to the people who make it function, and by publishing that information (negating it's value for private gain), giving that power wholly over to the public. Democracy is more than elections.</p><p>But if you want to throw those people in jail, sure, whatever.</p><p>Also, if you're going to cite "whistleblowing laws" as a panacea, at least be specific, because they don't work in the way you describe. Reference: <a href="http://report.globalintegrity.org/United\%20States/2009/scorecard/59" title="globalintegrity.org">http://report.globalintegrity.org/United\%20States/2009/scorecard/59</a> [globalintegrity.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thus any leakers ( and the Wikileaks personnel ) are to be prosecuted The risk of " unauthorized " public scrutiny of government actions is a powerful deterrent .
The system you suggest we punish -- where individuals can make a moral decision which benefits the public regardless of orders or rank -- is a primary factor in the difference in conduct between the conduct of armies in democracies and armies of autocratic states .
The moral responsibility that comes with military service is taught from day one , and these whistleblowers are in its best tradition .
It is a transfer of some powers from the military machine back to the people who make it function , and by publishing that information ( negating it 's value for private gain ) , giving that power wholly over to the public .
Democracy is more than elections.But if you want to throw those people in jail , sure , whatever.Also , if you 're going to cite " whistleblowing laws " as a panacea , at least be specific , because they do n't work in the way you describe .
Reference : http : //report.globalintegrity.org/United \ % 20States/2009/scorecard/59 [ globalintegrity.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thus any leakers (and the Wikileaks personnel) are to be prosecuted The risk of "unauthorized" public scrutiny of government actions is a powerful deterrent.
The system you suggest we punish -- where individuals can make a moral decision which benefits the public regardless of orders or rank -- is a primary factor in the difference in conduct between the conduct of armies in democracies and armies of autocratic states.
The moral responsibility that comes with military service is taught from day one, and these whistleblowers are in its best tradition.
It is a transfer of some powers from the military machine back to the people who make it function, and by publishing that information (negating it's value for private gain), giving that power wholly over to the public.
Democracy is more than elections.But if you want to throw those people in jail, sure, whatever.Also, if you're going to cite "whistleblowing laws" as a panacea, at least be specific, because they don't work in the way you describe.
Reference: http://report.globalintegrity.org/United\%20States/2009/scorecard/59 [globalintegrity.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485028</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>Paradoks</author>
	<datestamp>1268680680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we will depend on the judgment of the "leaker" and of the Wikileaks editors. Personally, I'd prefer the government officials...</p> </div><p>Okay, government officials covered up various embarrassing things, like photos of caskets filled with dead soldiers killed by government decisions.  They also covered up the warrant-less wiretapping done by the phone companies.<br>
<br>
That's the first two examples that come into my head.  I'd also consider most of the Wikileaks info to be stuff that should have been made public, but wasn't because it makes the government look bad.<br>
<br>
Now, on the side of info gotten from Wikileaks that caused the country actual harm...  Well, okay, perhaps I'm just biased, but I can't immediately think of a single example(for leaks in general, I remember something about an embedded reporter giving out troop locations, though I'll admit I don't have any reason to think that caused actual harm, even if it was stupid.).  Since you think the government is doing it right, and the leakers are doing it wrong, I would assume you could easily find, oh, half a dozen examples.<br>
<br>
Not that I find any real flaw in your reasoning -- I just don't think the results agree with you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we will depend on the judgment of the " leaker " and of the Wikileaks editors .
Personally , I 'd prefer the government officials... Okay , government officials covered up various embarrassing things , like photos of caskets filled with dead soldiers killed by government decisions .
They also covered up the warrant-less wiretapping done by the phone companies .
That 's the first two examples that come into my head .
I 'd also consider most of the Wikileaks info to be stuff that should have been made public , but was n't because it makes the government look bad .
Now , on the side of info gotten from Wikileaks that caused the country actual harm... Well , okay , perhaps I 'm just biased , but I ca n't immediately think of a single example ( for leaks in general , I remember something about an embedded reporter giving out troop locations , though I 'll admit I do n't have any reason to think that caused actual harm , even if it was stupid. ) .
Since you think the government is doing it right , and the leakers are doing it wrong , I would assume you could easily find , oh , half a dozen examples .
Not that I find any real flaw in your reasoning -- I just do n't think the results agree with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we will depend on the judgment of the "leaker" and of the Wikileaks editors.
Personally, I'd prefer the government officials... Okay, government officials covered up various embarrassing things, like photos of caskets filled with dead soldiers killed by government decisions.
They also covered up the warrant-less wiretapping done by the phone companies.
That's the first two examples that come into my head.
I'd also consider most of the Wikileaks info to be stuff that should have been made public, but wasn't because it makes the government look bad.
Now, on the side of info gotten from Wikileaks that caused the country actual harm...  Well, okay, perhaps I'm just biased, but I can't immediately think of a single example(for leaks in general, I remember something about an embedded reporter giving out troop locations, though I'll admit I don't have any reason to think that caused actual harm, even if it was stupid.).
Since you think the government is doing it right, and the leakers are doing it wrong, I would assume you could easily find, oh, half a dozen examples.
Not that I find any real flaw in your reasoning -- I just don't think the results agree with you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485360</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>c++0xFF</author>
	<datestamp>1268682000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Majority of things I've heard about that were leaked, were only classified to avoid embarrassment and prevent protests against things people disagree with.</p></div><p>Which, ironically, is why they were leaked.</p><p>Maybe we have a partially self-correcting system:  the stuff that should get leaked is, while the stuff that shouldn't isn't.  I say "partially" because there are obviously many exceptions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Majority of things I 've heard about that were leaked , were only classified to avoid embarrassment and prevent protests against things people disagree with.Which , ironically , is why they were leaked.Maybe we have a partially self-correcting system : the stuff that should get leaked is , while the stuff that should n't is n't .
I say " partially " because there are obviously many exceptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Majority of things I've heard about that were leaked, were only classified to avoid embarrassment and prevent protests against things people disagree with.Which, ironically, is why they were leaked.Maybe we have a partially self-correcting system:  the stuff that should get leaked is, while the stuff that shouldn't isn't.
I say "partially" because there are obviously many exceptions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485306</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1268681820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I am pretty sure, the answer is a resounding "Yes"."</p><p>You need to leave our country, then. Take ONE look at what our government has done to our own people FIRST (Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, MK-ULTRA, etc.) and tell me they need the power to make secrets. FUCK THAT NOISE.</p><p>Anybody that refuses to use some common sense and see that HUGE POWERFUL ENTITIES keeping secrets is a bad thing should probably just get out of this country. We don't need dead ignorant weight slowing us down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I am pretty sure , the answer is a resounding " Yes " .
" You need to leave our country , then .
Take ONE look at what our government has done to our own people FIRST ( Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment , MK-ULTRA , etc .
) and tell me they need the power to make secrets .
FUCK THAT NOISE.Anybody that refuses to use some common sense and see that HUGE POWERFUL ENTITIES keeping secrets is a bad thing should probably just get out of this country .
We do n't need dead ignorant weight slowing us down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I am pretty sure, the answer is a resounding "Yes".
"You need to leave our country, then.
Take ONE look at what our government has done to our own people FIRST (Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, MK-ULTRA, etc.
) and tell me they need the power to make secrets.
FUCK THAT NOISE.Anybody that refuses to use some common sense and see that HUGE POWERFUL ENTITIES keeping secrets is a bad thing should probably just get out of this country.
We don't need dead ignorant weight slowing us down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31491522</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1268669940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The information is already out, assume hostile agents, agencies and goverments already have it</p></div></blockquote><p>That's a shake assumption. It seems, that quite often things get "leaked" not for the benefit of "hostile agents" (which would be an outright treason), but in order to give to Wikileaks and/or the press. The leaker believes, they are saving the world (or the nation).

</p><p>Who do you trust &mdash; the leaker or his superiors? In military/national secret cases, I'd take the superiors' view &mdash; and so should you, if only because erring on the side of secrecy is far less dangerous (you can always declassify a secret, but can not put the toothpaste back into tube).

</p><p>The threat of enthusiastic investigation and vigorous prosecution is a good deterrent against would-be leaks...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The information is already out , assume hostile agents , agencies and goverments already have itThat 's a shake assumption .
It seems , that quite often things get " leaked " not for the benefit of " hostile agents " ( which would be an outright treason ) , but in order to give to Wikileaks and/or the press .
The leaker believes , they are saving the world ( or the nation ) .
Who do you trust    the leaker or his superiors ?
In military/national secret cases , I 'd take the superiors ' view    and so should you , if only because erring on the side of secrecy is far less dangerous ( you can always declassify a secret , but can not put the toothpaste back into tube ) .
The threat of enthusiastic investigation and vigorous prosecution is a good deterrent against would-be leaks.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The information is already out, assume hostile agents, agencies and goverments already have itThat's a shake assumption.
It seems, that quite often things get "leaked" not for the benefit of "hostile agents" (which would be an outright treason), but in order to give to Wikileaks and/or the press.
The leaker believes, they are saving the world (or the nation).
Who do you trust — the leaker or his superiors?
In military/national secret cases, I'd take the superiors' view — and so should you, if only because erring on the side of secrecy is far less dangerous (you can always declassify a secret, but can not put the toothpaste back into tube).
The threat of enthusiastic investigation and vigorous prosecution is a good deterrent against would-be leaks...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31487184</id>
	<title>Holy Shit!</title>
	<author>AmonTheMetalhead</author>
	<datestamp>1268645280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The military managed to take down wikileaks! Or did we just slashdot the site?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The military managed to take down wikileaks !
Or did we just slashdot the site ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The military managed to take down wikileaks!
Or did we just slashdot the site?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31497238</id>
	<title>COINTELPRO</title>
	<author>whitroth</author>
	<datestamp>1268760060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"conspiracy theory", etc.</p><p>Children, I see no reason to disbelieve that the US "Intelligence community" would look into doing this to wikileaks. Look up COINTELPRO. Look up the CIA using the Mafia to try to get an exploding cigar to Castro. These are all documented *FACTS*. Why on earth would I *not* think they'd try to trash wikileaks?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; mark</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" conspiracy theory " , etc.Children , I see no reason to disbelieve that the US " Intelligence community " would look into doing this to wikileaks .
Look up COINTELPRO .
Look up the CIA using the Mafia to try to get an exploding cigar to Castro .
These are all documented * FACTS * .
Why on earth would I * not * think they 'd try to trash wikileaks ?
                        mark</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"conspiracy theory", etc.Children, I see no reason to disbelieve that the US "Intelligence community" would look into doing this to wikileaks.
Look up COINTELPRO.
Look up the CIA using the Mafia to try to get an exploding cigar to Castro.
These are all documented *FACTS*.
Why on earth would I *not* think they'd try to trash wikileaks?
                        mark</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31487230</id>
	<title>Re:Be aware...</title>
	<author>funkatron</author>
	<datestamp>1268645520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It doesn't matter. National security is just another word for political embarressment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter .
National security is just another word for political embarressment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter.
National security is just another word for political embarressment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483942</id>
	<title>Re:An easier plan</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1268676780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do you know this isn't happening?<br> <br>"In time of war, when truth is so precious, it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies" -- Winston Churchill</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you know this is n't happening ?
" In time of war , when truth is so precious , it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies " -- Winston Churchill</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you know this isn't happening?
"In time of war, when truth is so precious, it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies" -- Winston Churchill</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484742</id>
	<title>There's No Arbitrary Classification</title>
	<author>mitkaffee</author>
	<datestamp>1268679600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speaking from experience, I can say that documents aren't given a classification simply to "hide" information from everyone.
<br> <br>
There are strict rules to be followed if you want to classify a bit of information.
<br> <br>
Once you classify something, it has to be maintained and tracked.  There is a cost associated with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking from experience , I can say that documents are n't given a classification simply to " hide " information from everyone .
There are strict rules to be followed if you want to classify a bit of information .
Once you classify something , it has to be maintained and tracked .
There is a cost associated with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking from experience, I can say that documents aren't given a classification simply to "hide" information from everyone.
There are strict rules to be followed if you want to classify a bit of information.
Once you classify something, it has to be maintained and tracked.
There is a cost associated with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485428</id>
	<title>"having a plan" is not the same as "planning"</title>
	<author>Big\_Oh</author>
	<datestamp>1268682300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The story isn't that they planned to do this, and it is unreasonable to conclude that the plan was ineffective.


The story is that they developed a plan to do this. I'd be shocked if China didn't have a plan (or a dozen plans) for the conquering of Taiwan. I'd be horrified if they actually planned to invade Taiwan. Military people need to practice between real action, and drawing up contingency plans is a way to do that. It's healthy, and prevents much stupidity from seeing the light of day.


