<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_16_1235227</id>
	<title>11th Circuit Eliminates 4th Amend. In E-mail</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1268746440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Artefacto writes <i>"Last Thursday, the Eleventh Circuit handed down a Fourth Amendment case, Rehberg v. Paulk, that takes a very <a href="http://volokh.com/2010/03/15/eleventh-circuit-decision-largely-eliminates-fourth-amendment-protection-in-e-mail/">narrow view of how the Fourth Amendment applies to e-mail</a>. The Eleventh Circuit held that constitutional protection in stored copies of e-mail held by third parties disappears as soon as any copy of the communication is delivered.    Under this new decision, if the government wants get your e-mails, the Fourth Amendment lets the government go to your ISP, wait the seconds it normally takes for the e-mail to be delivered, and then run off copies of your messages."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Artefacto writes " Last Thursday , the Eleventh Circuit handed down a Fourth Amendment case , Rehberg v. Paulk , that takes a very narrow view of how the Fourth Amendment applies to e-mail .
The Eleventh Circuit held that constitutional protection in stored copies of e-mail held by third parties disappears as soon as any copy of the communication is delivered .
Under this new decision , if the government wants get your e-mails , the Fourth Amendment lets the government go to your ISP , wait the seconds it normally takes for the e-mail to be delivered , and then run off copies of your messages .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Artefacto writes "Last Thursday, the Eleventh Circuit handed down a Fourth Amendment case, Rehberg v. Paulk, that takes a very narrow view of how the Fourth Amendment applies to e-mail.
The Eleventh Circuit held that constitutional protection in stored copies of e-mail held by third parties disappears as soon as any copy of the communication is delivered.
Under this new decision, if the government wants get your e-mails, the Fourth Amendment lets the government go to your ISP, wait the seconds it normally takes for the e-mail to be delivered, and then run off copies of your messages.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496236</id>
	<title>Keep your email under your bed!</title>
	<author>Vitus Wagner</author>
	<datestamp>1268756640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I  prefer to run SMTP-server on my home machine and never let any ISP, Google or whomever to store copies of my mail any longer than it is needed for technical purposes of SMTP protocol.</p><p>With current broadband penetration everyone can do the same. Plug a USB-flash into your Wi-Fi acces point and run postfix on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer to run SMTP-server on my home machine and never let any ISP , Google or whomever to store copies of my mail any longer than it is needed for technical purposes of SMTP protocol.With current broadband penetration everyone can do the same .
Plug a USB-flash into your Wi-Fi acces point and run postfix on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I  prefer to run SMTP-server on my home machine and never let any ISP, Google or whomever to store copies of my mail any longer than it is needed for technical purposes of SMTP protocol.With current broadband penetration everyone can do the same.
Plug a USB-flash into your Wi-Fi acces point and run postfix on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495886</id>
	<title>Re:Email is like Postcards....</title>
	<author>bmo</author>
	<datestamp>1268755380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>only expected viewing point is at the intended recipient's terminal</i></p><p>Obviously you've never run a BBS in the old days watching email being displayed as it was being typed up in the editor in real time.  This was especially true when there was no such thing as multitasking and simply turning on the monitor showed the current state of the BBS and what someone was doing.  Good fun watching people play "Legend of the Red Dragon" (LORD).</p><p>Even the ECPA recognizes the fact that operators along the way may view emails "in the course of their duty" to make sure the system is working.</p><p>The first edition of "Navigating the Internet" which even explains how to do FTP via email gateway, emphasizes the fact that an email is nothing more than a postcard.</p><p>A good summation of email "privacy" is here:</p><p><a href="http://www.tinhat.com/email/e\_mail\_privacy.html" title="tinhat.com">http://www.tinhat.com/email/e\_mail\_privacy.html</a> [tinhat.com]</p><p>"Email is a postcard" is not a new concept that someone pulled out of his ass one day. This is something going back more than two decades.</p><p>If you don't want anyone to see your email, encrypt it.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>only expected viewing point is at the intended recipient 's terminalObviously you 've never run a BBS in the old days watching email being displayed as it was being typed up in the editor in real time .
This was especially true when there was no such thing as multitasking and simply turning on the monitor showed the current state of the BBS and what someone was doing .
Good fun watching people play " Legend of the Red Dragon " ( LORD ) .Even the ECPA recognizes the fact that operators along the way may view emails " in the course of their duty " to make sure the system is working.The first edition of " Navigating the Internet " which even explains how to do FTP via email gateway , emphasizes the fact that an email is nothing more than a postcard.A good summation of email " privacy " is here : http : //www.tinhat.com/email/e \ _mail \ _privacy.html [ tinhat.com ] " Email is a postcard " is not a new concept that someone pulled out of his ass one day .
This is something going back more than two decades.If you do n't want anyone to see your email , encrypt it.--BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>only expected viewing point is at the intended recipient's terminalObviously you've never run a BBS in the old days watching email being displayed as it was being typed up in the editor in real time.
This was especially true when there was no such thing as multitasking and simply turning on the monitor showed the current state of the BBS and what someone was doing.
Good fun watching people play "Legend of the Red Dragon" (LORD).Even the ECPA recognizes the fact that operators along the way may view emails "in the course of their duty" to make sure the system is working.The first edition of "Navigating the Internet" which even explains how to do FTP via email gateway, emphasizes the fact that an email is nothing more than a postcard.A good summation of email "privacy" is here:http://www.tinhat.com/email/e\_mail\_privacy.html [tinhat.com]"Email is a postcard" is not a new concept that someone pulled out of his ass one day.
This is something going back more than two decades.If you don't want anyone to see your email, encrypt it.--BMO</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494490</id>
	<title>Other Amendments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268750340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is the Second still in effect?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the Second still in effect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the Second still in effect?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498764</id>
	<title>Re:Email is like Postcards....</title>
	<author>celle</author>
	<datestamp>1268765880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Email is like sending a message on a postcard."</p><p>No it's not. A postcard is directly in front of your eyes, in the open, and can be understood with out assistance.(same language of course and foreign language is no different than code, needs assistance) An email is not out in the open and has to be accessed via computer, hence assistance, taking some action to actually view it. Now what does the law say about taking action to actually view the communications of someone else.(spying)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Email is like sending a message on a postcard .
" No it 's not .
A postcard is directly in front of your eyes , in the open , and can be understood with out assistance .
( same language of course and foreign language is no different than code , needs assistance ) An email is not out in the open and has to be accessed via computer , hence assistance , taking some action to actually view it .
Now what does the law say about taking action to actually view the communications of someone else .
( spying )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Email is like sending a message on a postcard.
"No it's not.
A postcard is directly in front of your eyes, in the open, and can be understood with out assistance.
(same language of course and foreign language is no different than code, needs assistance) An email is not out in the open and has to be accessed via computer, hence assistance, taking some action to actually view it.
Now what does the law say about taking action to actually view the communications of someone else.
(spying)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495448</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone have the right to copy your mail?</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1268753760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your email is not a letter. It is a selection of bits.<br> <br>You cannot control what happens to those bits once you have hit the "Send" button any more than the BPI can control what happens to the bits of the most recently ripped JLS / Coldplay track. You're effectively suggesting that we <i>legislate</i> DRM for our email.<br> <br>Do you know how daft that sounds?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your email is not a letter .
It is a selection of bits .
You can not control what happens to those bits once you have hit the " Send " button any more than the BPI can control what happens to the bits of the most recently ripped JLS / Coldplay track .
You 're effectively suggesting that we legislate DRM for our email .
Do you know how daft that sounds ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your email is not a letter.
It is a selection of bits.
You cannot control what happens to those bits once you have hit the "Send" button any more than the BPI can control what happens to the bits of the most recently ripped JLS / Coldplay track.
You're effectively suggesting that we legislate DRM for our email.
Do you know how daft that sounds?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495716</id>
	<title>Privacy=NULL when Path=Corporation</title>
	<author>AngryNick</author>
	<datestamp>1268754780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This case is really about keeping your mouth shut when you know your talking to a nark.
<p>
It was decided years ago that the phone numbers you dial are not "private" once you've dial them.  This is essentially an application of the same concept, where you tell a 3rd party (the ISP or phone company) a "secret" (an SMTP message or phone number) and they blab it to someone else (since I guess they don't care about their own privacy).
</p><p>
From <a href="http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100311081" title="leagle.com">http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100311081</a> [leagle.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>In order for Fourth Amendment protections to apply, the person invoking the protection must have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched or item seized. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88, 119 S. Ct. 469, 473 (1998); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507 (1967). The Supreme Court "consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties." Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44, 99 S. Ct. 2577, 2582 (1979). "[T]he Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed." United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 443, 96 S. Ct. 1619, 1624 (1976).
</p><p>
More specifically, a person does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the numerical information he conveys to a telephone company in the ordinary course of business. Smith, 442 U.S. at 743-44, 99 S. Ct. 2582 ("[E]ven if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable") (quotation marks omitted); accord United States v. Thompson, 936 F.2d 1249, 1250 (11th Cir. 1991) ("The Supreme Court has held that the installation of a pen register does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and does not warrant invocation of the exclusionary rule.").<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
</p><p>
A person also loses a reasonable expectation of privacy in emails, at least after the email is sent to and received by a third party....</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This case is really about keeping your mouth shut when you know your talking to a nark .
It was decided years ago that the phone numbers you dial are not " private " once you 've dial them .
This is essentially an application of the same concept , where you tell a 3rd party ( the ISP or phone company ) a " secret " ( an SMTP message or phone number ) and they blab it to someone else ( since I guess they do n't care about their own privacy ) .
From http : //www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm ? shortname = infco20100311081 [ leagle.com ] : In order for Fourth Amendment protections to apply , the person invoking the protection must have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched or item seized .
Minnesota v. Carter , 525 U.S. 83 , 88 , 119 S. Ct. 469 , 473 ( 1998 ) ; Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347 , 88 S. Ct. 507 ( 1967 ) .
The Supreme Court " consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties .
" Smith v. Maryland , 442 U.S. 735 , 743-44 , 99 S. Ct. 2577 , 2582 ( 1979 ) .
" [ T ] he Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities , even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed .
" United States v. Miller , 425 U.S. 435 , 443 , 96 S. Ct. 1619 , 1624 ( 1976 ) .
More specifically , a person does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the numerical information he conveys to a telephone company in the ordinary course of business .
Smith , 442 U.S. at 743-44 , 99 S. Ct. 2582 ( " [ E ] ven if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private , this expectation is not one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable " ) ( quotation marks omitted ) ; accord United States v. Thompson , 936 F.2d 1249 , 1250 ( 11th Cir .
1991 ) ( " The Supreme Court has held that the installation of a pen register does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and does not warrant invocation of the exclusionary rule. " ) .