For example, from thinking about this, they may be led to realize that net censorship is ineffective and counterproductive unless it is undertaken on a brazen scale. That would be good, and IMHO more likely than that it will lead to real attacks on Wikileaks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The story is n't that they planned to do this , and it is unreasonable to conclude that the plan was ineffective .
The story is that they developed a plan to do this .
I 'd be shocked if China did n't have a plan ( or a dozen plans ) for the conquering of Taiwan .
I 'd be horrified if they actually planned to invade Taiwan .
Military people need to practice between real action , and drawing up contingency plans is a way to do that .
It 's healthy , and prevents much stupidity from seeing the light of day .
For example , from thinking about this , they may be led to realize that net censorship is ineffective and counterproductive unless it is undertaken on a brazen scale .
That would be good , and IMHO more likely than that it will lead to real attacks on Wikileaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The story isn't that they planned to do this, and it is unreasonable to conclude that the plan was ineffective.
The story is that they developed a plan to do this.
I'd be shocked if China didn't have a plan (or a dozen plans) for the conquering of Taiwan.
I'd be horrified if they actually planned to invade Taiwan.
Military people need to practice between real action, and drawing up contingency plans is a way to do that.
It's healthy, and prevents much stupidity from seeing the light of day.
For example, from thinking about this, they may be led to realize that net censorship is ineffective and counterproductive unless it is undertaken on a brazen scale.
That would be good, and IMHO more likely than that it will lead to real attacks on Wikileaks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484282</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1268678100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are, of course, assuming that the decision making inside government is done with the interest of some greater good in mind.</p><p>Unfortunately, as it is done by humans, it is very often done with personal interests in mind. Many of the documents leaked on Wikileaks are testament to that. The only reason they were kept secret was that they'd embarass someone, with "embarass" in the widest sense including "prove criminal war crimes".</p><p>Whistleblowers are an (unofficial) part of the checks &amp; balances system. Every time they blow the whistle on something that should not have been kept secret, should have been revealed, and the fact that it was covered up shocks the public as much or more than the actual content, the system is set right again a little bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are , of course , assuming that the decision making inside government is done with the interest of some greater good in mind.Unfortunately , as it is done by humans , it is very often done with personal interests in mind .
Many of the documents leaked on Wikileaks are testament to that .
The only reason they were kept secret was that they 'd embarass someone , with " embarass " in the widest sense including " prove criminal war crimes " .Whistleblowers are an ( unofficial ) part of the checks &amp; balances system .
Every time they blow the whistle on something that should not have been kept secret , should have been revealed , and the fact that it was covered up shocks the public as much or more than the actual content , the system is set right again a little bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are, of course, assuming that the decision making inside government is done with the interest of some greater good in mind.Unfortunately, as it is done by humans, it is very often done with personal interests in mind.
Many of the documents leaked on Wikileaks are testament to that.
The only reason they were kept secret was that they'd embarass someone, with "embarass" in the widest sense including "prove criminal war crimes".Whistleblowers are an (unofficial) part of the checks &amp; balances system.
Every time they blow the whistle on something that should not have been kept secret, should have been revealed, and the fact that it was covered up shocks the public as much or more than the actual content, the system is set right again a little bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484482</id>
	<title>US - Intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268678820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two words / worlds i would never put in conjunction with eachother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two words / worlds i would never put in conjunction with eachother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two words / worlds i would never put in conjunction with eachother.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485186</id>
	<title>Re:Be aware...</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1268681400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've got it backwards. It is not a crime to see a classified document if you aren't cleared for that level of classification. It is a crime to show somebody a classified document who isn't cleared to see it, however.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got it backwards .
It is not a crime to see a classified document if you are n't cleared for that level of classification .
It is a crime to show somebody a classified document who is n't cleared to see it , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got it backwards.
It is not a crime to see a classified document if you aren't cleared for that level of classification.
It is a crime to show somebody a classified document who isn't cleared to see it, however.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484336</id>
	<title>Re:US citizens plan to dethrone fascist regime</title>
	<author>jbeaupre</author>
	<datestamp>1268678280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure!  No problem!  Where do you live?  We'll have US ordinance delivered there shortly.  Please keep low until the loud noises stop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure !
No problem !
Where do you live ?
We 'll have US ordinance delivered there shortly .
Please keep low until the loud noises stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure!
No problem!
Where do you live?
We'll have US ordinance delivered there shortly.
Please keep low until the loud noises stop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486692</id>
	<title>The Shockwave Rider</title>
	<author>Eremotherium</author>
	<datestamp>1268686620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>by John Brunner

Read it. It really opens up a new perspective on information and secrecy to most.
Also it's classic literature especially for anyone who considers himself a digital native (for lack of a better word).
But then again a handicap of most digital natives is the inability to read anything longer than a wikipedia article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>by John Brunner Read it .
It really opens up a new perspective on information and secrecy to most .
Also it 's classic literature especially for anyone who considers himself a digital native ( for lack of a better word ) .
But then again a handicap of most digital natives is the inability to read anything longer than a wikipedia article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by John Brunner