.. . A person also loses a reasonable expectation of privacy in emails , at least after the email is sent to and received by a third party... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This case is really about keeping your mouth shut when you know your talking to a nark.
It was decided years ago that the phone numbers you dial are not "private" once you've dial them.
This is essentially an application of the same concept, where you tell a 3rd party (the ISP or phone company) a "secret" (an SMTP message or phone number) and they blab it to someone else (since I guess they don't care about their own privacy).
From http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100311081 [leagle.com]:In order for Fourth Amendment protections to apply, the person invoking the protection must have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched or item seized.
Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88, 119 S. Ct. 469, 473 (1998); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507 (1967).
The Supreme Court "consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.
" Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44, 99 S. Ct. 2577, 2582 (1979).
"[T]he Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed.
" United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 443, 96 S. Ct. 1619, 1624 (1976).
More specifically, a person does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the numerical information he conveys to a telephone company in the ordinary course of business.
Smith, 442 U.S. at 743-44, 99 S. Ct. 2582 ("[E]ven if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable") (quotation marks omitted); accord United States v. Thompson, 936 F.2d 1249, 1250 (11th Cir.
1991) ("The Supreme Court has held that the installation of a pen register does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and does not warrant invocation of the exclusionary rule.").
...

A person also loses a reasonable expectation of privacy in emails, at least after the email is sent to and received by a third party....

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31500910</id>
	<title>Judicial e-mail is now discoverable?</title>
	<author>DarkStarZumaBeach</author>
	<datestamp>1268731620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Today's US Supreme Court may have a problem with the 4th Circuit Court's decision, so it ain't over yet:
</p><p>
US courts are notoriously tight about the confidentiality of judicial e-mail, whether issued by a city, state, or federal bench.
</p><p>
This ruling makes it possible for judicial e-mail to be searched by warrant and/or subpoena delivery to an ISP.
</p><p>
This could be very useful to journalists investigating political corruption of the US judicial system, since this could effectively make transparent the process of reaching sealed decisions through "in-chamber" e-mail negotiations not normally part of the public record of court proceedings.
</p><p>
There will be a few judges who may be hoisted by their own petard!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Today 's US Supreme Court may have a problem with the 4th Circuit Court 's decision , so it ai n't over yet : US courts are notoriously tight about the confidentiality of judicial e-mail , whether issued by a city , state , or federal bench .
This ruling makes it possible for judicial e-mail to be searched by warrant and/or subpoena delivery to an ISP .
This could be very useful to journalists investigating political corruption of the US judicial system , since this could effectively make transparent the process of reaching sealed decisions through " in-chamber " e-mail negotiations not normally part of the public record of court proceedings .
There will be a few judges who may be hoisted by their own petard !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Today's US Supreme Court may have a problem with the 4th Circuit Court's decision, so it ain't over yet:

US courts are notoriously tight about the confidentiality of judicial e-mail, whether issued by a city, state, or federal bench.
This ruling makes it possible for judicial e-mail to be searched by warrant and/or subpoena delivery to an ISP.
This could be very useful to journalists investigating political corruption of the US judicial system, since this could effectively make transparent the process of reaching sealed decisions through "in-chamber" e-mail negotiations not normally part of the public record of court proceedings.
There will be a few judges who may be hoisted by their own petard!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495876</id>
	<title>Re:Why the law is so hard to understand...</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1268755380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Mr. "I have a doctorate in law [wikipedia.org] judge Joe Shmoe" apparently doesn't have the basic sense once attributed to the peasantry to apply the existing rulings to a new scenario. It's not rocket science. There is no reason why email should be subjected to a different standard than snail mail, unless that standard is even more restrictive of the government since some email systems even go so far as to use systems like SSL to explicitly add a level of privacy expectation to the communication not readily had by the average person with snail mail.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Realistically, judges can only rule on the present laws.  The lower the court, the less likely the judge is going to set precedent.  In this case, the interpretation is correct as current laws state that a third party handling a communication nullifies privacy; however, the laws haven't caught up with technology.  In the older paradigm, like, the Postal Service, mail never left the Postal Service's possession and was not subject to third parties.  In the world of email, the message is relayed by many third parties.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. " I have a doctorate in law [ wikipedia.org ] judge Joe Shmoe " apparently does n't have the basic sense once attributed to the peasantry to apply the existing rulings to a new scenario .
It 's not rocket science .
There is no reason why email should be subjected to a different standard than snail mail , unless that standard is even more restrictive of the government since some email systems even go so far as to use systems like SSL to explicitly add a level of privacy expectation to the communication not readily had by the average person with snail mail .
Realistically , judges can only rule on the present laws .
The lower the court , the less likely the judge is going to set precedent .
In this case , the interpretation is correct as current laws state that a third party handling a communication nullifies privacy ; however , the laws have n't caught up with technology .
In the older paradigm , like , the Postal Service , mail never left the Postal Service 's possession and was not subject to third parties .
In the world of email , the message is relayed by many third parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. "I have a doctorate in law [wikipedia.org] judge Joe Shmoe" apparently doesn't have the basic sense once attributed to the peasantry to apply the existing rulings to a new scenario.
It's not rocket science.
There is no reason why email should be subjected to a different standard than snail mail, unless that standard is even more restrictive of the government since some email systems even go so far as to use systems like SSL to explicitly add a level of privacy expectation to the communication not readily had by the average person with snail mail.
Realistically, judges can only rule on the present laws.
The lower the court, the less likely the judge is going to set precedent.
In this case, the interpretation is correct as current laws state that a third party handling a communication nullifies privacy; however, the laws haven't caught up with technology.
In the older paradigm, like, the Postal Service, mail never left the Postal Service's possession and was not subject to third parties.
In the world of email, the message is relayed by many third parties.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497390</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on...</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1268760600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's perfectly clear what's intended, it's just the application of that intent isn't desirable by those in power. This is the same bullshit loophole that the government is currently violating by getting financial/personal data from "third party" institutions: "We can't monitor you directly, so we're asking someone else to do it for us."</p><p>In essence, it's a digital Gestapo. "If you suspect someone of doing something Against The State, turn them in and we'll make the determination on whether they're guilty of Anti-Government Activities!" Except, in this case, there's a blanket clause, and turning several million people in is as easy as turning on SQL replication.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's perfectly clear what 's intended , it 's just the application of that intent is n't desirable by those in power .
This is the same bullshit loophole that the government is currently violating by getting financial/personal data from " third party " institutions : " We ca n't monitor you directly , so we 're asking someone else to do it for us .
" In essence , it 's a digital Gestapo .
" If you suspect someone of doing something Against The State , turn them in and we 'll make the determination on whether they 're guilty of Anti-Government Activities !
" Except , in this case , there 's a blanket clause , and turning several million people in is as easy as turning on SQL replication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's perfectly clear what's intended, it's just the application of that intent isn't desirable by those in power.
This is the same bullshit loophole that the government is currently violating by getting financial/personal data from "third party" institutions: "We can't monitor you directly, so we're asking someone else to do it for us.
"In essence, it's a digital Gestapo.
"If you suspect someone of doing something Against The State, turn them in and we'll make the determination on whether they're guilty of Anti-Government Activities!
" Except, in this case, there's a blanket clause, and turning several million people in is as easy as turning on SQL replication.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498076</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect from ancient judges?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268763240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know about you, but when I leave my house without a riot shield and bullet proof vest, I have no expectation of not being shot and killed.</p></div><p>There, fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you , but when I leave my house without a riot shield and bullet proof vest , I have no expectation of not being shot and killed.There , fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you, but when I leave my house without a riot shield and bullet proof vest, I have no expectation of not being shot and killed.There, fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31514448</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268817300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed.
The communication is "delivered" only when the designated recipient receives it. An ISP, like the good old USPS itself is only an intermediary.
And no, I haven't had time to RTFA, so my opinion is based purely on the poor analysis of original poster</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
The communication is " delivered " only when the designated recipient receives it .
An ISP , like the good old USPS itself is only an intermediary .
And no , I have n't had time to RTFA , so my opinion is based purely on the poor analysis of original poster</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
The communication is "delivered" only when the designated recipient receives it.
An ISP, like the good old USPS itself is only an intermediary.
And no, I haven't had time to RTFA, so my opinion is based purely on the poor analysis of original poster</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495138</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before, and I'll say it again..</title>
	<author>Kozz</author>
	<datestamp>1268752680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's been clear that the obstacles to widespread adoption of email encryption are 1) ease of use, and 2) critical mass.</p><p>Yes, yes.  For you and me, using encryption is not terribly difficult.  We might even be able to teach our close (non-geek) friends how to use it.  But you're also implicitly taking on an educational challenge.  How will you convince this friend of the merits of using encryption?  My guess is that for most people I would want to teach, I'd waved off and dismissed because they don't know anybody else who uses it, and they'd ultimately state, "I've got nothing to hide".  Tired argument, sure.  But there it is, again and again.  The how and why of encryption is the biggest hurdle for the non-techie.</p><p><em>We can't even get them to use decent passwords</em>.  People are lazy.  Even (especially?) geeks.  Unless usage of encryption can be nearly transparent and effortless, it won't be readily adopted, I'm afraid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's been clear that the obstacles to widespread adoption of email encryption are 1 ) ease of use , and 2 ) critical mass.Yes , yes .
For you and me , using encryption is not terribly difficult .
We might even be able to teach our close ( non-geek ) friends how to use it .
But you 're also implicitly taking on an educational challenge .
How will you convince this friend of the merits of using encryption ?
My guess is that for most people I would want to teach , I 'd waved off and dismissed because they do n't know anybody else who uses it , and they 'd ultimately state , " I 've got nothing to hide " .
Tired argument , sure .
But there it is , again and again .
The how and why of encryption is the biggest hurdle for the non-techie.We ca n't even get them to use decent passwords .
People are lazy .
Even ( especially ?
) geeks .
Unless usage of encryption can be nearly transparent and effortless , it wo n't be readily adopted , I 'm afraid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's been clear that the obstacles to widespread adoption of email encryption are 1) ease of use, and 2) critical mass.Yes, yes.
For you and me, using encryption is not terribly difficult.
We might even be able to teach our close (non-geek) friends how to use it.
But you're also implicitly taking on an educational challenge.
How will you convince this friend of the merits of using encryption?
My guess is that for most people I would want to teach, I'd waved off and dismissed because they don't know anybody else who uses it, and they'd ultimately state, "I've got nothing to hide".
Tired argument, sure.
But there it is, again and again.
The how and why of encryption is the biggest hurdle for the non-techie.We can't even get them to use decent passwords.
People are lazy.
Even (especially?
) geeks.