Read it.
It really opens up a new perspective on information and secrecy to most.
Also it's classic literature especially for anyone who considers himself a digital native (for lack of a better word).
But then again a handicap of most digital natives is the inability to read anything longer than a wikipedia article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31498734</id>
	<title>Re:Be aware...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268765820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do I know the document is really marked "SECRET NOFORN," without downloading it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do I know the document is really marked " SECRET NOFORN , " without downloading it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do I know the document is really marked "SECRET NOFORN," without downloading it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485544</id>
	<title>Re:Be aware...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268682720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://tor.eff.org/" title="eff.org" rel="nofollow">Tor</a> [eff.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tor [ eff.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tor [eff.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485774</id>
	<title>Wake me up when</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268683680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wake me up when "Terrorists" kill as many people as car accidents.</p><p>Do we torture people to prevent car accidents? (The current Toyota thing hardly counts as torture.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wake me up when " Terrorists " kill as many people as car accidents.Do we torture people to prevent car accidents ?
( The current Toyota thing hardly counts as torture .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wake me up when "Terrorists" kill as many people as car accidents.Do we torture people to prevent car accidents?
(The current Toyota thing hardly counts as torture.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484086</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268677380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The leakers and Wikileaks personel are separate groups, rhetoric about the need for secrecy and irresponsibility of leakers does nothing to actually justify curtailing the speech of a third party. If you have a problem keeping your information in your organization then that is what you need to fix. The information is already out, assume hostile agents, agencies and goverments already have it, Wikileaks is just a PR problem that shows to your taxpayers that you are not doing your job keeping it secret, it is not a security problem unless the only people you want to keep in the dark is the general public.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The leakers and Wikileaks personel are separate groups , rhetoric about the need for secrecy and irresponsibility of leakers does nothing to actually justify curtailing the speech of a third party .
If you have a problem keeping your information in your organization then that is what you need to fix .
The information is already out , assume hostile agents , agencies and goverments already have it , Wikileaks is just a PR problem that shows to your taxpayers that you are not doing your job keeping it secret , it is not a security problem unless the only people you want to keep in the dark is the general public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The leakers and Wikileaks personel are separate groups, rhetoric about the need for secrecy and irresponsibility of leakers does nothing to actually justify curtailing the speech of a third party.
If you have a problem keeping your information in your organization then that is what you need to fix.
The information is already out, assume hostile agents, agencies and goverments already have it, Wikileaks is just a PR problem that shows to your taxpayers that you are not doing your job keeping it secret, it is not a security problem unless the only people you want to keep in the dark is the general public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484102</id>
	<title>Serves a Useful Purpose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268677380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>One would note that most of the time, the things that governments fight so hard to keep secret are things that aren't so much of national security interest but rather things that are embarrassing or things they're keeping secret not because of the enemy but because their own citizens might be upset if they knew.  Wikileaks has shown many useful things, from drafts of ACTA, to the spying on citizens in violation of any numbers of laws, hypocritical actions by governments all over the world, and clear violations of treaties.  In fact, very little of what Wikileaks posts is "top secret national security information" from almost any country - they're often things that governments want to suppress because they don't want to face reprisal from their own citizens for undertaking them, or are trying to hide actions they undertake that they know are otherwise illegal - not because they're afraid some other country is going to use that information against them.<br><br>Consider this - decades ago the US Supreme Court affirmed the State Secrets Doctrine, allowing the government to argue that trying a court case would reveal national secrets (and that the case must therefore be dropped without a hearing), because the government argued that revealing information about what was I think a plane crash would hurt national security.  Decades later, when the files were unclassified, it turns out that there were no real secrets involved, certainly none that would have been revealed in a trial - the government was simply trying to hide the fact that there was government negligence involved.  They wanted to avoid embarrassing themselves, not protecting secrets.  Remember that next time the US Government invokes the doctrine (which they do with ever-increasing frequency).</htmltext>
<tokenext>One would note that most of the time , the things that governments fight so hard to keep secret are things that are n't so much of national security interest but rather things that are embarrassing or things they 're keeping secret not because of the enemy but because their own citizens might be upset if they knew .
Wikileaks has shown many useful things , from drafts of ACTA , to the spying on citizens in violation of any numbers of laws , hypocritical actions by governments all over the world , and clear violations of treaties .
In fact , very little of what Wikileaks posts is " top secret national security information " from almost any country - they 're often things that governments want to suppress because they do n't want to face reprisal from their own citizens for undertaking them , or are trying to hide actions they undertake that they know are otherwise illegal - not because they 're afraid some other country is going to use that information against them.Consider this - decades ago the US Supreme Court affirmed the State Secrets Doctrine , allowing the government to argue that trying a court case would reveal national secrets ( and that the case must therefore be dropped without a hearing ) , because the government argued that revealing information about what was I think a plane crash would hurt national security .
Decades later , when the files were unclassified , it turns out that there were no real secrets involved , certainly none that would have been revealed in a trial - the government was simply trying to hide the fact that there was government negligence involved .
They wanted to avoid embarrassing themselves , not protecting secrets .
Remember that next time the US Government invokes the doctrine ( which they do with ever-increasing frequency ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One would note that most of the time, the things that governments fight so hard to keep secret are things that aren't so much of national security interest but rather things that are embarrassing or things they're keeping secret not because of the enemy but because their own citizens might be upset if they knew.
Wikileaks has shown many useful things, from drafts of ACTA, to the spying on citizens in violation of any numbers of laws, hypocritical actions by governments all over the world, and clear violations of treaties.
In fact, very little of what Wikileaks posts is "top secret national security information" from almost any country - they're often things that governments want to suppress because they don't want to face reprisal from their own citizens for undertaking them, or are trying to hide actions they undertake that they know are otherwise illegal - not because they're afraid some other country is going to use that information against them.Consider this - decades ago the US Supreme Court affirmed the State Secrets Doctrine, allowing the government to argue that trying a court case would reveal national secrets (and that the case must therefore be dropped without a hearing), because the government argued that revealing information about what was I think a plane crash would hurt national security.
Decades later, when the files were unclassified, it turns out that there were no real secrets involved, certainly none that would have been revealed in a trial - the government was simply trying to hide the fact that there was government negligence involved.
They wanted to avoid embarrassing themselves, not protecting secrets.
Remember that next time the US Government invokes the doctrine (which they do with ever-increasing frequency).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484262</id>
	<title>Smells like a lure...</title>
	<author>ghostis</author>
	<datestamp>1268678040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This leak feels like the ones Apple's secret police use.  Since it's particularly inflammatory, I wonder if they only gave specific people access to it to track down who was doing the leaking...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This leak feels like the ones Apple 's secret police use .
Since it 's particularly inflammatory , I wonder if they only gave specific people access to it to track down who was doing the leaking.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This leak feels like the ones Apple's secret police use.
Since it's particularly inflammatory, I wonder if they only gave specific people access to it to track down who was doing the leaking...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31490688</id>
	<title>I Call Bullshit</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1268663340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "leaked" document is OPSEC propoganda <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations\_security" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations\_security</a> [wikipedia.org] , a primary tool of psychological operations. It was made available so that it could be seen to fail, making Wikileaks and its supporters think they were getting away with something. They're not. They're being used. Psyops teams always seek to obtain a reliable source with which to feed misinformation. They do not make such sources stop. They give them reason to think they're safe so that they'll continue to publicize the "leaks" that the psyops teams want them to. A source like this is worth far more as a means to feed credible false intel than it is as a trophy marker in some administrator's resume'.</p><p>Besides, if they wanted Wikileaks to close shop, they wouldn't make it disappear. Instead they'd snatch people like Julian Assange and give them reasons why they should just drop out of sight. The reasons are typically measured in 'caliber'. Once such individuals are 'convinced', the other members start finding reasons why they should cease operations before becoming 'convinced'.</p><p>Yeah, I know it sounds more like a movie script than a government/military action. It actually sounds more like something from Dr. Paul "E.E. 'Doc' Smith" Linebarger's book "Psychological Operations". Read it before you try to say otherwise. And realize that this book is still the primary text book on the subject for the thousands of military and civilian (military psyops specialists are not allowed to operate within the United States) workers in the field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " leaked " document is OPSEC propoganda http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations \ _security [ wikipedia.org ] , a primary tool of psychological operations .
It was made available so that it could be seen to fail , making Wikileaks and its supporters think they were getting away with something .
They 're not .
They 're being used .
Psyops teams always seek to obtain a reliable source with which to feed misinformation .
They do not make such sources stop .
They give them reason to think they 're safe so that they 'll continue to publicize the " leaks " that the psyops teams want them to .
A source like this is worth far more as a means to feed credible false intel than it is as a trophy marker in some administrator 's resume'.Besides , if they wanted Wikileaks to close shop , they would n't make it disappear .
Instead they 'd snatch people like Julian Assange and give them reasons why they should just drop out of sight .
The reasons are typically measured in 'caliber' .
Once such individuals are 'convinced ' , the other members start finding reasons why they should cease operations before becoming 'convinced'.Yeah , I know it sounds more like a movie script than a government/military action .
It actually sounds more like something from Dr. Paul " E.E .
'Doc ' Smith " Linebarger 's book " Psychological Operations " .
Read it before you try to say otherwise .
And realize that this book is still the primary text book on the subject for the thousands of military and civilian ( military psyops specialists are not allowed to operate within the United States ) workers in the field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "leaked" document is OPSEC propoganda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations\_security [wikipedia.org] , a primary tool of psychological operations.
It was made available so that it could be seen to fail, making Wikileaks and its supporters think they were getting away with something.
They're not.
They're being used.
Psyops teams always seek to obtain a reliable source with which to feed misinformation.
They do not make such sources stop.
They give them reason to think they're safe so that they'll continue to publicize the "leaks" that the psyops teams want them to.
A source like this is worth far more as a means to feed credible false intel than it is as a trophy marker in some administrator's resume'.Besides, if they wanted Wikileaks to close shop, they wouldn't make it disappear.
Instead they'd snatch people like Julian Assange and give them reasons why they should just drop out of sight.
The reasons are typically measured in 'caliber'.
Once such individuals are 'convinced', the other members start finding reasons why they should cease operations before becoming 'convinced'.Yeah, I know it sounds more like a movie script than a government/military action.
It actually sounds more like something from Dr. Paul "E.E.
'Doc' Smith" Linebarger's book "Psychological Operations".
Read it before you try to say otherwise.
And realize that this book is still the primary text book on the subject for the thousands of military and civilian (military psyops specialists are not allowed to operate within the United States) workers in the field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31487132</id>
	<title>Re:Two can play your game</title>
	<author>trapnest</author>
	<datestamp>1268645100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485582</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1268682840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can't speak for your experience on the matter, but in my experience, if government had things it's way, FOIA would not exist</p></div><p>Since FOIA was put into place <strong>by the government</strong>, this statement is nonsense.<br> Unfortunately, the nature of government is that there are certain parts of government that require individuals whose thought patterns make them susceptible to thinking that everything should be secret (not everyone who shares that thought pattern falls into that fallacy, but they all tend towards it). There are two dangers in dealing with this. One is failure to provide oversight to those areas of government with people who do not fall prey to this tendency. The other is to put people who fall prey to the opposite fallacy (that the government needs no secrets) in charge of such oversight. <br>
I just realized, there is a third danger, putting people who are willing to use whatever information they come across for political advantage in charge of oversight on those departments that need the first sorts of persons.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't speak for your experience on the matter , but in my experience , if government had things it 's way , FOIA would not existSince FOIA was put into place by the government , this statement is nonsense .
Unfortunately , the nature of government is that there are certain parts of government that require individuals whose thought patterns make them susceptible to thinking that everything should be secret ( not everyone who shares that thought pattern falls into that fallacy , but they all tend towards it ) .
There are two dangers in dealing with this .
One is failure to provide oversight to those areas of government with people who do not fall prey to this tendency .
The other is to put people who fall prey to the opposite fallacy ( that the government needs no secrets ) in charge of such oversight .
I just realized , there is a third danger , putting people who are willing to use whatever information they come across for political advantage in charge of oversight on those departments that need the first sorts of persons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't speak for your experience on the matter, but in my experience, if government had things it's way, FOIA would not existSince FOIA was put into place by the government, this statement is nonsense.
Unfortunately, the nature of government is that there are certain parts of government that require individuals whose thought patterns make them susceptible to thinking that everything should be secret (not everyone who shares that thought pattern falls into that fallacy, but they all tend towards it).
There are two dangers in dealing with this.
One is failure to provide oversight to those areas of government with people who do not fall prey to this tendency.
The other is to put people who fall prey to the opposite fallacy (that the government needs no secrets) in charge of such oversight.
I just realized, there is a third danger, putting people who are willing to use whatever information they come across for political advantage in charge of oversight on those departments that need the first sorts of persons.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486364</id>
	<title>Re:never implemented?</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1268685600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly.  During the cold war, the government "planned" to drop a massive nuke on the moon, right on the horizon, so the blast would be silhouetted against space and half the planet would be able to see it with the naked eye.  For some reason, they decided not to implement this plan.  If there's one thing the US government has no shortage of, it's crazy ideas that they never implement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
During the cold war , the government " planned " to drop a massive nuke on the moon , right on the horizon , so the blast would be silhouetted against space and half the planet would be able to see it with the naked eye .
For some reason , they decided not to implement this plan .
If there 's one thing the US government has no shortage of , it 's crazy ideas that they never implement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
During the cold war, the government "planned" to drop a massive nuke on the moon, right on the horizon, so the blast would be silhouetted against space and half the planet would be able to see it with the naked eye.
For some reason, they decided not to implement this plan.
If there's one thing the US government has no shortage of, it's crazy ideas that they never implement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486020</id>
	<title>Re:Be aware...</title>
	<author>Angostura</author>
	<datestamp>1268684400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However, no-one is to know that until they have downloaded and opened the file. Which would appear to present a practical problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , no-one is to know that until they have downloaded and opened the file .
Which would appear to present a practical problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, no-one is to know that until they have downloaded and opened the file.
Which would appear to present a practical problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484150</id>
	<title>Better not be from the "Fars News Agency"</title>
	<author>wisebabo</author>
	<datestamp>1268677620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... because we all know what counts for journalism in that part of the world: Iran hacks US Spy Sites <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/03/15/147201/Iran-Hacks-US-Spy-Sites" title="slashdot.org">http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/03/15/147201/Iran-Hacks-US-Spy-Sites</a> [slashdot.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... because we all know what counts for journalism in that part of the world : Iran hacks US Spy Sites http : //yro.slashdot.org/story/10/03/15/147201/Iran-Hacks-US-Spy-Sites [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... because we all know what counts for journalism in that part of the world: Iran hacks US Spy Sites http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/03/15/147201/Iran-Hacks-US-Spy-Sites [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485926</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm, who do you think signed the FOIA into law?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm , who do you think signed the FOIA into law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm, who do you think signed the FOIA into law?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485376</id>
	<title>Ok, all you foreign nationals</title>
	<author>EngineerBird</author>
	<datestamp>1268682120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't read this!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't read this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't read this!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484280</id>
	<title>Re:Be aware...</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1268678100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US government has taps on all internet backbones. Even if you go through a proxy, they will be able to identify your IP address if you access such information.</p><p>If the WikiLeaks had branded itself as a just whistle-blower site, it would have a chance at surviving. As is, its operators are certain to see jail eventually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US government has taps on all internet backbones .
Even if you go through a proxy , they will be able to identify your IP address if you access such information.If the WikiLeaks had branded itself as a just whistle-blower site , it would have a chance at surviving .
As is , its operators are certain to see jail eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US government has taps on all internet backbones.
Even if you go through a proxy, they will be able to identify your IP address if you access such information.If the WikiLeaks had branded itself as a just whistle-blower site, it would have a chance at surviving.
As is, its operators are certain to see jail eventually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483908</id>
	<title>never implemented?</title>
	<author>cenobyte40k</author>
	<datestamp>1268676660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks' source exposed, it appears that this plan was ineffective"

Or much more likely never implemented. There are hundreds of people paid to come up with ideas for fixing solutions in just about every govt org. By design these ideas are suppose to be a free thinking as possible while staying within the guidelines of the problem.  In this case someone came up with an idea to deal with the leak problem by destroying the org that posted the leaks. This could have been a very potent fix, but also brought out the possibility of blow-back  (public outcry, legal action, extra exposure of data, etc) as well as just pushing the problem off to another newer site that is even harder to deal with (Like shutting down Napster or Kazaa). It seems to me there is a good chance that they choose not to directly attack WikiLeaks and instead worked on keeping data from getting out to begin with (Can't get the data that's out back, so just keep them from getting more).</htmltext>
<tokenext>" As two years have passed since the date of the report , with no WikiLeaks ' source exposed , it appears that this plan was ineffective " Or much more likely never implemented .
There are hundreds of people paid to come up with ideas for fixing solutions in just about every govt org .
By design these ideas are suppose to be a free thinking as possible while staying within the guidelines of the problem .
In this case someone came up with an idea to deal with the leak problem by destroying the org that posted the leaks .
This could have been a very potent fix , but also brought out the possibility of blow-back ( public outcry , legal action , extra exposure of data , etc ) as well as just pushing the problem off to another newer site that is even harder to deal with ( Like shutting down Napster or Kazaa ) .
It seems to me there is a good chance that they choose not to directly attack WikiLeaks and instead worked on keeping data from getting out to begin with ( Ca n't get the data that 's out back , so just keep them from getting more ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks' source exposed, it appears that this plan was ineffective"

Or much more likely never implemented.
There are hundreds of people paid to come up with ideas for fixing solutions in just about every govt org.
By design these ideas are suppose to be a free thinking as possible while staying within the guidelines of the problem.
In this case someone came up with an idea to deal with the leak problem by destroying the org that posted the leaks.
This could have been a very potent fix, but also brought out the possibility of blow-back  (public outcry, legal action, extra exposure of data, etc) as well as just pushing the problem off to another newer site that is even harder to deal with (Like shutting down Napster or Kazaa).
It seems to me there is a good chance that they choose not to directly attack WikiLeaks and instead worked on keeping data from getting out to begin with (Can't get the data that's out back, so just keep them from getting more).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484816</id>
	<title>Re:Two can play your game</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1268679840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>information gained from torture cannot be relied on as the person tortured will reach a point they will say anything to get it to stop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>information gained from torture can not be relied on as the person tortured will reach a point they will say anything to get it to stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>information gained from torture cannot be relied on as the person tortured will reach a point they will say anything to get it to stop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484094</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>HeckRuler</author>
	<datestamp>1268677380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, not holding secrets that employees have ethical obligations to report would be a pretty good method for that.<br>

And finding those moles, of course.<br>

You're penny-pinching-patriotism is being abused.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , not holding secrets that employees have ethical obligations to report would be a pretty good method for that .
And finding those moles , of course .
You 're penny-pinching-patriotism is being abused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, not holding secrets that employees have ethical obligations to report would be a pretty good method for that.
And finding those moles, of course.
You're penny-pinching-patriotism is being abused.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484070</id>
	<title>"it appears that this plan was ineffective"</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1268677260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Far more likely that it was never implemented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Far more likely that it was never implemented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Far more likely that it was never implemented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31487966</id>
	<title>Abject incompetence...</title>
	<author>J'raxis</author>
	<datestamp>1268648340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And appropriately, the report about this is hosted on Wikileaks.</p><blockquote><div><p>[As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks' source exposed, it appears that this plan was ineffective.]</p></div></blockquote><p>In two years they haven't been able to uncover a single whistleblower? Nice demonstration of the abject incompetence of government.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And appropriately , the report about this is hosted on Wikileaks .
[ As two years have passed since the date of the report , with no WikiLeaks ' source exposed , it appears that this plan was ineffective .
] In two years they have n't been able to uncover a single whistleblower ?
Nice demonstration of the abject incompetence of government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And appropriately, the report about this is hosted on Wikileaks.
[As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks' source exposed, it appears that this plan was ineffective.
]In two years they haven't been able to uncover a single whistleblower?
Nice demonstration of the abject incompetence of government.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484270</id>
	<title>Wikileaks isn't blocked in Israel</title>
	<author>Noam.of.Doom</author>
	<datestamp>1268678040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know who proclaimed this half-assed hallucination, but I can confirm that it isn't blocked here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know who proclaimed this half-assed hallucination , but I can confirm that it is n't blocked here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know who proclaimed this half-assed hallucination, but I can confirm that it isn't blocked here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856</id>
	<title>Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1268676360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am pretty sure, the answer is a resounding "Yes". Some things should be kept secret for some time... No one seriously argues against that, even if there are disagreements over whether a particular bit of information needs to be classified or not (and for how long).