Unless usage of encryption can be nearly transparent and effortless, it won't be readily adopted, I'm afraid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495496</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on...</title>
	<author>B3ryllium</author>
	<datestamp>1268754000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you send email to somebody, wouldn't that somebody be the second party?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you send email to somebody , would n't that somebody be the second party ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you send email to somebody, wouldn't that somebody be the second party?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495160</id>
	<title>Constitution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268752740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what <i>does</i> the 4th amendment of the constitution say about email? Did they even have the telegraph when that was passed? I doubt it.<br>The needs to be a new set of rules written and added to the constitution for the modern electronic digital age. (And passed by elected representatives (senate, congress) and not judges who were appointed last century.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what does the 4th amendment of the constitution say about email ?
Did they even have the telegraph when that was passed ?
I doubt it.The needs to be a new set of rules written and added to the constitution for the modern electronic digital age .
( And passed by elected representatives ( senate , congress ) and not judges who were appointed last century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what does the 4th amendment of the constitution say about email?
Did they even have the telegraph when that was passed?
I doubt it.The needs to be a new set of rules written and added to the constitution for the modern electronic digital age.
(And passed by elected representatives (senate, congress) and not judges who were appointed last century.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496290</id>
	<title>What gets me most...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268756880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What gets me most about this is that someone can lie to the Grand Jury and is immune to civil liability because they testified to the Grand Jury, even if that testimony was a lie.  And, if that testimony gets someone arrested and imprisoned - although on false testimony - there is no recourse for the accused.</p><p>I believe that if you lie to the Court and get caught, all expectations of immunity should go away and you should  be prosecuted for perjury.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What gets me most about this is that someone can lie to the Grand Jury and is immune to civil liability because they testified to the Grand Jury , even if that testimony was a lie .
And , if that testimony gets someone arrested and imprisoned - although on false testimony - there is no recourse for the accused.I believe that if you lie to the Court and get caught , all expectations of immunity should go away and you should be prosecuted for perjury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What gets me most about this is that someone can lie to the Grand Jury and is immune to civil liability because they testified to the Grand Jury, even if that testimony was a lie.
And, if that testimony gets someone arrested and imprisoned - although on false testimony - there is no recourse for the accused.I believe that if you lie to the Court and get caught, all expectations of immunity should go away and you should  be prosecuted for perjury.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495590</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect from ancient judges?</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1268754360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For snail mail, the 3rd party doesn't have access to the content of the message.  They only see the envelop.  For phone calls, the law explicitly says a warrant is required.  For email, the law is silent, and each server gets the envolop AND full content, and there are no laws saying the content is protected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For snail mail , the 3rd party does n't have access to the content of the message .
They only see the envelop .
For phone calls , the law explicitly says a warrant is required .
For email , the law is silent , and each server gets the envolop AND full content , and there are no laws saying the content is protected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For snail mail, the 3rd party doesn't have access to the content of the message.
They only see the envelop.
For phone calls, the law explicitly says a warrant is required.
For email, the law is silent, and each server gets the envolop AND full content, and there are no laws saying the content is protected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495814</id>
	<title>A proper ruling.</title>
	<author>The Bastard</author>
	<datestamp>1268755140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People seem to think that e-mail is the equivalent of a sealed envelope letter.  It's not. It's the equivalent of a picture postcard, open to the world to see, and therefore bereft of 4th Amendment protections ("plain sight" rule).</p><p>If you want 4th Amendment protections for your email, place it in an "encryption envelope" with your favorite e-mail encryption app (PGP, OpenPGP, proprietary, etc).  Otherwise, quit yer whining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People seem to think that e-mail is the equivalent of a sealed envelope letter .
It 's not .
It 's the equivalent of a picture postcard , open to the world to see , and therefore bereft of 4th Amendment protections ( " plain sight " rule ) .If you want 4th Amendment protections for your email , place it in an " encryption envelope " with your favorite e-mail encryption app ( PGP , OpenPGP , proprietary , etc ) .
Otherwise , quit yer whining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People seem to think that e-mail is the equivalent of a sealed envelope letter.
It's not.
It's the equivalent of a picture postcard, open to the world to see, and therefore bereft of 4th Amendment protections ("plain sight" rule).If you want 4th Amendment protections for your email, place it in an "encryption envelope" with your favorite e-mail encryption app (PGP, OpenPGP, proprietary, etc).
Otherwise, quit yer whining.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31502326</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect from ancient judges?</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1268738640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are not the majority of people.  Most people have no idea how email works; they do not realize that copies are being made, or that the message is traveling through multiple systems on its way to its destination.  They think email is a form of private communication because it does not involve posting something on a publicly accessible website, and that is the line where 4th amendment protections should be drawn.<br> <br>

Since that is not the line, people should start encrypting their emails.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are not the majority of people .
Most people have no idea how email works ; they do not realize that copies are being made , or that the message is traveling through multiple systems on its way to its destination .
They think email is a form of private communication because it does not involve posting something on a publicly accessible website , and that is the line where 4th amendment protections should be drawn .
Since that is not the line , people should start encrypting their emails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are not the majority of people.
Most people have no idea how email works; they do not realize that copies are being made, or that the message is traveling through multiple systems on its way to its destination.
They think email is a form of private communication because it does not involve posting something on a publicly accessible website, and that is the line where 4th amendment protections should be drawn.
Since that is not the line, people should start encrypting their emails.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494630</id>
	<title>Re:Other Amendments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268751000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does it matter?  It's not like you're going to do anything with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it matter ?
It 's not like you 're going to do anything with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it matter?
It's not like you're going to do anything with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31500874</id>
	<title>Re:Email is like Postcards....</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1268731440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Email is like sending a message on a postcard. How much expectation of privacy did you have doing that? The onus is up to the sender to protect the message instead of whining about any number of people who can and will inspect the email or the back of the postcard as it goes through the system.<br></i></p><p>Capability to perform an act does not imply that the act must be performed.</p><p>Should someone get away with murder because they stood outside of my house and said "I'm going to kill you if you step outside."   Obviously I had no expectation not to be murdered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Email is like sending a message on a postcard .
How much expectation of privacy did you have doing that ?
The onus is up to the sender to protect the message instead of whining about any number of people who can and will inspect the email or the back of the postcard as it goes through the system.Capability to perform an act does not imply that the act must be performed.Should someone get away with murder because they stood outside of my house and said " I 'm going to kill you if you step outside .
" Obviously I had no expectation not to be murdered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email is like sending a message on a postcard.
How much expectation of privacy did you have doing that?
The onus is up to the sender to protect the message instead of whining about any number of people who can and will inspect the email or the back of the postcard as it goes through the system.Capability to perform an act does not imply that the act must be performed.Should someone get away with murder because they stood outside of my house and said "I'm going to kill you if you step outside.
"   Obviously I had no expectation not to be murdered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31507364</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on...</title>
	<author>JobyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1268835360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it isn't. This would be like <b>the mailman</b> taking that letter, copying it, delivering it Bob and then reading it in town square.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it is n't .
This would be like the mailman taking that letter , copying it , delivering it Bob and then reading it in town square .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it isn't.
This would be like the mailman taking that letter, copying it, delivering it Bob and then reading it in town square.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31503898</id>
	<title>Re:Why the law is so hard to understand...</title>
	<author>slashqwerty</author>
	<datestamp>1268750460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> In the older paradigm, like, the Postal Service, mail never left the Postal Service's possession and was not subject to third parties.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>The postal service is a third party!  The article even pointed out that third-class mail does not have fourth amendment protection because the postal service reserves the right to open it.  My recollection from previous articles on this case was that the man's ISP reserves a similar right to examine the email.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the older paradigm , like , the Postal Service , mail never left the Postal Service 's possession and was not subject to third parties .
The postal service is a third party !
The article even pointed out that third-class mail does not have fourth amendment protection because the postal service reserves the right to open it .
My recollection from previous articles on this case was that the man 's ISP reserves a similar right to examine the email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In the older paradigm, like, the Postal Service, mail never left the Postal Service's possession and was not subject to third parties.
The postal service is a third party!
The article even pointed out that third-class mail does not have fourth amendment protection because the postal service reserves the right to open it.
My recollection from previous articles on this case was that the man's ISP reserves a similar right to examine the email.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497272</id>
	<title>Re:Why the court is wron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268760180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you are confused by the difference between a subpoena and a search warrant.  His argument is that they needed a warrant, they didn't get one, so his rights were violated, subpoena or no subpoena.  Hint: the fourth amendment is talking about a search warrant, not a subpoena.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are confused by the difference between a subpoena and a search warrant .
His argument is that they needed a warrant , they did n't get one , so his rights were violated , subpoena or no subpoena .
Hint : the fourth amendment is talking about a search warrant , not a subpoena .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are confused by the difference between a subpoena and a search warrant.
His argument is that they needed a warrant, they didn't get one, so his rights were violated, subpoena or no subpoena.
Hint: the fourth amendment is talking about a search warrant, not a subpoena.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494850</id>
	<title>Re:Other Amendments</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1268751660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see...we have three legally purchased firearms in our house, each of which we could take to the range any day we please and blow through as much ammunition as we can until they kick us out.</p><p>Yeah, I would say the Second Amendment is still in effect.  Stop sensationalising things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see...we have three legally purchased firearms in our house , each of which we could take to the range any day we please and blow through as much ammunition as we can until they kick us out.Yeah , I would say the Second Amendment is still in effect .
Stop sensationalising things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see...we have three legally purchased firearms in our house, each of which we could take to the range any day we please and blow through as much ammunition as we can until they kick us out.Yeah, I would say the Second Amendment is still in effect.
Stop sensationalising things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495518</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone have the right to copy your mail?</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1268754000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is a perfect example of why this ruling is not incorrect. It is not the 4th Ammendment which protects the mail from being inspected by the authorities, but a law. <br>
Actually, I think it would be a good idea to campaign for a law similar to the one you quote for email. I would even suggest that it contain a provision stating something along the lines of saying that the 4th Ammendment applies to electronic communication except in those cases where said communication is broadcast (such as most Twitter posts and many Facebook posts).</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a perfect example of why this ruling is not incorrect .
It is not the 4th Ammendment which protects the mail from being inspected by the authorities , but a law .
Actually , I think it would be a good idea to campaign for a law similar to the one you quote for email .
I would even suggest that it contain a provision stating something along the lines of saying that the 4th Ammendment applies to electronic communication except in those cases where said communication is broadcast ( such as most Twitter posts and many Facebook posts ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a perfect example of why this ruling is not incorrect.
It is not the 4th Ammendment which protects the mail from being inspected by the authorities, but a law.
Actually, I think it would be a good idea to campaign for a law similar to the one you quote for email.
I would even suggest that it contain a provision stating something along the lines of saying that the 4th Ammendment applies to electronic communication except in those cases where said communication is broadcast (such as most Twitter posts and many Facebook posts).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31503590</id>
	<title>Re:Other Amendments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268747280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope one of your kids gets your gun and blows himself away you fucking gun nazi asshole.

Regards</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope one of your kids gets your gun and blows himself away you fucking gun nazi asshole .
Regards</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope one of your kids gets your gun and blows himself away you fucking gun nazi asshole.
Regards</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495874</id>
	<title>Just try convincing people</title>
	<author>Chemisor</author>
	<datestamp>1268755320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You obviously never tried to convince a nontechnical person to use encryption. They just get that sour look on their faces, thinking "yeah, yet another stupid techie thing I don't care about but now have to learn". Naturally, you can't ask them to set up encryption themselves. Installing gpg and enigmail is a nontrivial task even for me. And you can't even set it up transparently, because gpg evidently decided that an empty passphrase is "insecure" and not to be allowed. Of course, they don't care that if the nontechnical user has to remember a passphrase and to enter it to email to you, well, they'll just not send you any mail.</p><p>Then there's the problem of most people using webmail. The desktop mail client is going extinct and all the regular users are moving to gmail, where, like on any other webmail, you can't have encryption without surrendering your private key to the provider.</p><p>Oh, and to add insult to injury, my mail forwarder (www.nearlyfreespeech.net) adds a ***UNCHECKED*** prefix to all encrypted mail it forwards. No, Mom, it really is safe to open my email. ***UNCHECKED*** just means the forwarder couldn't read it and verify that it has no viruses in it. What's a forwarder? Well, it's a...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You obviously never tried to convince a nontechnical person to use encryption .
They just get that sour look on their faces , thinking " yeah , yet another stupid techie thing I do n't care about but now have to learn " .
Naturally , you ca n't ask them to set up encryption themselves .
Installing gpg and enigmail is a nontrivial task even for me .
And you ca n't even set it up transparently , because gpg evidently decided that an empty passphrase is " insecure " and not to be allowed .
Of course , they do n't care that if the nontechnical user has to remember a passphrase and to enter it to email to you , well , they 'll just not send you any mail.Then there 's the problem of most people using webmail .
The desktop mail client is going extinct and all the regular users are moving to gmail , where , like on any other webmail , you ca n't have encryption without surrendering your private key to the provider.Oh , and to add insult to injury , my mail forwarder ( www.nearlyfreespeech.net ) adds a * * * UNCHECKED * * * prefix to all encrypted mail it forwards .
No , Mom , it really is safe to open my email .
* * * UNCHECKED * * * just means the forwarder could n't read it and verify that it has no viruses in it .
What 's a forwarder ?
Well , it 's a.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You obviously never tried to convince a nontechnical person to use encryption.
They just get that sour look on their faces, thinking "yeah, yet another stupid techie thing I don't care about but now have to learn".
Naturally, you can't ask them to set up encryption themselves.
Installing gpg and enigmail is a nontrivial task even for me.
And you can't even set it up transparently, because gpg evidently decided that an empty passphrase is "insecure" and not to be allowed.
Of course, they don't care that if the nontechnical user has to remember a passphrase and to enter it to email to you, well, they'll just not send you any mail.Then there's the problem of most people using webmail.
The desktop mail client is going extinct and all the regular users are moving to gmail, where, like on any other webmail, you can't have encryption without surrendering your private key to the provider.Oh, and to add insult to injury, my mail forwarder (www.nearlyfreespeech.net) adds a ***UNCHECKED*** prefix to all encrypted mail it forwards.
No, Mom, it really is safe to open my email.
***UNCHECKED*** just means the forwarder couldn't read it and verify that it has no viruses in it.
What's a forwarder?
Well, it's a...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496004</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone have the right to copy your mail?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268755740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the mail carrier could be subpoenaed to turn over any post cards. It's not practical because the post card move pretty quick. I suppose if a government agency knew information was going to be on the postcard, the could prepare in advance.</p><p>They could also get a search warrant to open a letter.</p><p>If the email system was government run, people would have MORE protections then they currently do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the mail carrier could be subpoenaed to turn over any post cards .
It 's not practical because the post card move pretty quick .
I suppose if a government agency knew information was going to be on the postcard , the could prepare in advance.They could also get a search warrant to open a letter.If the email system was government run , people would have MORE protections then they currently do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the mail carrier could be subpoenaed to turn over any post cards.
It's not practical because the post card move pretty quick.
I suppose if a government agency knew information was going to be on the postcard, the could prepare in advance.They could also get a search warrant to open a letter.If the email system was government run, people would have MORE protections then they currently do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496564</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before, and I'll say it again..</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1268757900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The standard is called S/MIME.  It's supported bit Apple's Mail.app, Mozilla Thunderbird, MS Outlook and Outlook Express.  In most (all?) of these clients, it is transparent once you have installed your certificate.  The problem is webmail.  If the mail is decrypted on the server, you lose a lot of the advantages of encryption.  If it is decrypted on the client, you then have the problem of getting the keys to every machine a webmail users is using.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The standard is called S/MIME .
It 's supported bit Apple 's Mail.app , Mozilla Thunderbird , MS Outlook and Outlook Express .
In most ( all ?
) of these clients , it is transparent once you have installed your certificate .
The problem is webmail .
If the mail is decrypted on the server , you lose a lot of the advantages of encryption .
If it is decrypted on the client , you then have the problem of getting the keys to every machine a webmail users is using .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The standard is called S/MIME.
It's supported bit Apple's Mail.app, Mozilla Thunderbird, MS Outlook and Outlook Express.
In most (all?
) of these clients, it is transparent once you have installed your certificate.
The problem is webmail.
If the mail is decrypted on the server, you lose a lot of the advantages of encryption.
If it is decrypted on the client, you then have the problem of getting the keys to every machine a webmail users is using.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494582</id>
	<title>aarrghh,</title>
	<author>salesbot</author>
	<datestamp>1268750820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WTH?  Using email is a requirement of modern business and personal junk.  Glad there is no protection, under the Constitution, for communication.</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTH ?
Using email is a requirement of modern business and personal junk .
Glad there is no protection , under the Constitution , for communication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTH?
Using email is a requirement of modern business and personal junk.
Glad there is no protection, under the Constitution, for communication.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31500080</id>
	<title>Re:Google?</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1268771040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlikely.  I think that Google is incorporated and has it's home office in the US.  I suppose they *might* start looking for alternatives, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlikely .
I think that Google is incorporated and has it 's home office in the US .
I suppose they * might * start looking for alternatives , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlikely.
I think that Google is incorporated and has it's home office in the US.
I suppose they *might* start looking for alternatives, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495280</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before, and I'll say it again..</title>
	<author>Issildur03</author>
	<datestamp>1268753160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Standard web-based clients (gmail, yahoo, university email systems) don't have built-in encryption/decryption systems. Sure you could find a firefox add-on that adds these, but that that leaves two problems:<br>1) I don't trust the third-party encryption to not spy on me (and, no, I don't want to read the code for the add-on).<br>2) I still won't have anyone to send my super-secure emails to: no one I know can decrypt my messages without undue trouble. Firefox add-ons aren't too relevant for most people.</p><p>If you have a real solution to those two issues, I'd love to hear about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Standard web-based clients ( gmail , yahoo , university email systems ) do n't have built-in encryption/decryption systems .
Sure you could find a firefox add-on that adds these , but that that leaves two problems : 1 ) I do n't trust the third-party encryption to not spy on me ( and , no , I do n't want to read the code for the add-on ) .2 ) I still wo n't have anyone to send my super-secure emails to : no one I know can decrypt my messages without undue trouble .
Firefox add-ons are n't too relevant for most people.If you have a real solution to those two issues , I 'd love to hear about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Standard web-based clients (gmail, yahoo, university email systems) don't have built-in encryption/decryption systems.
Sure you could find a firefox add-on that adds these, but that that leaves two problems:1) I don't trust the third-party encryption to not spy on me (and, no, I don't want to read the code for the add-on).2) I still won't have anyone to send my super-secure emails to: no one I know can decrypt my messages without undue trouble.
Firefox add-ons aren't too relevant for most people.If you have a real solution to those two issues, I'd love to hear about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496378</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on...</title>
	<author>babblefrog</author>
	<datestamp>1268757360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that wager still open? I have some money here... somewhere...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that wager still open ?
I have some money here... somewhere.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that wager still open?
I have some money here... somewhere...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31501242</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone have the right to copy your mail?</title>
	<author>indil</author>
	<datestamp>1268733180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Small quibble: this law doesn't give you a privacy right, it just makes opening mail illegal. Look to constitutional amendments for your rights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Small quibble : this law does n't give you a privacy right , it just makes opening mail illegal .
Look to constitutional amendments for your rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Small quibble: this law doesn't give you a privacy right, it just makes opening mail illegal.
Look to constitutional amendments for your rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494568</id>
	<title>I've said it before, and I'll say it again..</title>
	<author>hacker</author>
	<datestamp>1268750760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've said this many times here before, and I'll say it again... don't let them see anything other than the delivery envelope (headers) of your email. They can't legally open your postal mail, so treat it the same: gpg/PGP-encrypt your emails; all of them.

</p><p>If a recipient you email frequently doesn't know how to use encryption, teach them. There are plugins for Firefox, Gmail, Thunderbird, Mail.app, and dozens of other mail clients.

</p><p>If it's someone you don't converse over email with often, then it's probably not worth protecting anyway.

</p><p>Seriously...

</p><ul>
<li>http://www.sente.ch/software/GPGMail/English.lproj/GPGMail.html</li>
<li>http://enigmail.mozdev.org/home/index.php</li>
<li>http://getfiregpg.org/s/home</li>
<li>http://www.cumps.be/gpg-in-outlook-2007-outlookgnupg/</li>
<li>http://www.gnupg.org/related\_software/frontends.html</li>
</ul><p>Learn to create, protect and use your gpg keys and your keychain. It's not that hard, and the benefits far outweigh the minutes of work and learning it takes to incorporate it into your daily workflow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've said this many times here before , and I 'll say it again... do n't let them see anything other than the delivery envelope ( headers ) of your email .
They ca n't legally open your postal mail , so treat it the same : gpg/PGP-encrypt your emails ; all of them .
If a recipient you email frequently does n't know how to use encryption , teach them .
There are plugins for Firefox , Gmail , Thunderbird , Mail.app , and dozens of other mail clients .
If it 's someone you do n't converse over email with often , then it 's probably not worth protecting anyway .