</p><p>Now, if <em>anything</em> needs to be hidden, then <em>somebody</em> has to be making the everyday decisions on what gets classified, and enforcing them. Governments are the most natural pick for that, if only because they are &mdash; by design &mdash; charged with national security.

</p><p>Any "leakers" inside the government usurp that decision-making to themselves and to the Wikileaks. Instead of relying on the judgment of people charged with making it, we will depend on the judgment of the "leaker" and of the Wikileaks editors. Personally, I'd prefer the government officials...

</p><p>Thus any leakers (and the Wikileaks personnel) are to be prosecuted with the prosecutors having only to prove their involvement in leaking. They could counter by proving, that the particular leak was justified (see also "whistleblower laws"), but the burden of proof is on them...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am pretty sure , the answer is a resounding " Yes " .
Some things should be kept secret for some time... No one seriously argues against that , even if there are disagreements over whether a particular bit of information needs to be classified or not ( and for how long ) .
Now , if anything needs to be hidden , then somebody has to be making the everyday decisions on what gets classified , and enforcing them .
Governments are the most natural pick for that , if only because they are    by design    charged with national security .
Any " leakers " inside the government usurp that decision-making to themselves and to the Wikileaks .
Instead of relying on the judgment of people charged with making it , we will depend on the judgment of the " leaker " and of the Wikileaks editors .
Personally , I 'd prefer the government officials.. . Thus any leakers ( and the Wikileaks personnel ) are to be prosecuted with the prosecutors having only to prove their involvement in leaking .
They could counter by proving , that the particular leak was justified ( see also " whistleblower laws " ) , but the burden of proof is on them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am pretty sure, the answer is a resounding "Yes".
Some things should be kept secret for some time... No one seriously argues against that, even if there are disagreements over whether a particular bit of information needs to be classified or not (and for how long).
Now, if anything needs to be hidden, then somebody has to be making the everyday decisions on what gets classified, and enforcing them.
Governments are the most natural pick for that, if only because they are — by design — charged with national security.
Any "leakers" inside the government usurp that decision-making to themselves and to the Wikileaks.
Instead of relying on the judgment of people charged with making it, we will depend on the judgment of the "leaker" and of the Wikileaks editors.
Personally, I'd prefer the government officials...

Thus any leakers (and the Wikileaks personnel) are to be prosecuted with the prosecutors having only to prove their involvement in leaking.
They could counter by proving, that the particular leak was justified (see also "whistleblower laws"), but the burden of proof is on them...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484578</id>
	<title>Stupid, Sensationalist Title.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268679120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talk about an over the top, sensationalist title.</p><p>This is clearly an assessment of Wikileaks, because a requirement was given to provide one to the Army.</p><p>This is NOT a paper discussing how to destroy Wikileaks, it is an Intelligence Assessment!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about an over the top , sensationalist title.This is clearly an assessment of Wikileaks , because a requirement was given to provide one to the Army.This is NOT a paper discussing how to destroy Wikileaks , it is an Intelligence Assessment !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about an over the top, sensationalist title.This is clearly an assessment of Wikileaks, because a requirement was given to provide one to the Army.This is NOT a paper discussing how to destroy Wikileaks, it is an Intelligence Assessment!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484060</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268677200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, if anything needs to be hidden, then somebody has to be making the everyday decisions on what gets classified, and enforcing them. Governments are the most natural pick for that, if only because they are &mdash; by design &mdash; charged with national security.</p> </div><p>Correct.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Any "leakers" inside the government usurp that decision-making to themselves and to the Wikileaks. Instead of relying on the judgment of people charged with making it, we will depend on the judgment of the "leaker" and of the Wikileaks editors.</p> </div><p>Correct.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I'd prefer the government officials...</p> </div><p>I disagree. To some extent, because the people doing the leaking are government officials as well, just not as high up the food chain as the people who classify and declassify things. To quote Cheney, anything the president says is by definition declassified (I think it was him - see the Valerie Plame incident). That doesn't mean he's automatically right with his declassification.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Thus any leakers (and the Wikileaks personnel) are to be prosecuted with the prosecutors having only to prove their involvement in leaking. They could counter by proving, that the particular leak was justified (see also "whistleblower laws"), but the burden of proof is on them...</p></div><p>Not just "they could counter by proving that the particular leak was justified", but proving that the particular leak was justified needs to be a definitive defense for leaking classified documents.</p><p>By the way, I have no idea why you're trying to link a quote from Karl Marx with Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. Unless you're going for a Google bomb, in which case you're doing it wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , if anything needs to be hidden , then somebody has to be making the everyday decisions on what gets classified , and enforcing them .
Governments are the most natural pick for that , if only because they are    by design    charged with national security .
Correct.Any " leakers " inside the government usurp that decision-making to themselves and to the Wikileaks .
Instead of relying on the judgment of people charged with making it , we will depend on the judgment of the " leaker " and of the Wikileaks editors .
Correct.Personally , I 'd prefer the government officials... I disagree .
To some extent , because the people doing the leaking are government officials as well , just not as high up the food chain as the people who classify and declassify things .
To quote Cheney , anything the president says is by definition declassified ( I think it was him - see the Valerie Plame incident ) .
That does n't mean he 's automatically right with his declassification.Thus any leakers ( and the Wikileaks personnel ) are to be prosecuted with the prosecutors having only to prove their involvement in leaking .
They could counter by proving , that the particular leak was justified ( see also " whistleblower laws " ) , but the burden of proof is on them...Not just " they could counter by proving that the particular leak was justified " , but proving that the particular leak was justified needs to be a definitive defense for leaking classified documents.By the way , I have no idea why you 're trying to link a quote from Karl Marx with Obama 's Nobel Peace Prize .
Unless you 're going for a Google bomb , in which case you 're doing it wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, if anything needs to be hidden, then somebody has to be making the everyday decisions on what gets classified, and enforcing them.
Governments are the most natural pick for that, if only because they are — by design — charged with national security.
Correct.Any "leakers" inside the government usurp that decision-making to themselves and to the Wikileaks.
Instead of relying on the judgment of people charged with making it, we will depend on the judgment of the "leaker" and of the Wikileaks editors.
Correct.Personally, I'd prefer the government officials... I disagree.
To some extent, because the people doing the leaking are government officials as well, just not as high up the food chain as the people who classify and declassify things.
To quote Cheney, anything the president says is by definition declassified (I think it was him - see the Valerie Plame incident).
That doesn't mean he's automatically right with his declassification.Thus any leakers (and the Wikileaks personnel) are to be prosecuted with the prosecutors having only to prove their involvement in leaking.
They could counter by proving, that the particular leak was justified (see also "whistleblower laws"), but the burden of proof is on them...Not just "they could counter by proving that the particular leak was justified", but proving that the particular leak was justified needs to be a definitive defense for leaking classified documents.By the way, I have no idea why you're trying to link a quote from Karl Marx with Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.
Unless you're going for a Google bomb, in which case you're doing it wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484568</id>
	<title>No... really? DECENTRALIZE IT!</title>
	<author>rAiNsT0rm</author>
	<datestamp>1268679120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've said from the very beginning, Wikileaks needs to be highly decentralized. Each time people cried out for donations and help, I continued to say that instead of dumping good money into a flawed model, we should be working toward decentralization. I was attacked and maligned, I believe my mother was even brought into the matter a few times... but still, here we are. If it is not the U.S. it's going to be some other gov't. For a bunch of intelligent geeks, we manage to miss some pretty obvious stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've said from the very beginning , Wikileaks needs to be highly decentralized .
Each time people cried out for donations and help , I continued to say that instead of dumping good money into a flawed model , we should be working toward decentralization .
I was attacked and maligned , I believe my mother was even brought into the matter a few times... but still , here we are .
If it is not the U.S. it 's going to be some other gov't .
For a bunch of intelligent geeks , we manage to miss some pretty obvious stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've said from the very beginning, Wikileaks needs to be highly decentralized.
Each time people cried out for donations and help, I continued to say that instead of dumping good money into a flawed model, we should be working toward decentralization.
I was attacked and maligned, I believe my mother was even brought into the matter a few times... but still, here we are.
If it is not the U.S. it's going to be some other gov't.
For a bunch of intelligent geeks, we manage to miss some pretty obvious stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486596</id>
	<title>Re:You hit the nail on the head</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268686320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fine, but:</p><p>1. <b>You don't get to make that determination yourself</b> </p></div><p>Yes I do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fine , but : 1 .
You do n't get to make that determination yourself Yes I do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fine, but:1.
You don't get to make that determination yourself Yes I do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486814</id>
	<title>Looks like it worked</title>
	<author>kriston</author>
	<datestamp>1268643840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like it worked.  They got them to post the PDF to wikileaks and now the site gets slashdotted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like it worked .
They got them to post the PDF to wikileaks and now the site gets slashdotted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like it worked.
They got them to post the PDF to wikileaks and now the site gets slashdotted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485258</id>
	<title>Ummm... isn't this what we pay them to do?</title>
	<author>moondawg14</author>
	<datestamp>1268681640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikileaks could potentially pose a threat to US intelligence, for many reasons including "Tipping our hand" to the enemy.

So, the Government develops a strategy to mitigate the threat.

News at 11?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikileaks could potentially pose a threat to US intelligence , for many reasons including " Tipping our hand " to the enemy .
So , the Government develops a strategy to mitigate the threat .
News at 11 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikileaks could potentially pose a threat to US intelligence, for many reasons including "Tipping our hand" to the enemy.
So, the Government develops a strategy to mitigate the threat.
News at 11?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486738</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>EllisDees</author>
	<datestamp>1268643600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Special forces are forced to go without sleep for weeks at a time? Forced to assume stress positions without reprieve? Kept stripped naked in 50 degree rooms? All without knowing if or when any of it will end?</p><p>You sicken me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Special forces are forced to go without sleep for weeks at a time ?
Forced to assume stress positions without reprieve ?
Kept stripped naked in 50 degree rooms ?
All without knowing if or when any of it will end ? You sicken me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Special forces are forced to go without sleep for weeks at a time?
Forced to assume stress positions without reprieve?
Kept stripped naked in 50 degree rooms?
All without knowing if or when any of it will end?You sicken me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31487554</id>
	<title>SECRET/NOFORN</title>
	<author>nsaspook</author>
	<datestamp>1268646780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The TOP SECRET/FORNPORN is the good stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The TOP SECRET/FORNPORN is the good stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The TOP SECRET/FORNPORN is the good stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485398</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1268682180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I am pretty sure, the answer is a resounding "Yes". Some things should be kept secret for some time... No one seriously argues against that, even if there are disagreements over whether a particular bit of information needs to be classified or not (and for how long). </i></p><p>There are some things that in an ideal world would be better off kept secret.  However the consequences of allowing our government to keep secrets are worse than allowing those secrets to be heard.</p><p><i>Now, if anything needs to be hidden, then somebody has to be making the everyday decisions on what gets classified, and enforcing them. Governments are the most natural pick for that, if only because they are -- by design -- charged with national security. </i></p><p>Governments are the worst choice, as they have the most to gain by abuses of secrecy.</p><p><i>Any "leakers" inside the government usurp that decision-making to themselves and to the Wikileaks. Instead of relying on the judgment of people charged with making it, we will depend on the judgment of the "leaker" and of the Wikileaks editors. Personally, I'd prefer the government officials...</i></p><p>"I was only following orders" has never been a valid defense.  You have a conscience for a reason, use it. If you really trust the government more than your own conscience, then by all means obey the law. The rest of us will do what we feel is right.</p><p><i>Thus any leakers (and the Wikileaks personnel) are to be prosecuted</i></p><p>That's how it is in oppressive regimes.  This is why it's important that we respect justice more than legality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am pretty sure , the answer is a resounding " Yes " .
Some things should be kept secret for some time... No one seriously argues against that , even if there are disagreements over whether a particular bit of information needs to be classified or not ( and for how long ) .
There are some things that in an ideal world would be better off kept secret .
However the consequences of allowing our government to keep secrets are worse than allowing those secrets to be heard.Now , if anything needs to be hidden , then somebody has to be making the everyday decisions on what gets classified , and enforcing them .
Governments are the most natural pick for that , if only because they are -- by design -- charged with national security .
Governments are the worst choice , as they have the most to gain by abuses of secrecy.Any " leakers " inside the government usurp that decision-making to themselves and to the Wikileaks .
Instead of relying on the judgment of people charged with making it , we will depend on the judgment of the " leaker " and of the Wikileaks editors .
Personally , I 'd prefer the government officials... " I was only following orders " has never been a valid defense .
You have a conscience for a reason , use it .
If you really trust the government more than your own conscience , then by all means obey the law .
The rest of us will do what we feel is right.Thus any leakers ( and the Wikileaks personnel ) are to be prosecutedThat 's how it is in oppressive regimes .
This is why it 's important that we respect justice more than legality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am pretty sure, the answer is a resounding "Yes".
Some things should be kept secret for some time... No one seriously argues against that, even if there are disagreements over whether a particular bit of information needs to be classified or not (and for how long).
There are some things that in an ideal world would be better off kept secret.
However the consequences of allowing our government to keep secrets are worse than allowing those secrets to be heard.Now, if anything needs to be hidden, then somebody has to be making the everyday decisions on what gets classified, and enforcing them.
Governments are the most natural pick for that, if only because they are -- by design -- charged with national security.
Governments are the worst choice, as they have the most to gain by abuses of secrecy.Any "leakers" inside the government usurp that decision-making to themselves and to the Wikileaks.
Instead of relying on the judgment of people charged with making it, we will depend on the judgment of the "leaker" and of the Wikileaks editors.
Personally, I'd prefer the government officials..."I was only following orders" has never been a valid defense.
You have a conscience for a reason, use it.
If you really trust the government more than your own conscience, then by all means obey the law.
The rest of us will do what we feel is right.Thus any leakers (and the Wikileaks personnel) are to be prosecutedThat's how it is in oppressive regimes.
This is why it's important that we respect justice more than legality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484166</id>
	<title>Slashdot edtorialoid, again.</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1268677680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I read the pdf which appeared to me as a risk assessment of Wikileaks.org. It basically concluded that Wikileaks is or can be used as a threat to US military. But it said almost nothing about "destroying" Wikileaks. </p><p>Remember, you don't have to destroy a threat right now. Use it or lose it.</p><p>And<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. editors should learn from the US military on how to choose a good title for news items. Duh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I read the pdf which appeared to me as a risk assessment of Wikileaks.org .
It basically concluded that Wikileaks is or can be used as a threat to US military .
But it said almost nothing about " destroying " Wikileaks .
Remember , you do n't have to destroy a threat right now .
Use it or lose it.And / .
editors should learn from the US military on how to choose a good title for news items .
Duh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I read the pdf which appeared to me as a risk assessment of Wikileaks.org.
It basically concluded that Wikileaks is or can be used as a threat to US military.
But it said almost nothing about "destroying" Wikileaks.
Remember, you don't have to destroy a threat right now.
Use it or lose it.And /.
editors should learn from the US military on how to choose a good title for news items.
Duh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484510</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1268678880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>should a soldier disobey orders that in his opinion are inhuman? a military officer would probably say no. i say yes.<br> <br>
this is the same kind of question. i believe there are cases when a man needs to stand up for his beliefs about what's right and moral. of course, that's problematic... but then again, everything is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>should a soldier disobey orders that in his opinion are inhuman ?
a military officer would probably say no .
i say yes .
this is the same kind of question .
i believe there are cases when a man needs to stand up for his beliefs about what 's right and moral .
of course , that 's problematic... but then again , everything is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>should a soldier disobey orders that in his opinion are inhuman?
a military officer would probably say no.
i say yes.
this is the same kind of question.
i believe there are cases when a man needs to stand up for his beliefs about what's right and moral.
of course, that's problematic... but then again, everything is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485182</id>
	<title>Re:You hit the nail on the head</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1268681400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>1. You don't get to make that determination yourself</i></p><p>Everyone has to make that determination themselves.  In the end, you are only accountable to your own conscience.</p><p><i>People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequences</i></p><p>I'd like to think that people leak to WikiLeaks because they believe there will be consequences.  I don't think they do it for the hell of it, they want information to get out there and effect change.</p><p><i>There are well-known and established processes that govern classification.</i></p><p>And when those processes amount to nothing more than a rubber-stamp, what then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
You do n't get to make that determination yourselfEveryone has to make that determination themselves .
In the end , you are only accountable to your own conscience.People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe ( mostly accurately ) that there will be no consequencesI 'd like to think that people leak to WikiLeaks because they believe there will be consequences .
I do n't think they do it for the hell of it , they want information to get out there and effect change.There are well-known and established processes that govern classification.And when those processes amount to nothing more than a rubber-stamp , what then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
You don't get to make that determination yourselfEveryone has to make that determination themselves.
In the end, you are only accountable to your own conscience.People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequencesI'd like to think that people leak to WikiLeaks because they believe there will be consequences.
I don't think they do it for the hell of it, they want information to get out there and effect change.There are well-known and established processes that govern classification.And when those processes amount to nothing more than a rubber-stamp, what then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483788</id>
	<title>An easier plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268676120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't an easier plan to destroy the credibility of wikileaks be to overflow it with bogus leaks and fake whistleblowers, flooding them with misinformation?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't an easier plan to destroy the credibility of wikileaks be to overflow it with bogus leaks and fake whistleblowers , flooding them with misinformation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't an easier plan to destroy the credibility of wikileaks be to overflow it with bogus leaks and fake whistleblowers, flooding them with misinformation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484156</id>
	<title>Re:Be aware...</title>
	<author>imunfair</author>
	<datestamp>1268677620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen people say (on older articles involving classified info) that the only person who can be prosecuted is the one who used their clearance to leak it.  I think the premise is similar to a NDA - if you don't sign/agree to secrecy, you can't legally be bound to it.</p><p>I don't know if those people are correct though, and I can think of at least one exception to that rule - I remember reading that if you are served with papers from one of those secret US courts you aren't even allowed to discuss it with anyone. (Which doesn't seem right to me, but apparently that's how it works)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen people say ( on older articles involving classified info ) that the only person who can be prosecuted is the one who used their clearance to leak it .
I think the premise is similar to a NDA - if you do n't sign/agree to secrecy , you ca n't legally be bound to it.I do n't know if those people are correct though , and I can think of at least one exception to that rule - I remember reading that if you are served with papers from one of those secret US courts you are n't even allowed to discuss it with anyone .
( Which does n't seem right to me , but apparently that 's how it works )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen people say (on older articles involving classified info) that the only person who can be prosecuted is the one who used their clearance to leak it.
I think the premise is similar to a NDA - if you don't sign/agree to secrecy, you can't legally be bound to it.I don't know if those people are correct though, and I can think of at least one exception to that rule - I remember reading that if you are served with papers from one of those secret US courts you aren't even allowed to discuss it with anyone.
(Which doesn't seem right to me, but apparently that's how it works)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486124</id>
	<title>Re:You hit the nail on the head</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1268684760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And not only that, in free and democratic societies, individuals deciding on their own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.</i></p><p>That's pretty disingenuous, don't you think?  Most of the laws in place where in place long before I was born.  So I'm already at a disadvantage, and then you come along and say "we all wanted this?"  Please, that's asinine.  Might as well say everyone is happen because Obama won, when in reality, a very significant portion of people DIDN'T want him (46\%).  Yes, technically he want the majority, but that doesn't make the opinion of 58,000,000 other people irrelevent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And not only that , in free and democratic societies , individuals deciding on their own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process .
In the US , we have collectively decided , as a society , that some information should be kept secret , even from The People , and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.That 's pretty disingenuous , do n't you think ?
Most of the laws in place where in place long before I was born .
So I 'm already at a disadvantage , and then you come along and say " we all wanted this ?
" Please , that 's asinine .
Might as well say everyone is happen because Obama won , when in reality , a very significant portion of people DID N'T want him ( 46 \ % ) .
Yes , technically he want the majority , but that does n't make the opinion of 58,000,000 other people irrelevent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And not only that, in free and democratic societies, individuals deciding on their own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process.
In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.That's pretty disingenuous, don't you think?
Most of the laws in place where in place long before I was born.
So I'm already at a disadvantage, and then you come along and say "we all wanted this?
"  Please, that's asinine.
Might as well say everyone is happen because Obama won, when in reality, a very significant portion of people DIDN'T want him (46\%).
Yes, technically he want the majority, but that doesn't make the opinion of 58,000,000 other people irrelevent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484082</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268677380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Valid point. Certain state secrets should be kept secret for our protection. Secrets like the identity of CIA agents and weapons research....   I don't think anyone disagrees with that.   However, most leaks on wikileaks aren't giving away necessary state secrets, they are divulging government abuses and inefficiencies that the public has a legal right to know about under conventional FoIA requests but has been denied due to cover ups.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Valid point .
Certain state secrets should be kept secret for our protection .
Secrets like the identity of CIA agents and weapons research.... I do n't think anyone disagrees with that .
However , most leaks on wikileaks are n't giving away necessary state secrets , they are divulging government abuses and inefficiencies that the public has a legal right to know about under conventional FoIA requests but has been denied due to cover ups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Valid point.
Certain state secrets should be kept secret for our protection.
Secrets like the identity of CIA agents and weapons research....   I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
However, most leaks on wikileaks aren't giving away necessary state secrets, they are divulging government abuses and inefficiencies that the public has a legal right to know about under conventional FoIA requests but has been denied due to cover ups.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484136</id>
	<title>You hit the nail on the head</title>
	<author>daveschroeder</author>
	<datestamp>1268677500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And not only that, in free and democratic societies, individuals deciding on their own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.</p><p>When an individual, on his or her own, decides that some secret information should be leaked, they subvert that process. It is nowhere near akin to leaking sensitive information from totalitarian or repressive regimes, or even from corporate entities.</p><p>Some might assert that information is overclassified, or classified such as to hide wrongdoing or illegal or questionably behavior. Fine, but:</p><p>1. <b>You don't get to make that determination yourself</b>, and</p><p>2. If you do, generally this kind of decision is a moral one which must be tempered with consequences. I.e., if, in a free and democratic society, you really believe that a piece of classified information should be released, you should be willing to pay your society's consequences for it. <b>People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequences.</b> This creates an unhealthy environment for any kind of protected or sensitive information in a democratic society.</p><p>Your own personal view on whether something should or shouldn't be classified is irrelevant. There are well-known and established processes that govern classification.</p><p>Just about the only thing WikiLeaks believes should be protected from leaking is <a href="http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/02/a\_word\_from\_wikileaks.html" title="fas.org">negative information about WikiLeaks itself</a> [fas.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And not only that , in free and democratic societies , individuals deciding on their own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process .
In the US , we have collectively decided , as a society , that some information should be kept secret , even from The People , and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.When an individual , on his or her own , decides that some secret information should be leaked , they subvert that process .
It is nowhere near akin to leaking sensitive information from totalitarian or repressive regimes , or even from corporate entities.Some might assert that information is overclassified , or classified such as to hide wrongdoing or illegal or questionably behavior .
Fine , but : 1 .
You do n't get to make that determination yourself , and2 .
If you do , generally this kind of decision is a moral one which must be tempered with consequences .
I.e. , if , in a free and democratic society , you really believe that a piece of classified information should be released , you should be willing to pay your society 's consequences for it .
People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe ( mostly accurately ) that there will be no consequences .
This creates an unhealthy environment for any kind of protected or sensitive information in a democratic society.Your own personal view on whether something should or should n't be classified is irrelevant .
There are well-known and established processes that govern classification.Just about the only thing WikiLeaks believes should be protected from leaking is negative information about WikiLeaks itself [ fas.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And not only that, in free and democratic societies, individuals deciding on their own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process.
In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.When an individual, on his or her own, decides that some secret information should be leaked, they subvert that process.
It is nowhere near akin to leaking sensitive information from totalitarian or repressive regimes, or even from corporate entities.Some might assert that information is overclassified, or classified such as to hide wrongdoing or illegal or questionably behavior.
Fine, but:1.
You don't get to make that determination yourself, and2.
If you do, generally this kind of decision is a moral one which must be tempered with consequences.
I.e., if, in a free and democratic society, you really believe that a piece of classified information should be released, you should be willing to pay your society's consequences for it.
People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequences.
This creates an unhealthy environment for any kind of protected or sensitive information in a democratic society.Your own personal view on whether something should or shouldn't be classified is irrelevant.
There are well-known and established processes that govern classification.Just about the only thing WikiLeaks believes should be protected from leaking is negative information about WikiLeaks itself [fas.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485230</id>
	<title>Re:Serves a Useful Purpose</title>
	<author>vijayiyer</author>
	<datestamp>1268681580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You clearly have never worked with classified information, and are therefore not in a position to comment on what is kept secret most of the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You clearly have never worked with classified information , and are therefore not in a position to comment on what is kept secret most of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You clearly have never worked with classified information, and are therefore not in a position to comment on what is kept secret most of the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485956</id>
	<title>Who should fear whom ?</title>
	<author>vikingpower</author>
	<datestamp>1268684160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"A government should be in fear of its citizens, not the citizens in fear of their government." Forgot who said it, but this is a beautiful real-world proof of it.