Seriously.. . http : //www.sente.ch/software/GPGMail/English.lproj/GPGMail.html http : //enigmail.mozdev.org/home/index.php http : //getfiregpg.org/s/home http : //www.cumps.be/gpg-in-outlook-2007-outlookgnupg/ http : //www.gnupg.org/related \ _software/frontends.html Learn to create , protect and use your gpg keys and your keychain .
It 's not that hard , and the benefits far outweigh the minutes of work and learning it takes to incorporate it into your daily workflow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've said this many times here before, and I'll say it again... don't let them see anything other than the delivery envelope (headers) of your email.
They can't legally open your postal mail, so treat it the same: gpg/PGP-encrypt your emails; all of them.
If a recipient you email frequently doesn't know how to use encryption, teach them.
There are plugins for Firefox, Gmail, Thunderbird, Mail.app, and dozens of other mail clients.
If it's someone you don't converse over email with often, then it's probably not worth protecting anyway.
Seriously...


http://www.sente.ch/software/GPGMail/English.lproj/GPGMail.html
http://enigmail.mozdev.org/home/index.php
http://getfiregpg.org/s/home
http://www.cumps.be/gpg-in-outlook-2007-outlookgnupg/
http://www.gnupg.org/related\_software/frontends.html
Learn to create, protect and use your gpg keys and your keychain.
It's not that hard, and the benefits far outweigh the minutes of work and learning it takes to incorporate it into your daily workflow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31502522</id>
	<title>Of course - it is plain text</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1268739780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Email is a postcard. It's plain text. Remember the Carnivore and assume the government, and everyone else, is reading your email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Email is a postcard .
It 's plain text .
Remember the Carnivore and assume the government , and everyone else , is reading your email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email is a postcard.
It's plain text.
Remember the Carnivore and assume the government, and everyone else, is reading your email.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494908</id>
	<title>We can't search your house but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268751840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we can order you to move all your stuff to the street where we can search it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we can order you to move all your stuff to the street where we can search it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we can order you to move all your stuff to the street where we can search it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497998</id>
	<title>What about private sector email interception?</title>
	<author>HycoWhit</author>
	<datestamp>1268762940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What does this ruling mean for non-government type folks that cull emails?  IF the government can take a peek at emails without warrants, mayn I do the same?<br> <br>
The kid that got in trouble for hacking Palin's email got in trouble for using password recovery.  But now it seems if emails aren't protected, how can you get in trouble for looking for them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does this ruling mean for non-government type folks that cull emails ?
IF the government can take a peek at emails without warrants , mayn I do the same ?
The kid that got in trouble for hacking Palin 's email got in trouble for using password recovery .
But now it seems if emails are n't protected , how can you get in trouble for looking for them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does this ruling mean for non-government type folks that cull emails?
IF the government can take a peek at emails without warrants, mayn I do the same?
The kid that got in trouble for hacking Palin's email got in trouble for using password recovery.
But now it seems if emails aren't protected, how can you get in trouble for looking for them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495786</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before, and I'll say it again..</title>
	<author>JSlope</author>
	<datestamp>1268755080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually standard encryption is very difficult to use for most not IT people. <br>
I've tried to solve it in ResoMail, it only requires you to install the soft (ResoMail client) and to know your e-mail address and activation key, it's like an one time password which allow your public key to be automatically signed by domain owner key. Everything is done under the hood, client automatically sends public key to the server, server sends it to domain owner, domain owner daemon automatically signs it and sends it back to server and server sends it back to client. <br>
Now it's in beta stage, you can request a free domain name install the server and play with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually standard encryption is very difficult to use for most not IT people .
I 've tried to solve it in ResoMail , it only requires you to install the soft ( ResoMail client ) and to know your e-mail address and activation key , it 's like an one time password which allow your public key to be automatically signed by domain owner key .
Everything is done under the hood , client automatically sends public key to the server , server sends it to domain owner , domain owner daemon automatically signs it and sends it back to server and server sends it back to client .
Now it 's in beta stage , you can request a free domain name install the server and play with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually standard encryption is very difficult to use for most not IT people.
I've tried to solve it in ResoMail, it only requires you to install the soft (ResoMail client) and to know your e-mail address and activation key, it's like an one time password which allow your public key to be automatically signed by domain owner key.
Everything is done under the hood, client automatically sends public key to the server, server sends it to domain owner, domain owner daemon automatically signs it and sends it back to server and server sends it back to client.
Now it's in beta stage, you can request a free domain name install the server and play with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497000</id>
	<title>The crumbling of a country.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268759280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This.</p><p>Obama siding with those who lobby tofight rights.</p><p>The whole 9/11 political exploitation.</p><p>What else is missing?</p><p>(I'm not from the USA)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This.Obama siding with those who lobby tofight rights.The whole 9/11 political exploitation.What else is missing ?
( I 'm not from the USA )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This.Obama siding with those who lobby tofight rights.The whole 9/11 political exploitation.What else is missing?
(I'm not from the USA)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495734</id>
	<title>these stories always amaze me</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1268754900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>at how people are shocked! shocked! that the government doesn't protect your privacy for you!</p><p>isn't that a logical contradiction? the GOVERNMENT protecting your PRIVACY?</p><p>we frequently see laughter on this website at the "think of the children" tired meme: the refrain frequently heard here is that "it's not government's job to raise your children, its your job"</p><p>if you understand that, why do you not understand that protecting your privacy is YOUR job, not the government's?</p><p>encrypt it! if you don't, tough shit</p><p>its that simple</p><p>what the law says about the issue is completely besides the point: if you honestly care that much about your privacy, be proactive and protect it yourself. don't trust the government or some ISP, no matter WHAT the law says (the law is going to stop them?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>at how people are shocked !
shocked ! that the government does n't protect your privacy for you ! is n't that a logical contradiction ?
the GOVERNMENT protecting your PRIVACY ? we frequently see laughter on this website at the " think of the children " tired meme : the refrain frequently heard here is that " it 's not government 's job to raise your children , its your job " if you understand that , why do you not understand that protecting your privacy is YOUR job , not the government 's ? encrypt it !
if you do n't , tough shitits that simplewhat the law says about the issue is completely besides the point : if you honestly care that much about your privacy , be proactive and protect it yourself .
do n't trust the government or some ISP , no matter WHAT the law says ( the law is going to stop them ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>at how people are shocked!
shocked! that the government doesn't protect your privacy for you!isn't that a logical contradiction?
the GOVERNMENT protecting your PRIVACY?we frequently see laughter on this website at the "think of the children" tired meme: the refrain frequently heard here is that "it's not government's job to raise your children, its your job"if you understand that, why do you not understand that protecting your privacy is YOUR job, not the government's?encrypt it!
if you don't, tough shitits that simplewhat the law says about the issue is completely besides the point: if you honestly care that much about your privacy, be proactive and protect it yourself.
don't trust the government or some ISP, no matter WHAT the law says (the law is going to stop them?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect from ancient judges?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268750640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed.  But the kicker here, is if EITHER PARTY uses ISP hosted email, then the message is fair game here.  So even if I run my own email server, I still probably won't be protected...  Yet another right bites the dust in the name of misunderstanding...<br> <br>
I wonder if the same could be said for people who get snail mail delivered to a Post Office Box?  It's "delivered" via a third party (albeit one sanctioned by the government)...  What about phone calls that go through an intermediary (Like VOIP or forwarding services)?  What about telegrams?  They all rely on the same concept that the message is delivered via an intermediary, so why aren't they "fair game" as well?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
But the kicker here , is if EITHER PARTY uses ISP hosted email , then the message is fair game here .
So even if I run my own email server , I still probably wo n't be protected... Yet another right bites the dust in the name of misunderstanding.. . I wonder if the same could be said for people who get snail mail delivered to a Post Office Box ?
It 's " delivered " via a third party ( albeit one sanctioned by the government ) ... What about phone calls that go through an intermediary ( Like VOIP or forwarding services ) ?
What about telegrams ?
They all rely on the same concept that the message is delivered via an intermediary , so why are n't they " fair game " as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
But the kicker here, is if EITHER PARTY uses ISP hosted email, then the message is fair game here.
So even if I run my own email server, I still probably won't be protected...  Yet another right bites the dust in the name of misunderstanding... 
I wonder if the same could be said for people who get snail mail delivered to a Post Office Box?
It's "delivered" via a third party (albeit one sanctioned by the government)...  What about phone calls that go through an intermediary (Like VOIP or forwarding services)?
What about telegrams?
They all rely on the same concept that the message is delivered via an intermediary, so why aren't they "fair game" as well?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498040</id>
	<title>ISP's should be required ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268763120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ISP's should be required to delete each email immediately after it is delivered.  That way, the only copy is the one the recipient has and the one the sender has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ISP 's should be required to delete each email immediately after it is delivered .
That way , the only copy is the one the recipient has and the one the sender has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISP's should be required to delete each email immediately after it is delivered.
That way, the only copy is the one the recipient has and the one the sender has.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496032</id>
	<title>Don't worry about this</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1268755860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes a "reasonable expectation of privacy" from <em>both</em> a legal viewpoint and a technical/common\_sense viewpoint are the same, and 18th century scenarios tend to embody this.</p><p>If you and another person are alone in a house, your conversion is probably private.  Yes, there <em>might</em> be a government agent hiding behind the chest-of-drawers, but that's unexpected.  The government would need a warrant to do that, a non-government person doing that is <em>very</em> likely a criminal, etc.</p><p>With unencrypted email, the communications are broadcast to the world and <em>expected</em> to pass through many different systems, some of them managed by people with no direct relationship with either the sender or the receiver, shouted out to an ethernet on every hop.  And yet, some people are expecting the same sort of <em>legal</em> expectation of privacy to still exist, even though from a technical and common sense viewpoints, an <em>expectation</em> of privacy is pretty much diametrically opposite from "reasonable."  It's about as reasonable an expectation of privacy as 18th century people standing in a crowded town square, shouting at one another within earshot of a hundred listeners, some of them transcribing the conversation and then throwing the transcription on to the ground and walking away.  Maybe the 18th century founders <em>could</em> have passed a 4th amendment that makes it so that the government (and other parties, all the little brothers) are required to totally ignore this information.  But somehow that word "reasonable" slipped into the wording.  And people are now fighting about that.</p><p>Give up.  I don't mean give up privacy, I mean give up the quest to twist the word "reasonable" to something that only highly trained lawyers can understand.  Let that word mean what every layman thinks it means, and that means you shouldn't pretend that unencrypted email has a reasonable expectation of privacy.</p><p>Note that I keep saying "unencrypted."  It ain't hard to guess what it would take, in order to create a reasonable expectation of privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes a " reasonable expectation of privacy " from both a legal viewpoint and a technical/common \ _sense viewpoint are the same , and 18th century scenarios tend to embody this.If you and another person are alone in a house , your conversion is probably private .