If I lived in a country where government does such things, I would seriously consider the question of revolution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" A government should be in fear of its citizens , not the citizens in fear of their government .
" Forgot who said it , but this is a beautiful real-world proof of it .
If I lived in a country where government does such things , I would seriously consider the question of revolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A government should be in fear of its citizens, not the citizens in fear of their government.
" Forgot who said it, but this is a beautiful real-world proof of it.
If I lived in a country where government does such things, I would seriously consider the question of revolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484194</id>
	<title>US citizens plan to dethrone fascist regime</title>
	<author>aztektum</author>
	<datestamp>1268677740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can hope, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can hope , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can hope, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484506</id>
	<title>That was funny!</title>
	<author>filesiteguy</author>
	<datestamp>1268678880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read through some of the PDF file. Nothing new there, just the usual "if someone tells of the uber-sekret stuff we're doing, the bad guys might get us" type of information.<br><br>However, one thing caught my attention on the 4th page: "The Wikileaks.org Web site could be used to post fabricated information,<br>misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda and could be used in perception<br>management and influence operations to convey a positive or negative message to<br>specific target audiences that view or retrieve information from the Web site."<br><br>Um, you mean like, Fox News?  http://www.foxnews.com/</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read through some of the PDF file .
Nothing new there , just the usual " if someone tells of the uber-sekret stuff we 're doing , the bad guys might get us " type of information.However , one thing caught my attention on the 4th page : " The Wikileaks.org Web site could be used to post fabricated information,misinformation , disinformation , or propaganda and could be used in perceptionmanagement and influence operations to convey a positive or negative message tospecific target audiences that view or retrieve information from the Web site .
" Um , you mean like , Fox News ?
http : //www.foxnews.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read through some of the PDF file.
Nothing new there, just the usual "if someone tells of the uber-sekret stuff we're doing, the bad guys might get us" type of information.However, one thing caught my attention on the 4th page: "The Wikileaks.org Web site could be used to post fabricated information,misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda and could be used in perceptionmanagement and influence operations to convey a positive or negative message tospecific target audiences that view or retrieve information from the Web site.
"Um, you mean like, Fox News?
http://www.foxnews.com/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483948</id>
	<title>Good job wikileaks beat them to it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268676840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to criticise people who are clearly on our side.  The Wikileaks folk are great, and the job they were doing was great, and it will be great again when they start back up...</p><p>...but it was not a good idea for them to take all the leaked documents offline without notice in order to show their value so that people will donate.  It was last year, probably December, and everything's still offline<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p><p>For one example, they published the only (at the time) big ACTA leak.  (There's since been a <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA-6437-10.pdf\_as\_text" title="swpat.org">bigger one, hosted elsewhere</a> [swpat.org])  Everyone was pointing to them, and they took their copy offline.  To my amazement, no one had a back up, so us anti-ACTA campaigners simply lost the only leaked draft.</p><p>At the implementation level, it was a bad idea to simply cause all pages to give <a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Talk:Classified\_US\%2C\_Japan\_and\_EU\_ACTA\_trade\_agreement\_drafts\%2C\_2009" title="wikileaks.org">error 404</a> [wikileaks.org].  A page of "We need donations, we'll be back up when we get them" would have been better.</p><p>Lesson: take backups of important docs, even ones published by groups of good people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to criticise people who are clearly on our side .
The Wikileaks folk are great , and the job they were doing was great , and it will be great again when they start back up......but it was not a good idea for them to take all the leaked documents offline without notice in order to show their value so that people will donate .
It was last year , probably December , and everything 's still offline : - ( For one example , they published the only ( at the time ) big ACTA leak .
( There 's since been a bigger one , hosted elsewhere [ swpat.org ] ) Everyone was pointing to them , and they took their copy offline .
To my amazement , no one had a back up , so us anti-ACTA campaigners simply lost the only leaked draft.At the implementation level , it was a bad idea to simply cause all pages to give error 404 [ wikileaks.org ] .
A page of " We need donations , we 'll be back up when we get them " would have been better.Lesson : take backups of important docs , even ones published by groups of good people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to criticise people who are clearly on our side.
The Wikileaks folk are great, and the job they were doing was great, and it will be great again when they start back up......but it was not a good idea for them to take all the leaked documents offline without notice in order to show their value so that people will donate.
It was last year, probably December, and everything's still offline :-(For one example, they published the only (at the time) big ACTA leak.
(There's since been a bigger one, hosted elsewhere [swpat.org])  Everyone was pointing to them, and they took their copy offline.
To my amazement, no one had a back up, so us anti-ACTA campaigners simply lost the only leaked draft.At the implementation level, it was a bad idea to simply cause all pages to give error 404 [wikileaks.org].
A page of "We need donations, we'll be back up when we get them" would have been better.Lesson: take backups of important docs, even ones published by groups of good people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484776</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268679660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, but if someone leafs something of actual vital importance, shouldn't the government have a plan to stop it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , but if someone leafs something of actual vital importance , should n't the government have a plan to stop it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, but if someone leafs something of actual vital importance, shouldn't the government have a plan to stop it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31489264</id>
	<title>Is Wikileaks worse than the "traditional" way?</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1268654820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, just considering intelligence / national security information for the moment...  I like that Wikileaks is putting more "intelligence"-style information into the hands of the citizenry, so long as they're sensible about it and don't publish really critical operational stuff for no morally justifiable reason.  However, regardless of questions of restraint, lets just consider the risk of Wikileaks: It lets people leak national security data anonymously and makes it public.</p><p>Lets consider the problems to national security here: stuff is leaked anonymously so you can't stop them.  And it gets published.  Compare this to the traditional model which is either: a) stuff is leaked anonymously to a newspaper - and gets published, very embarassing at the least.  This happens already.  b) stuff is leaked to a foriegn intelligence agency.  In this case it gives a specific power an "edge" and happens secretly so you don't know it's gone on at all.  At least with Wikileaks the data is public and so you know which of your data has been published there!  Moreover, since Wikileaks is just a website with anonymous contributors there's less of a risk that your leaker will be doing it purely for personal gain as they might be when dealing direct with a foreign power.</p><p>I'm not saying that leaking any old stuff or abolishing secrecy would be appropriate.  But I'm not convinced that Wikileaks makes the security situation worse.  And there's a strong argument that it makes life better for people in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , just considering intelligence / national security information for the moment... I like that Wikileaks is putting more " intelligence " -style information into the hands of the citizenry , so long as they 're sensible about it and do n't publish really critical operational stuff for no morally justifiable reason .
However , regardless of questions of restraint , lets just consider the risk of Wikileaks : It lets people leak national security data anonymously and makes it public.Lets consider the problems to national security here : stuff is leaked anonymously so you ca n't stop them .
And it gets published .
Compare this to the traditional model which is either : a ) stuff is leaked anonymously to a newspaper - and gets published , very embarassing at the least .
This happens already .
b ) stuff is leaked to a foriegn intelligence agency .
In this case it gives a specific power an " edge " and happens secretly so you do n't know it 's gone on at all .
At least with Wikileaks the data is public and so you know which of your data has been published there !
Moreover , since Wikileaks is just a website with anonymous contributors there 's less of a risk that your leaker will be doing it purely for personal gain as they might be when dealing direct with a foreign power.I 'm not saying that leaking any old stuff or abolishing secrecy would be appropriate .
But I 'm not convinced that Wikileaks makes the security situation worse .
And there 's a strong argument that it makes life better for people in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, just considering intelligence / national security information for the moment...  I like that Wikileaks is putting more "intelligence"-style information into the hands of the citizenry, so long as they're sensible about it and don't publish really critical operational stuff for no morally justifiable reason.
However, regardless of questions of restraint, lets just consider the risk of Wikileaks: It lets people leak national security data anonymously and makes it public.Lets consider the problems to national security here: stuff is leaked anonymously so you can't stop them.
And it gets published.
Compare this to the traditional model which is either: a) stuff is leaked anonymously to a newspaper - and gets published, very embarassing at the least.
This happens already.
b) stuff is leaked to a foriegn intelligence agency.
In this case it gives a specific power an "edge" and happens secretly so you don't know it's gone on at all.
At least with Wikileaks the data is public and so you know which of your data has been published there!
Moreover, since Wikileaks is just a website with anonymous contributors there's less of a risk that your leaker will be doing it purely for personal gain as they might be when dealing direct with a foreign power.I'm not saying that leaking any old stuff or abolishing secrecy would be appropriate.
But I'm not convinced that Wikileaks makes the security situation worse.
And there's a strong argument that it makes life better for people in general.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31489208</id>
	<title>Re:never implemented?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268654580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government comes up with millions of contingency plans that are never used.  Need to invade Syria?  There a doc for that.  China's invading Taiwan?  There's a doc for that (probably hundreds).  Pakistan and India start tossing nukes around?  Got one for that too.  There's probably plans for what to do if we want to invade an ally like Japan or England.  Just because there's plans for doing something doesn't mean that it'll ever be done.  Lots of things require planning and logistics, and it's better to have the outline of a plan than saying "oh shit, now what?" when things go bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government comes up with millions of contingency plans that are never used .
Need to invade Syria ?
There a doc for that .
China 's invading Taiwan ?
There 's a doc for that ( probably hundreds ) .
Pakistan and India start tossing nukes around ?
Got one for that too .
There 's probably plans for what to do if we want to invade an ally like Japan or England .
Just because there 's plans for doing something does n't mean that it 'll ever be done .
Lots of things require planning and logistics , and it 's better to have the outline of a plan than saying " oh shit , now what ?
" when things go bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government comes up with millions of contingency plans that are never used.
Need to invade Syria?
There a doc for that.
China's invading Taiwan?
There's a doc for that (probably hundreds).
Pakistan and India start tossing nukes around?
Got one for that too.
There's probably plans for what to do if we want to invade an ally like Japan or England.
Just because there's plans for doing something doesn't mean that it'll ever be done.
Lots of things require planning and logistics, and it's better to have the outline of a plan than saying "oh shit, now what?
" when things go bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485058</id>
	<title>Thankfully</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1268680800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thankfully, US Intelligence does not appear to be that intelligent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thankfully , US Intelligence does not appear to be that intelligent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thankfully, US Intelligence does not appear to be that intelligent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485286</id>
	<title>Re:Serves a Useful Purpose</title>
	<author>sabt-pestnu</author>
	<datestamp>1268681760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You refer to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State\_Secrets\_Privilege#Supreme\_Court\_recognition\_in\_United\_States\_v.\_Reynolds" title="wikipedia.org">this</a> [wikipedia.org] section of the Wikipedia article on State Secrets Privilege.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You refer to this [ wikipedia.org ] section of the Wikipedia article on State Secrets Privilege .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You refer to this [wikipedia.org] section of the Wikipedia article on State Secrets Privilege.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484444</id>
	<title>Two can play your game</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1268678700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you prefer another major terrorist attack that kills thousands of people?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you prefer another major terrorist attack that kills thousands of people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you prefer another major terrorist attack that kills thousands of people?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31488936</id>
	<title>Re:Be aware...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268652900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if they did, (not saying they do or don't either way)  some serious shit would have to go down to motivate them to search through the insane amount of data taps like that would generate.You're saying they're tapping the backbones, tracing every packet would be insane.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if they did , ( not saying they do or do n't either way ) some serious shit would have to go down to motivate them to search through the insane amount of data taps like that would generate.You 're saying they 're tapping the backbones , tracing every packet would be insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if they did, (not saying they do or don't either way)  some serious shit would have to go down to motivate them to search through the insane amount of data taps like that would generate.You're saying they're tapping the backbones, tracing every packet would be insane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484644</id>
	<title>Re:Two can play your game</title>
	<author>Celarnor</author>
	<datestamp>1268679360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To torture and a dishonest government?  Yes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To torture and a dishonest government ?
Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To torture and a dishonest government?
Yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483786</id>
	<title>Third post?</title>
	<author>Gizzmonic</author>
	<datestamp>1268676120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The urinal is the proper place to take Wikileaks!</p><p>I'll be here all week.  Thanks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The urinal is the proper place to take Wikileaks ! I 'll be here all week .
Thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The urinal is the proper place to take Wikileaks!I'll be here all week.
Thanks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31488252</id>
	<title>USA is no diffrent from China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268649480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China censors and imprisons to prevent destabilisation and change from the current state of affairs. USA does exactly the same but in slightly more subtle, and in some ways more menacing, ways.</p><p>All this is in the nature of the nation state.</p><p>Let's find a better way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China censors and imprisons to prevent destabilisation and change from the current state of affairs .
USA does exactly the same but in slightly more subtle , and in some ways more menacing , ways.All this is in the nature of the nation state.Let 's find a better way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China censors and imprisons to prevent destabilisation and change from the current state of affairs.
USA does exactly the same but in slightly more subtle, and in some ways more menacing, ways.All this is in the nature of the nation state.Let's find a better way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483802</id>
	<title>Good.</title>
	<author>glrotate</author>