Yes , there might be a government agent hiding behind the chest-of-drawers , but that 's unexpected .
The government would need a warrant to do that , a non-government person doing that is very likely a criminal , etc.With unencrypted email , the communications are broadcast to the world and expected to pass through many different systems , some of them managed by people with no direct relationship with either the sender or the receiver , shouted out to an ethernet on every hop .
And yet , some people are expecting the same sort of legal expectation of privacy to still exist , even though from a technical and common sense viewpoints , an expectation of privacy is pretty much diametrically opposite from " reasonable .
" It 's about as reasonable an expectation of privacy as 18th century people standing in a crowded town square , shouting at one another within earshot of a hundred listeners , some of them transcribing the conversation and then throwing the transcription on to the ground and walking away .
Maybe the 18th century founders could have passed a 4th amendment that makes it so that the government ( and other parties , all the little brothers ) are required to totally ignore this information .
But somehow that word " reasonable " slipped into the wording .
And people are now fighting about that.Give up .
I do n't mean give up privacy , I mean give up the quest to twist the word " reasonable " to something that only highly trained lawyers can understand .
Let that word mean what every layman thinks it means , and that means you should n't pretend that unencrypted email has a reasonable expectation of privacy.Note that I keep saying " unencrypted .
" It ai n't hard to guess what it would take , in order to create a reasonable expectation of privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes a "reasonable expectation of privacy" from both a legal viewpoint and a technical/common\_sense viewpoint are the same, and 18th century scenarios tend to embody this.If you and another person are alone in a house, your conversion is probably private.
Yes, there might be a government agent hiding behind the chest-of-drawers, but that's unexpected.
The government would need a warrant to do that, a non-government person doing that is very likely a criminal, etc.With unencrypted email, the communications are broadcast to the world and expected to pass through many different systems, some of them managed by people with no direct relationship with either the sender or the receiver, shouted out to an ethernet on every hop.
And yet, some people are expecting the same sort of legal expectation of privacy to still exist, even though from a technical and common sense viewpoints, an expectation of privacy is pretty much diametrically opposite from "reasonable.
"  It's about as reasonable an expectation of privacy as 18th century people standing in a crowded town square, shouting at one another within earshot of a hundred listeners, some of them transcribing the conversation and then throwing the transcription on to the ground and walking away.
Maybe the 18th century founders could have passed a 4th amendment that makes it so that the government (and other parties, all the little brothers) are required to totally ignore this information.
But somehow that word "reasonable" slipped into the wording.
And people are now fighting about that.Give up.
I don't mean give up privacy, I mean give up the quest to twist the word "reasonable" to something that only highly trained lawyers can understand.
Let that word mean what every layman thinks it means, and that means you shouldn't pretend that unencrypted email has a reasonable expectation of privacy.Note that I keep saying "unencrypted.
"  It ain't hard to guess what it would take, in order to create a reasonable expectation of privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31507154</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before, and I'll say it again..</title>
	<author>PMuse</author>
	<datestamp>1268833920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if the police copying the email did violate your copyright, that WILL NOT keep your email out of evidence.  Enjoy suing them from jail.</p><p>Of course, making copies for the purpose of law enforcement doesn't violate copyright.  Imagine the mess that suppressing letters hiring hitmen on copyright grounds would make!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the police copying the email did violate your copyright , that WILL NOT keep your email out of evidence .
Enjoy suing them from jail.Of course , making copies for the purpose of law enforcement does n't violate copyright .
Imagine the mess that suppressing letters hiring hitmen on copyright grounds would make !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the police copying the email did violate your copyright, that WILL NOT keep your email out of evidence.
Enjoy suing them from jail.Of course, making copies for the purpose of law enforcement doesn't violate copyright.
Imagine the mess that suppressing letters hiring hitmen on copyright grounds would make!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495980</id>
	<title>Re:Email is like Postcards....</title>
	<author>bmo</author>
	<datestamp>1268755620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I forgot to address this, too:</p><p><i>since a non-trivial effort has to be made to read the contents</i></p><p>No, it's very trivial.  Your definition of trivial is flawed.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I forgot to address this , too : since a non-trivial effort has to be made to read the contentsNo , it 's very trivial .
Your definition of trivial is flawed.--BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I forgot to address this, too:since a non-trivial effort has to be made to read the contentsNo, it's very trivial.
Your definition of trivial is flawed.--BMO</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect from ancient judges?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268752320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> In order for Fourth Amendment protections to apply, the person invoking the protection must have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched or item seized.</p> </div><p>I don't know about you, but when I send an unencrypted email I have no expectation of privacy from the moment the text leaves my computer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order for Fourth Amendment protections to apply , the person invoking the protection must have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched or item seized .
I do n't know about you , but when I send an unencrypted email I have no expectation of privacy from the moment the text leaves my computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In order for Fourth Amendment protections to apply, the person invoking the protection must have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched or item seized.
I don't know about you, but when I send an unencrypted email I have no expectation of privacy from the moment the text leaves my computer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31500344</id>
	<title>Expectation of Privacy does not work that way!</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1268772180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't know about you, but when I send an unencrypted email I have no expectation of privacy from the moment the text leaves my computer.</i></p><p>Expectation of privacy means you can reasonably expect your privacy to be <i>respected</i>, not that you can reasonably expect it to remain secure even in the face of someone trying to violate it!</p><p>Example:  A conversation in your home is private, even though a simple glass held to your window can let someone listen in.  It is <i>reasonable</i> to expect that people will not do this.  A conversation in a restaurant is not private, because you cannot reasonably expect that nobody will listen to you -- in fact it's difficult for them <i>not</i> to.</p><p>Your ISP has no reason to read your email outside of the header.  It is reasonable to expect that your ISP will respect your privacy in this case.  It is doubly reasonable to expect that the <b>police</b> will respect your privacy, so long as they are obeying the law.</p><p>The interpretation that "expectation of privacy" means "how much privacy can you expect to have in the face of malicious people deliberately trying to violate it" is incorrect, and silly.  It would make the 4th Amendment meaningless, because anything that someone <i>can</i> view is ipso-facto not private and thus not subject to the 4th.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you , but when I send an unencrypted email I have no expectation of privacy from the moment the text leaves my computer.Expectation of privacy means you can reasonably expect your privacy to be respected , not that you can reasonably expect it to remain secure even in the face of someone trying to violate it ! Example : A conversation in your home is private , even though a simple glass held to your window can let someone listen in .
It is reasonable to expect that people will not do this .
A conversation in a restaurant is not private , because you can not reasonably expect that nobody will listen to you -- in fact it 's difficult for them not to.Your ISP has no reason to read your email outside of the header .
It is reasonable to expect that your ISP will respect your privacy in this case .
It is doubly reasonable to expect that the police will respect your privacy , so long as they are obeying the law.The interpretation that " expectation of privacy " means " how much privacy can you expect to have in the face of malicious people deliberately trying to violate it " is incorrect , and silly .
It would make the 4th Amendment meaningless , because anything that someone can view is ipso-facto not private and thus not subject to the 4th .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you, but when I send an unencrypted email I have no expectation of privacy from the moment the text leaves my computer.Expectation of privacy means you can reasonably expect your privacy to be respected, not that you can reasonably expect it to remain secure even in the face of someone trying to violate it!Example:  A conversation in your home is private, even though a simple glass held to your window can let someone listen in.
It is reasonable to expect that people will not do this.
A conversation in a restaurant is not private, because you cannot reasonably expect that nobody will listen to you -- in fact it's difficult for them not to.Your ISP has no reason to read your email outside of the header.
It is reasonable to expect that your ISP will respect your privacy in this case.
It is doubly reasonable to expect that the police will respect your privacy, so long as they are obeying the law.The interpretation that "expectation of privacy" means "how much privacy can you expect to have in the face of malicious people deliberately trying to violate it" is incorrect, and silly.
It would make the 4th Amendment meaningless, because anything that someone can view is ipso-facto not private and thus not subject to the 4th.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495126</id>
	<title>Re:Email is like Postcards....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268752620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's worse that that, the closest analogy is:</p><p>I write a message, then FAX it to the local post office.  Which then FAXs it to another, larger post office, which FAXs it to the recipients local office, which FAXs it to the recipient.</p><p>Does this make it clear <i>why</i> there is no <i>rational</i> expectation of privacy for email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worse that that , the closest analogy is : I write a message , then FAX it to the local post office .
Which then FAXs it to another , larger post office , which FAXs it to the recipients local office , which FAXs it to the recipient.Does this make it clear why there is no rational expectation of privacy for email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worse that that, the closest analogy is:I write a message, then FAX it to the local post office.
Which then FAXs it to another, larger post office, which FAXs it to the recipients local office, which FAXs it to the recipient.Does this make it clear why there is no rational expectation of privacy for email.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495070</id>
	<title>Article text (since it's slashdotted)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268752440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last Thursday, the Eleventh Circuit handed down a Fourth Amendment case, Rehberg v. Paulk, that takes a very narrow view of how the Fourth Amendment applies to e-mail. The Eleventh Circuit held that constitutional protection in stored copies of e-mail held by third parties disappears as soon as any copy of the communication is delivered.    Under this new decision, if the government wants get your e-mails, the Fourth Amendment lets the government go to your ISP, wait the seconds it normally takes for the e-mail to be delivered, and then run off copies of your messages.</p><p>In this post, I want to explain why the Eleventh Circuit&rsquo;s position is wrong.   I&rsquo;ll start by explaining the argument&rsquo;s origins in postal mail cases;  I&rsquo;ll turn next to Rehberg; I&rsquo;ll then explain why I think the decision is based on a conceptual error; and I&rsquo;ll conclude with some final thoughts.</p><p>I.  The Source of the Argument: Fourth Amendment Protection in Postal Mail</p><p>To see where the 11th Circuit is getting this argument, you need to know a little bit about how the Fourth Amendment protects postal mail and packages.  The Fourth Amendment ordinarily protects postal mail and packages during delivery.  The same rule applies to both government postal mail and private delivery companies like UPS:  As soon as the sender drops off the mail in the mailbox, both the sender and recipient enjoy Fourth Amendment protection in the contents of the mail during delivery.  When the mail is delivered to the recipient, the sender loses his Fourth Amendment protection: The Fourth Amendment rights are transfered solely to the recipient.  In practice, this works pretty simply:  Each party has Fourth Amendment protection in the mail when they&rsquo;re in possession of it, and both the sender and receiver have Fourth Amendment rights in the contents of the mail when the postal service or private mail carrier is holding the mail on their mutual behalf.</p><p>I should be clear that there are exceptions to these rules.  For example, if a person sends a letter in what the Postal Service used to call &ldquo;Fourth Class&rdquo; mail &mdash; that is, mail that the Postal Service reserves the right to open &mdash; then it is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.  See, e.g.,   Also, the Fourth Amendment protection only applies to the contents of the communication, not the outside.   But the basic approach has governed postal mail privacy for a long time.</p><p>The new question is, how do to these principles apply to new communications technologies like e-mail and text messages?   Unlike physical letters and packages, e-mails and text messages are just data.  Communications technologies use digital networks that generate copies of the communications in the course of delivery.  Those copies often stick around on servers when a copy of the communication reaches its destination.  The Stored Communications Act provides statutory privacy protection to those communications stored on third-party servers, see 18 U.S.C. 2703.  But does the Fourth Amendment protect those copies of communications as well?  Right now the precedents are extremely sparse.</p><p>II. Rehberg v. Paulk</p><p>Enter Rehberg v. Paulk, decided by the Eleventh Circuit last week in an opinion by Judge Hull joined by Judges Carnes and Anderson.  The case is kind of complicated, but here&rsquo;s the relevant part. State investigators suspected Rehberg of a crime, and they allegedly used a state subpoena to obtain the contents of Rehberg&rsquo;s e-mail from his Internet service provider, Exact Advertising. The complaint suggests that the government obtained both incoming and outgoing e-mails stored with Rehberg&rsquo;s ISP; according to the complaint, investigators &ldquo;obtained Mr. Rehberg&rsquo;s personal e-mails that were sent and received from his personal computer.&rdquo;</p><p>The charges against Rehberg were later dismissed, and Rehberg filed a lawsuit that claimed among other things that obtaining his e-mail with only a subpoena violated his Fourth Amendment right</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last Thursday , the Eleventh Circuit handed down a Fourth Amendment case , Rehberg v. Paulk , that takes a very narrow view of how the Fourth Amendment applies to e-mail .
The Eleventh Circuit held that constitutional protection in stored copies of e-mail held by third parties disappears as soon as any copy of the communication is delivered .
Under this new decision , if the government wants get your e-mails , the Fourth Amendment lets the government go to your ISP , wait the seconds it normally takes for the e-mail to be delivered , and then run off copies of your messages.In this post , I want to explain why the Eleventh Circuit    s position is wrong .
I    ll start by explaining the argument    s origins in postal mail cases ; I    ll turn next to Rehberg ; I    ll then explain why I think the decision is based on a conceptual error ; and I    ll conclude with some final thoughts.I .
The Source of the Argument : Fourth Amendment Protection in Postal MailTo see where the 11th Circuit is getting this argument , you need to know a little bit about how the Fourth Amendment protects postal mail and packages .
The Fourth Amendment ordinarily protects postal mail and packages during delivery .
The same rule applies to both government postal mail and private delivery companies like UPS : As soon as the sender drops off the mail in the mailbox , both the sender and recipient enjoy Fourth Amendment protection in the contents of the mail during delivery .
When the mail is delivered to the recipient , the sender loses his Fourth Amendment protection : The Fourth Amendment rights are transfered solely to the recipient .
In practice , this works pretty simply : Each party has Fourth Amendment protection in the mail when they    re in possession of it , and both the sender and receiver have Fourth Amendment rights in the contents of the mail when the postal service or private mail carrier is holding the mail on their mutual behalf.I should be clear that there are exceptions to these rules .
For example , if a person sends a letter in what the Postal Service used to call    Fourth Class    mail    that is , mail that the Postal Service reserves the right to open    then it is not protected by the Fourth Amendment .
See , e.g. , Also , the Fourth Amendment protection only applies to the contents of the communication , not the outside .
But the basic approach has governed postal mail privacy for a long time.The new question is , how do to these principles apply to new communications technologies like e-mail and text messages ?
Unlike physical letters and packages , e-mails and text messages are just data .
Communications technologies use digital networks that generate copies of the communications in the course of delivery .
Those copies often stick around on servers when a copy of the communication reaches its destination .
The Stored Communications Act provides statutory privacy protection to those communications stored on third-party servers , see 18 U.S.C .
2703. But does the Fourth Amendment protect those copies of communications as well ?
Right now the precedents are extremely sparse.II .
Rehberg v. PaulkEnter Rehberg v. Paulk , decided by the Eleventh Circuit last week in an opinion by Judge Hull joined by Judges Carnes and Anderson .
The case is kind of complicated , but here    s the relevant part .
State investigators suspected Rehberg of a crime , and they allegedly used a state subpoena to obtain the contents of Rehberg    s e-mail from his Internet service provider , Exact Advertising .
The complaint suggests that the government obtained both incoming and outgoing e-mails stored with Rehberg    s ISP ; according to the complaint , investigators    obtained Mr. Rehberg    s personal e-mails that were sent and received from his personal computer.    The charges against Rehberg were later dismissed , and Rehberg filed a lawsuit that claimed among other things that obtaining his e-mail with only a subpoena violated his Fourth Amendment right</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last Thursday, the Eleventh Circuit handed down a Fourth Amendment case, Rehberg v. Paulk, that takes a very narrow view of how the Fourth Amendment applies to e-mail.
The Eleventh Circuit held that constitutional protection in stored copies of e-mail held by third parties disappears as soon as any copy of the communication is delivered.
Under this new decision, if the government wants get your e-mails, the Fourth Amendment lets the government go to your ISP, wait the seconds it normally takes for the e-mail to be delivered, and then run off copies of your messages.In this post, I want to explain why the Eleventh Circuit’s position is wrong.
I’ll start by explaining the argument’s origins in postal mail cases;  I’ll turn next to Rehberg; I’ll then explain why I think the decision is based on a conceptual error; and I’ll conclude with some final thoughts.I.
The Source of the Argument: Fourth Amendment Protection in Postal MailTo see where the 11th Circuit is getting this argument, you need to know a little bit about how the Fourth Amendment protects postal mail and packages.
The Fourth Amendment ordinarily protects postal mail and packages during delivery.
The same rule applies to both government postal mail and private delivery companies like UPS:  As soon as the sender drops off the mail in the mailbox, both the sender and recipient enjoy Fourth Amendment protection in the contents of the mail during delivery.
When the mail is delivered to the recipient, the sender loses his Fourth Amendment protection: The Fourth Amendment rights are transfered solely to the recipient.
In practice, this works pretty simply:  Each party has Fourth Amendment protection in the mail when they’re in possession of it, and both the sender and receiver have Fourth Amendment rights in the contents of the mail when the postal service or private mail carrier is holding the mail on their mutual behalf.I should be clear that there are exceptions to these rules.
For example, if a person sends a letter in what the Postal Service used to call “Fourth Class” mail — that is, mail that the Postal Service reserves the right to open — then it is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
See, e.g.,   Also, the Fourth Amendment protection only applies to the contents of the communication, not the outside.
But the basic approach has governed postal mail privacy for a long time.The new question is, how do to these principles apply to new communications technologies like e-mail and text messages?
Unlike physical letters and packages, e-mails and text messages are just data.
Communications technologies use digital networks that generate copies of the communications in the course of delivery.
Those copies often stick around on servers when a copy of the communication reaches its destination.
The Stored Communications Act provides statutory privacy protection to those communications stored on third-party servers, see 18 U.S.C.
2703.  But does the Fourth Amendment protect those copies of communications as well?
Right now the precedents are extremely sparse.II.
Rehberg v. PaulkEnter Rehberg v. Paulk, decided by the Eleventh Circuit last week in an opinion by Judge Hull joined by Judges Carnes and Anderson.
The case is kind of complicated, but here’s the relevant part.
State investigators suspected Rehberg of a crime, and they allegedly used a state subpoena to obtain the contents of Rehberg’s e-mail from his Internet service provider, Exact Advertising.
The complaint suggests that the government obtained both incoming and outgoing e-mails stored with Rehberg’s ISP; according to the complaint, investigators “obtained Mr. Rehberg’s personal e-mails that were sent and received from his personal computer.”The charges against Rehberg were later dismissed, and Rehberg filed a lawsuit that claimed among other things that obtaining his e-mail with only a subpoena violated his Fourth Amendment right</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497104</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect from ancient judges?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1268759640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talking on the phone isn't encrypted, having a conversation isn't encrypted, regular envelopes are the digital equivalent of ROT-13 and only protects against casual observation. "Expectation of privacy" is not something that applies only to unbreakable cryptographic safes, if it did it wouldn't have existed until the PC age.</p><p>You may not have any expectation of privacy from the recipient, but if you consider that "voluntary disclosure" then the fourth amendment doesn't protect any communication at all. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a phone call because it's hard to listen in - people do that in phone conferences every day - but because you generally don't expect anybody listening in. Likewise, when you send or recieve mail I don't expect people to be reading through my mail. Sure, it's technically trivial for a mail server to BCC away a copy of everything, just like it's trivial to make every phone call a conference call with the government but that would grossly violate the privacy I was expecting.</p><p>Of course I can provide it myself via encryption by the digital equivalent of writing coded letters, but nobody claims that the fourth amendment protection only applies to coded letters. Why then do you set a standard that is so much higher for what you must do and so much lower for the government? I understand that it's preferable to rely on yourself rather than the government, but that has limits. If the only thing the government won't do are the things it can't do you're in big trouble, because I'm fairly sure they could find a cell to throw you in. If you don't expect them to care about your right to privacy, why do ytu expect them to care about any other?</p><p>Yes, it's possible that the contents of an unencrypted mail will end up being seen by some system administrator. But to me, that is the equivalent of a postal package being damaged in handling and the contents spilling all over the floor. Though shit, if that's kiddie porn all over the floor I fully expect you to go to jail anyway, expectation of privacy or not. But that is entirely different than a government that will open everything on purpose, that is exactly why the amendment was created. Not to stop the government from doing the impossible, but from doing the very possible act of reading your (e)mail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talking on the phone is n't encrypted , having a conversation is n't encrypted , regular envelopes are the digital equivalent of ROT-13 and only protects against casual observation .
" Expectation of privacy " is not something that applies only to unbreakable cryptographic safes , if it did it would n't have existed until the PC age.You may not have any expectation of privacy from the recipient , but if you consider that " voluntary disclosure " then the fourth amendment does n't protect any communication at all .
You do n't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a phone call because it 's hard to listen in - people do that in phone conferences every day - but because you generally do n't expect anybody listening in .
Likewise , when you send or recieve mail I do n't expect people to be reading through my mail .
Sure , it 's technically trivial for a mail server to BCC away a copy of everything , just like it 's trivial to make every phone call a conference call with the government but that would grossly violate the privacy I was expecting.Of course I can provide it myself via encryption by the digital equivalent of writing coded letters , but nobody claims that the fourth amendment protection only applies to coded letters .