	<datestamp>1268676180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes secrets are useful.  Given all the money I pay in taxes I would hope my government is at least making plans to keep some of those secrets secret.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes secrets are useful .
Given all the money I pay in taxes I would hope my government is at least making plans to keep some of those secrets secret .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes secrets are useful.
Given all the money I pay in taxes I would hope my government is at least making plans to keep some of those secrets secret.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486088</id>
	<title>Re:Be aware...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>This information is marked SECRET and NOFORN (i.e. not for export or foreign eyes); simply accessing it without a security clearance may be committing a crime against national security.</p></div><p>If you don't have a security clearance, then you don't have any obligation regarding classified information, and you don't even need to understand whether you are authorized to view a SECRET/NOFORN document.</p><p>The burden of protecting and properly handling classified information belongs to those with a clearance.</p></div><p>Current US Code, derived from the Espionage Act of 1917...  Might be useful in this discussion.</p><p>The point - if you receive and disseminate classified material, you are subject to prosecution.  Especially COMINT...</p><p>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc\_sup\_01\_18\_10\_I\_20\_37.html</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p>798. Disclosure of Classified Information.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (a) <b>Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information&mdash;</b></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <b>(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or</b></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes&mdash;</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (b) As used in this subsection (a) of this section&mdash;</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The term &ldquo;classified information&rdquo; means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The terms &ldquo;code,&rdquo; &ldquo;cipher,&rdquo; and &ldquo;cryptographic system&rdquo; include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The term &ldquo;foreign government&rdquo; includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The term &ldquo;communication intelligence&rdquo; means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The term &ldquo;unauthorized person&rdquo; means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This information is marked SECRET and NOFORN ( i.e .
not for export or foreign eyes ) ; simply accessing it without a security clearance may be committing a crime against national security.If you do n't have a security clearance , then you do n't have any obligation regarding classified information , and you do n't even need to understand whether you are authorized to view a SECRET/NOFORN document.The burden of protecting and properly handling classified information belongs to those with a clearance.Current US Code , derived from the Espionage Act of 1917... Might be useful in this discussion.The point - if you receive and disseminate classified material , you are subject to prosecution .
Especially COMINT...http : //www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc \ _sup \ _01 \ _18 \ _10 \ _I \ _20 \ _37.html         798 .
Disclosure of Classified Information .
        ( a ) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates , furnishes , transmits , or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person , or publishes , or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information                    ( 1 ) concerning the nature , preparation , or use of any code , cipher , or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government ; or                 ( 2 ) concerning the design , construction , use , maintenance , or repair of any device , apparatus , or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes ; or                 ( 3 ) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government ; or                 ( 4 ) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government , knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes            Shall be fined not more than $ 10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years , or both .
        ( b ) As used in this subsection ( a ) of this section            The term    classified information    means information which , at the time of a violation of this section , is , for reasons of national security , specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution ;         The terms    code ,       cipher ,    and    cryptographic system    include in their meanings , in addition to their usual meanings , any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents , significance , or meanings of communications ;         The term    foreign government    includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction , party , department , agency , bureau , or military force of or within a foreign country , or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country , whether or not such government is recognized by the United States ;         The term    communication intelligence    means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients ;         The term    unauthorized person    means any person who , or agency which , is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection ( a ) of this section , by the President , or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This information is marked SECRET and NOFORN (i.e.
not for export or foreign eyes); simply accessing it without a security clearance may be committing a crime against national security.If you don't have a security clearance, then you don't have any obligation regarding classified information, and you don't even need to understand whether you are authorized to view a SECRET/NOFORN document.The burden of protecting and properly handling classified information belongs to those with a clearance.Current US Code, derived from the Espionage Act of 1917...  Might be useful in this discussion.The point - if you receive and disseminate classified material, you are subject to prosecution.
Especially COMINT...http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc\_sup\_01\_18\_10\_I\_20\_37.html
        798.
Disclosure of Classified Information.
        (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
                (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
                (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
                (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
                (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
        Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
        (b) As used in this subsection (a) of this section—
        The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
        The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;
        The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;
        The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;
        The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484030</id>
	<title>George Bush at it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268677080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow that evil George Bush is at it again.  Wait, what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow that evil George Bush is at it again .
Wait , what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow that evil George Bush is at it again.
Wait, what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484826</id>
	<title>Wikileaks increasingly looks like a scam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268679900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are demanding a budget significantly larger than Wikipedia's was just a few years ago... for a site that gets 1/1000th of the traffic.    They could never hope to fight the legal battles directly with any amount of money, the only solution for materials with serious legal force behind them will be freenet.</p><p>Meanwhile, Cryptome trucks on as they have since damn near the beginning of the internet.  They'll send you a DVD set of their content for \_free\_ if you ask.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are demanding a budget significantly larger than Wikipedia 's was just a few years ago... for a site that gets 1/1000th of the traffic .
They could never hope to fight the legal battles directly with any amount of money , the only solution for materials with serious legal force behind them will be freenet.Meanwhile , Cryptome trucks on as they have since damn near the beginning of the internet .
They 'll send you a DVD set of their content for \ _free \ _ if you ask .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are demanding a budget significantly larger than Wikipedia's was just a few years ago... for a site that gets 1/1000th of the traffic.
They could never hope to fight the legal battles directly with any amount of money, the only solution for materials with serious legal force behind them will be freenet.Meanwhile, Cryptome trucks on as they have since damn near the beginning of the internet.
They'll send you a DVD set of their content for \_free\_ if you ask.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483898</id>
	<title>Let see</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268676660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tghe Government deals in some serious secrets*</p><p>Wiki leaks is an outlet for anonymously leaking secrets.</p><p>The government looks into wikileaks and wants to figure out how they could stop a serious leak.</p><p>Well.. duh. IN fact, that's a good thing for them to have done.</p><p>*WHile I believe not everything it deems secret is necessary, I do believe SOME things do need to be kept secret for a period of time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tghe Government deals in some serious secrets * Wiki leaks is an outlet for anonymously leaking secrets.The government looks into wikileaks and wants to figure out how they could stop a serious leak.Well.. duh. IN fact , that 's a good thing for them to have done .
* WHile I believe not everything it deems secret is necessary , I do believe SOME things do need to be kept secret for a period of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tghe Government deals in some serious secrets*Wiki leaks is an outlet for anonymously leaking secrets.The government looks into wikileaks and wants to figure out how they could stop a serious leak.Well.. duh. IN fact, that's a good thing for them to have done.
*WHile I believe not everything it deems secret is necessary, I do believe SOME things do need to be kept secret for a period of time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484056</id>
	<title>The first casualty of censorship</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268677200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure Wikileaks was due to be the first casualty of censorship.  There's not much governments fear more than their secrets ending up out in the open.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure Wikileaks was due to be the first casualty of censorship .
There 's not much governments fear more than their secrets ending up out in the open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure Wikileaks was due to be the first casualty of censorship.
There's not much governments fear more than their secrets ending up out in the open.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485154</id>
	<title>Secrets ARE important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268681340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without secrets, the Normandy invasion would have failed, and the Allies could very well have lost World War II. The breaking of the Nazi Enigma Machine also directly contributed to our victory.</p><p>That many slashdotters have no idea of the realities of the world doesn't change things. China isn't going to open source their wartime strategies.<br>People who post classified information to WikiLeaks (like the aforementioned document itself) should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Leaking of classified information can and does lead to severe negative consequences for our nation, up to and including the loss of human life. It's not a game, and it's not as simple as</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without secrets , the Normandy invasion would have failed , and the Allies could very well have lost World War II .
The breaking of the Nazi Enigma Machine also directly contributed to our victory.That many slashdotters have no idea of the realities of the world does n't change things .
China is n't going to open source their wartime strategies.People who post classified information to WikiLeaks ( like the aforementioned document itself ) should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law .
Leaking of classified information can and does lead to severe negative consequences for our nation , up to and including the loss of human life .
It 's not a game , and it 's not as simple as</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without secrets, the Normandy invasion would have failed, and the Allies could very well have lost World War II.
The breaking of the Nazi Enigma Machine also directly contributed to our victory.That many slashdotters have no idea of the realities of the world doesn't change things.
China isn't going to open source their wartime strategies.People who post classified information to WikiLeaks (like the aforementioned document itself) should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Leaking of classified information can and does lead to severe negative consequences for our nation, up to and including the loss of human life.
It's not a game, and it's not as simple as</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484746</id>
	<title>Re:That was funny!</title>
	<author>nycguy</author>
	<datestamp>1268679600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Um, you mean like, Fox News?</p></div><p>
FYI, Fox News was the mouthpiece of the last administration. The contract came up for bid after the 2008 elections, and MSNBC beat out the competition. Congrats again, Keith and Rachel!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , you mean like , Fox News ?
FYI , Fox News was the mouthpiece of the last administration .
The contract came up for bid after the 2008 elections , and MSNBC beat out the competition .
Congrats again , Keith and Rachel !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, you mean like, Fox News?
FYI, Fox News was the mouthpiece of the last administration.
The contract came up for bid after the 2008 elections, and MSNBC beat out the competition.
Congrats again, Keith and Rachel!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485980</id>
	<title>Re:Serves a Useful Purpose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This latest leak is an example of how the government has abused classification. Paragraphs with (U) are unclassified, paragraphs with (S) are classified secret, and paragraphs with (NF) are not to be disclosed to foreign nationals. Secret information is defined as information that, if widely disseminated, would cause "serious damage" to national security.</p><p>Now, go through the document and look at the paragraphs with an (S). "Serious damage" to national security? HA HA!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This latest leak is an example of how the government has abused classification .
Paragraphs with ( U ) are unclassified , paragraphs with ( S ) are classified secret , and paragraphs with ( NF ) are not to be disclosed to foreign nationals .
Secret information is defined as information that , if widely disseminated , would cause " serious damage " to national security.Now , go through the document and look at the paragraphs with an ( S ) .
" Serious damage " to national security ?
HA HA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This latest leak is an example of how the government has abused classification.
Paragraphs with (U) are unclassified, paragraphs with (S) are classified secret, and paragraphs with (NF) are not to be disclosed to foreign nationals.
Secret information is defined as information that, if widely disseminated, would cause "serious damage" to national security.Now, go through the document and look at the paragraphs with an (S).
"Serious damage" to national security?
HA HA!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31487164</id>
	<title>Muddy waters and the National Enquirer. . .</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1268645220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Muddy waters are a better way to control information than to remove the water altogether.  You can't prevent leaks, so the best bet is to deliberately leak false info so that the average seeker can be controlled or disgusted into forgetting all about it.</p><p>The tactic is simple; Leak false but exciting/tantalizing info, (the Fake Moon Landing, for instance), let it brew and then categorically demonstrate how and why it is broken in public forum.  This makes everybody feel stupid and turns popular opinion against not just the concept of a Fake Moon Landing, but against the entire idea of anti-establishment thinking, aka, "conspiracies".  The Fake Moon Landing thing was promoted over television and denounced over television, clearly aiming the attack on Joe Average.  A very effective campaign, by all indicators.</p><p>Here's another neat example. . .</p><p>The <i>National Enquirer</i> has been for many years, particularly during periods of high public interest in the UFO phenomenon, the only paper with national distribution which was willing to run reports from serious UFO researchers.  It would, for a percentage of the time, run excellent and editorially exacting stories on UFOs, while the rest of the time press nonsense stories.  While groups like APRO were wary of accepting support from the <i>National Enquirer,</i> the opportunity and sometimes significant research money offered by the <i>Enquirer</i> was hard to turn down, and there was always the argument that "Any publicity is good publicity."  However, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Cover-Up-Exposed-1973-1991-National-Security/dp/0967799511/ref=pd\_sim\_b\_1" title="amazon.com">Richard Dolan</a> [amazon.com] observes. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>"What makes this more interesting is that the <i>Enquirer</i> publisher, Gene Pope, had been a CIA agent during the early 1950's.  What he did there remains classified, except that he was involved in the Agency's Psychological Warfare Unit.</b>  Hansen's research suggested that the CIA helped to fund the <i>Enquirer</i> when Pope took it over, most likely to provide sensationalistic coverage to certain stories as needed - a kind of 'inoculation,' just as a doctor gives a touch of disease to the patient to stimulate a reaction from the immune system.  Even soberly researched UFO stories would be discredited within the confines of a tabloid dedicated to horoscopes and celebrity gossip."</p></div><p>-FL</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Muddy waters are a better way to control information than to remove the water altogether .
You ca n't prevent leaks , so the best bet is to deliberately leak false info so that the average seeker can be controlled or disgusted into forgetting all about it.The tactic is simple ; Leak false but exciting/tantalizing info , ( the Fake Moon Landing , for instance ) , let it brew and then categorically demonstrate how and why it is broken in public forum .
This makes everybody feel stupid and turns popular opinion against not just the concept of a Fake Moon Landing , but against the entire idea of anti-establishment thinking , aka , " conspiracies " .
The Fake Moon Landing thing was promoted over television and denounced over television , clearly aiming the attack on Joe Average .
A very effective campaign , by all indicators.Here 's another neat example .
. .The National Enquirer has been for many years , particularly during periods of high public interest in the UFO phenomenon , the only paper with national distribution which was willing to run reports from serious UFO researchers .
It would , for a percentage of the time , run excellent and editorially exacting stories on UFOs , while the rest of the time press nonsense stories .
While groups like APRO were wary of accepting support from the National Enquirer , the opportunity and sometimes significant research money offered by the Enquirer was hard to turn down , and there was always the argument that " Any publicity is good publicity .
" However , Richard Dolan [ amazon.com ] observes .
. .
" What makes this more interesting is that the Enquirer publisher , Gene Pope , had been a CIA agent during the early 1950 's .
What he did there remains classified , except that he was involved in the Agency 's Psychological Warfare Unit .
Hansen 's research suggested that the CIA helped to fund the Enquirer when Pope took it over , most likely to provide sensationalistic coverage to certain stories as needed - a kind of 'inoculation, ' just as a doctor gives a touch of disease to the patient to stimulate a reaction from the immune system .
Even soberly researched UFO stories would be discredited within the confines of a tabloid dedicated to horoscopes and celebrity gossip .
" -FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Muddy waters are a better way to control information than to remove the water altogether.
You can't prevent leaks, so the best bet is to deliberately leak false info so that the average seeker can be controlled or disgusted into forgetting all about it.The tactic is simple; Leak false but exciting/tantalizing info, (the Fake Moon Landing, for instance), let it brew and then categorically demonstrate how and why it is broken in public forum.
This makes everybody feel stupid and turns popular opinion against not just the concept of a Fake Moon Landing, but against the entire idea of anti-establishment thinking, aka, "conspiracies".
The Fake Moon Landing thing was promoted over television and denounced over television, clearly aiming the attack on Joe Average.
A very effective campaign, by all indicators.Here's another neat example.
. .The National Enquirer has been for many years, particularly during periods of high public interest in the UFO phenomenon, the only paper with national distribution which was willing to run reports from serious UFO researchers.
It would, for a percentage of the time, run excellent and editorially exacting stories on UFOs, while the rest of the time press nonsense stories.
While groups like APRO were wary of accepting support from the National Enquirer, the opportunity and sometimes significant research money offered by the Enquirer was hard to turn down, and there was always the argument that "Any publicity is good publicity.
"  However, Richard Dolan [amazon.com] observes.
. .
"What makes this more interesting is that the Enquirer publisher, Gene Pope, had been a CIA agent during the early 1950's.
What he did there remains classified, except that he was involved in the Agency's Psychological Warfare Unit.
Hansen's research suggested that the CIA helped to fund the Enquirer when Pope took it over, most likely to provide sensationalistic coverage to certain stories as needed - a kind of 'inoculation,' just as a doctor gives a touch of disease to the patient to stimulate a reaction from the immune system.
Even soberly researched UFO stories would be discredited within the confines of a tabloid dedicated to horoscopes and celebrity gossip.
"-FL
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484676</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>ImprovOmega</author>
	<datestamp>1268679420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Moral authority &gt; Governmental authority<br> <br>
Or are you suggesting that the government can do no wrong?  I firmly believe that in a free and democratic society that the members of that society have a duty to act morally regardless of what the authorities (elected into office or not!) tell them to do.<br> <br>Or to put it another way:<p><div class="quote"><p>Now, if <em>anyone</em> needs to be <i>killed</i>, then <em>somebody</em> has to be making the everyday decisions on <i>who lives and who dies</i> and enforcing them. Governments are the most natural pick for that, if only because they are &mdash; by design &mdash; charged with national security.</p><p>Thus any <i>moralists</i> (and the <i>anyone that helps them</i>) are to be prosecuted with the prosecutors having only to prove their involvement in <i>saving lives</i>. They could counter by proving, that the particular <i>saving of a life</i> was justified, but the burden of proof is on them...</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Moral authority &gt; Governmental authority Or are you suggesting that the government can do no wrong ?
I firmly believe that in a free and democratic society that the members of that society have a duty to act morally regardless of what the authorities ( elected into office or not !
) tell them to do .
Or to put it another way : Now , if anyone needs to be killed , then somebody has to be making the everyday decisions on who lives and who dies and enforcing them .
Governments are the most natural pick for that , if only because they are    by design    charged with national security.Thus any moralists ( and the anyone that helps them ) are to be prosecuted with the prosecutors having only to prove their involvement in saving lives .
They could counter by proving , that the particular saving of a life was justified , but the burden of proof is on them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moral authority &gt; Governmental authority 
Or are you suggesting that the government can do no wrong?
I firmly believe that in a free and democratic society that the members of that society have a duty to act morally regardless of what the authorities (elected into office or not!
) tell them to do.
Or to put it another way:Now, if anyone needs to be killed, then somebody has to be making the everyday decisions on who lives and who dies and enforcing them.
Governments are the most natural pick for that, if only because they are — by design — charged with national security.Thus any moralists (and the anyone that helps them) are to be prosecuted with the prosecutors having only to prove their involvement in saving lives.
They could counter by proving, that the particular saving of a life was justified, but the burden of proof is on them...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485454</id>
	<title>WikiLeaks Slashdotted</title>
	<author>Voline</author>
	<datestamp>1268682420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are mirrors in <a href="http://www.wikileaks.se/" title="wikileaks.se">Sweden</a> [wikileaks.se] and <a href="http://mirror.wikileaks.info/" title="wikileaks.info">Switzerland</a> [wikileaks.info].</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are mirrors in Sweden [ wikileaks.se ] and Switzerland [ wikileaks.info ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are mirrors in Sweden [wikileaks.se] and Switzerland [wikileaks.info].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484298</id>
	<title>Re:Be aware...</title>
	<author>1729</author>
	<datestamp>1268678160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This information is marked SECRET and NOFORN (i.e. not for export or foreign eyes); simply accessing it without a security clearance may be committing a crime against national security.</p></div><p>If you don't have a security clearance, then you don't have any obligation regarding classified information, and you don't even need to understand whether you are authorized to view a SECRET/NOFORN document.</p><p>The burden of protecting and properly handling classified information belongs to those with a clearance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This information is marked SECRET and NOFORN ( i.e .
not for export or foreign eyes ) ; simply accessing it without a security clearance may be committing a crime against national security.If you do n't have a security clearance , then you do n't have any obligation regarding classified information , and you do n't even need to understand whether you are authorized to view a SECRET/NOFORN document.The burden of protecting and properly handling classified information belongs to those with a clearance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This information is marked SECRET and NOFORN (i.e.
not for export or foreign eyes); simply accessing it without a security clearance may be committing a crime against national security.If you don't have a security clearance, then you don't have any obligation regarding classified information, and you don't even need to understand whether you are authorized to view a SECRET/NOFORN document.The burden of protecting and properly handling classified information belongs to those with a clearance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484076</id>
	<title>Re:Should there be ANY government secrets?</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1268677320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If nuclear bombs could be constructed from everyday household items would you want the design to be public?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If nuclear bombs could be constructed from everyday household items would you want the design to be public ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If nuclear bombs could be constructed from everyday household items would you want the design to be public?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485494</id>
	<title>Re:Two can play your game</title>
	<author>tixxit</author>
	<datestamp>1268682540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would you prefer another major terrorist attack that kills thousands of people?</p></div><p>I'd rather die than stoop down to the same level as the terrorists, yes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you prefer another major terrorist attack that kills thousands of people ? I 'd rather die than stoop down to the same level as the terrorists , yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you prefer another major terrorist attack that kills thousands of people?I'd rather die than stoop down to the same level as the terrorists, yes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483770</id>
	<title>*burp* *fart* *queef*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268676060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*burp* *fart* *queef*</p><p>Ooops, excuse me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* burp * * fart * * queef * Ooops , excuse me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*burp* *fart* *queef*Ooops, excuse me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484442</id>
	<title>Re:You hit the nail on the head</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1268678700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you have a bunch of good points.  It's worth noting though that whistleblowers are typically protected in a number of circumstances?  So there's recognition that they can serve a useful purpose in exposing corruption but they are awkward.  And if the whistleblower is actually revealing undemocratic behaviour I don't think it's undemocratic for them to take a personal stand on that issue.</p><p>The reason I kinda like the ability to leak stuff anonymously is that it keeps the balance.  The moral choice is fine when it's a personal choice you can take the consequences for yourself.  But when you have a family to support maybe you feel the need to keep your mouth shut for their sake, even though it's not in the interests of the nation - even a highly moral and selfless person might then not be willing to do the right thing for their country if it compromises his family's welfare.</p><p>I'd argue that people can leak stuff anonymously (or even with promise of protection and reward) to any intelligence agency in the world already, if they have useful information.  So the situation where information can be exposed already exists to a certain extent.  Given the choice, at least leaking it to Wikileaks keeps the citizenry informed of what everyone's up to and "levels the playing field" by letting all foreign agencies see all the info at once.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you have a bunch of good points .
It 's worth noting though that whistleblowers are typically protected in a number of circumstances ?
So there 's recognition that they can serve a useful purpose in exposing corruption but they are awkward .
And if the whistleblower is actually revealing undemocratic behaviour I do n't think it 's undemocratic for them to take a personal stand on that issue.The reason I kinda like the ability to leak stuff anonymously is that it keeps the balance .
The moral choice is fine when it 's a personal choice you can take the consequences for yourself .
But when you have a family to support maybe you feel the need to keep your mouth shut for their sake , even though it 's not in the interests of the nation - even a highly moral and selfless person might then not be willing to do the right thing for their country if it compromises his family 's welfare.I 'd argue that people can leak stuff anonymously ( or even with promise of protection and reward ) to any intelligence agency in the world already , if they have useful information .
So the situation where information can be exposed already exists to a certain extent .
Given the choice , at least leaking it to Wikileaks keeps the citizenry informed of what everyone 's up to and " levels the playing field " by letting all foreign agencies see all the info at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you have a bunch of good points.
It's worth noting though that whistleblowers are typically protected in a number of circumstances?
So there's recognition that they can serve a useful purpose in exposing corruption but they are awkward.
And if the whistleblower is actually revealing undemocratic behaviour I don't think it's undemocratic for them to take a personal stand on that issue.The reason I kinda like the ability to leak stuff anonymously is that it keeps the balance.
The moral choice is fine when it's a personal choice you can take the consequences for yourself.
But when you have a family to support maybe you feel the need to keep your mouth shut for their sake, even though it's not in the interests of the nation - even a highly moral and selfless person might then not be willing to do the right thing for their country if it compromises his family's welfare.I'd argue that people can leak stuff anonymously (or even with promise of protection and reward) to any intelligence agency in the world already, if they have useful information.
So the situation where information can be exposed already exists to a certain extent.
Given the choice, at least leaking it to Wikileaks keeps the citizenry informed of what everyone's up to and "levels the playing field" by letting all foreign agencies see all the info at once.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484136</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31487132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31490702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31498734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31488958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31489208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31487164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31487230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31488422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31489522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31491522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31488936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1622232_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31489970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1622232.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31490702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1622232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31498734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31488936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31489522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31487230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1622232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1622232.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1622232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31491522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31488422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1622232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1622232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1622232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484444
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485494
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31487132
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31489970
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484988
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485774
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484644
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485188
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1622232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31489208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1622232.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31488958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1622232.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1622232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31486464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1622232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1622232.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1622232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31487184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1622232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31487164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1622232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31483898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1622232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31484102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1622232.31485286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