Why then do you set a standard that is so much higher for what you must do and so much lower for the government ?
I understand that it 's preferable to rely on yourself rather than the government , but that has limits .
If the only thing the government wo n't do are the things it ca n't do you 're in big trouble , because I 'm fairly sure they could find a cell to throw you in .
If you do n't expect them to care about your right to privacy , why do ytu expect them to care about any other ? Yes , it 's possible that the contents of an unencrypted mail will end up being seen by some system administrator .
But to me , that is the equivalent of a postal package being damaged in handling and the contents spilling all over the floor .
Though shit , if that 's kiddie porn all over the floor I fully expect you to go to jail anyway , expectation of privacy or not .
But that is entirely different than a government that will open everything on purpose , that is exactly why the amendment was created .
Not to stop the government from doing the impossible , but from doing the very possible act of reading your ( e ) mail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talking on the phone isn't encrypted, having a conversation isn't encrypted, regular envelopes are the digital equivalent of ROT-13 and only protects against casual observation.
"Expectation of privacy" is not something that applies only to unbreakable cryptographic safes, if it did it wouldn't have existed until the PC age.You may not have any expectation of privacy from the recipient, but if you consider that "voluntary disclosure" then the fourth amendment doesn't protect any communication at all.
You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a phone call because it's hard to listen in - people do that in phone conferences every day - but because you generally don't expect anybody listening in.
Likewise, when you send or recieve mail I don't expect people to be reading through my mail.
Sure, it's technically trivial for a mail server to BCC away a copy of everything, just like it's trivial to make every phone call a conference call with the government but that would grossly violate the privacy I was expecting.Of course I can provide it myself via encryption by the digital equivalent of writing coded letters, but nobody claims that the fourth amendment protection only applies to coded letters.
Why then do you set a standard that is so much higher for what you must do and so much lower for the government?
I understand that it's preferable to rely on yourself rather than the government, but that has limits.
If the only thing the government won't do are the things it can't do you're in big trouble, because I'm fairly sure they could find a cell to throw you in.
If you don't expect them to care about your right to privacy, why do ytu expect them to care about any other?Yes, it's possible that the contents of an unencrypted mail will end up being seen by some system administrator.
But to me, that is the equivalent of a postal package being damaged in handling and the contents spilling all over the floor.
Though shit, if that's kiddie porn all over the floor I fully expect you to go to jail anyway, expectation of privacy or not.
But that is entirely different than a government that will open everything on purpose, that is exactly why the amendment was created.
Not to stop the government from doing the impossible, but from doing the very possible act of reading your (e)mail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497912</id>
	<title>avoiding third parties?</title>
	<author>kj\_kabaje</author>
	<datestamp>1268762580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't believe I'm saying this, but is this a play by the government to have the PO replace IPs so that we can have our rights reinstated?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe I 'm saying this , but is this a play by the government to have the PO replace IPs so that we can have our rights reinstated ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe I'm saying this, but is this a play by the government to have the PO replace IPs so that we can have our rights reinstated?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495102</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone have the right to copy your mail?</title>
	<author>ottothecow</author>
	<datestamp>1268752560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If only we could get the same for email. That way no copies can be made and handed off to another party.</i> <br> <br>

Maybe the USPO needs to start an email service?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only we could get the same for email .
That way no copies can be made and handed off to another party .
Maybe the USPO needs to start an email service ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only we could get the same for email.
That way no copies can be made and handed off to another party.
Maybe the USPO needs to start an email service?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495214</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before, and I'll say it again..</title>
	<author>bhima</author>
	<datestamp>1268752920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Encryption can only be useful for emails when people use it for all or most of communications, so that one does not instantaneously flag communications of interest. Looking at my email habits, there are:  4 people who work for firms where encryption is specifically forbidden in company policy.  12 people who absolutely could not be taught how to use encryption... Including my mother who writes email as if she sending a telegraph and is paying per character. 2 people who could use encryption but who don't use it either, for the same reason I don't, the pool of potential recipients is too small.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Encryption can only be useful for emails when people use it for all or most of communications , so that one does not instantaneously flag communications of interest .
Looking at my email habits , there are : 4 people who work for firms where encryption is specifically forbidden in company policy .
12 people who absolutely could not be taught how to use encryption... Including my mother who writes email as if she sending a telegraph and is paying per character .
2 people who could use encryption but who do n't use it either , for the same reason I do n't , the pool of potential recipients is too small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Encryption can only be useful for emails when people use it for all or most of communications, so that one does not instantaneously flag communications of interest.
Looking at my email habits, there are:  4 people who work for firms where encryption is specifically forbidden in company policy.
12 people who absolutely could not be taught how to use encryption... Including my mother who writes email as if she sending a telegraph and is paying per character.
2 people who could use encryption but who don't use it either, for the same reason I don't, the pool of potential recipients is too small.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495638</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268754480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That depends on what country you wrote the original e-mail in, not all countries gives copyright to shopping lists, some countries actually demand creativity and effort for you to be able to claim copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That depends on what country you wrote the original e-mail in , not all countries gives copyright to shopping lists , some countries actually demand creativity and effort for you to be able to claim copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That depends on what country you wrote the original e-mail in, not all countries gives copyright to shopping lists, some countries actually demand creativity and effort for you to be able to claim copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498180</id>
	<title>cowards</title>
	<author>ClintJCL</author>
	<datestamp>1268763660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What bullshit.
<p>
Phones weren't originally protected either, because after all: Your conversation is being broadcast onto public phone lines owned by the public that anyone can listen into. But Congress wised up and legislated specific protections for the phones.
</p><p>
Of course, that was the culture of the late 1800s or so, right? In today's culture, Congress won't give us any protections that decrease their power... And the judiciary will gladly help them.
</p><p>
We're scared so shitless by terrorist deaths that equal one month of car accident deaths (9/11), that we've lost sight of the very meaning of the freedom granted by privacy. The powers that be want power, and nothing else. And they just got some. Over you.
</p><p>
Email is modern mail. These are the same "papers" that the 4th Amendment describes. But they couldn't describe it in terms of technology that didn't exist until 200 years later.
</p><p>
Origin of this case is even scarier: <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1584520&amp;cid=31495636" title="slashdot.org">http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1584520&amp;cid=31495636</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What bullshit .
Phones were n't originally protected either , because after all : Your conversation is being broadcast onto public phone lines owned by the public that anyone can listen into .
But Congress wised up and legislated specific protections for the phones .
Of course , that was the culture of the late 1800s or so , right ?
In today 's culture , Congress wo n't give us any protections that decrease their power... And the judiciary will gladly help them .
We 're scared so shitless by terrorist deaths that equal one month of car accident deaths ( 9/11 ) , that we 've lost sight of the very meaning of the freedom granted by privacy .
The powers that be want power , and nothing else .
And they just got some .
Over you .
Email is modern mail .
These are the same " papers " that the 4th Amendment describes .
But they could n't describe it in terms of technology that did n't exist until 200 years later .
Origin of this case is even scarier : http : //yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1584520&amp;cid = 31495636 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What bullshit.
Phones weren't originally protected either, because after all: Your conversation is being broadcast onto public phone lines owned by the public that anyone can listen into.
But Congress wised up and legislated specific protections for the phones.
Of course, that was the culture of the late 1800s or so, right?
In today's culture, Congress won't give us any protections that decrease their power... And the judiciary will gladly help them.
We're scared so shitless by terrorist deaths that equal one month of car accident deaths (9/11), that we've lost sight of the very meaning of the freedom granted by privacy.
The powers that be want power, and nothing else.
And they just got some.
Over you.
Email is modern mail.
These are the same "papers" that the 4th Amendment describes.
But they couldn't describe it in terms of technology that didn't exist until 200 years later.
Origin of this case is even scarier: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1584520&amp;cid=31495636 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496446</id>
	<title>Re:Don't worry about this</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1268757600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, most reasonable people (which the vast majority are non-technical) hear "e-<b>mail</b>" and expect e-mail to be like regular mail, but in electronic form.  They don't know HOW email is implemented any more than they know how the USPS sorts letters.  But because the analogy to explain email uses regular mail, they reasonablly expect it to work the same.  I'm sure the fact that email is really more like a postcard would be quite a shock to the average person.</p><p>You're the one trying to warp the meaning of "reasonble" to be "I believe everyone <b>should</b> know exactly how email works," even though the vast majority don't.</p><p>That's what made the founders pretty smart though; the average reasonable (not crazy) person thinking logically should ultimately decide if a law is broken or not (or if the law is moral to begin with).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , most reasonable people ( which the vast majority are non-technical ) hear " e-mail " and expect e-mail to be like regular mail , but in electronic form .
They do n't know HOW email is implemented any more than they know how the USPS sorts letters .
But because the analogy to explain email uses regular mail , they reasonablly expect it to work the same .
I 'm sure the fact that email is really more like a postcard would be quite a shock to the average person.You 're the one trying to warp the meaning of " reasonble " to be " I believe everyone should know exactly how email works , " even though the vast majority do n't.That 's what made the founders pretty smart though ; the average reasonable ( not crazy ) person thinking logically should ultimately decide if a law is broken or not ( or if the law is moral to begin with ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, most reasonable people (which the vast majority are non-technical) hear "e-mail" and expect e-mail to be like regular mail, but in electronic form.
They don't know HOW email is implemented any more than they know how the USPS sorts letters.
But because the analogy to explain email uses regular mail, they reasonablly expect it to work the same.
I'm sure the fact that email is really more like a postcard would be quite a shock to the average person.You're the one trying to warp the meaning of "reasonble" to be "I believe everyone should know exactly how email works," even though the vast majority don't.That's what made the founders pretty smart though; the average reasonable (not crazy) person thinking logically should ultimately decide if a law is broken or not (or if the law is moral to begin with).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496058</id>
	<title>Privacy thus depends on your ISP</title>
	<author>dnsdude</author>
	<datestamp>1268755980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's interesting to note that through this decision, the effect of privacy in your emails is totally dependent on your email carrier (unlike the post office, which is government-run).  For example, if I send a message to another employee of my company, and the email server for both me and the other employee are run by me (or my company), the message is private and cannot be obtained by a subpoena.  I have a reasonable expectation of privacy because the company operates the servers and the message never left "our" control.<p>However, if I send a message to someone who uses Gmail -- where the recipient *knows* that their email's content is used by Google to target advertising -- then I have given up all expectation of privacy, even if I run my own mail server for outgoing messages.<br>

<br>But what if the recipient actually owns and runs their mail server?  Then the sender can be assured of privacy under this ruling (providing that the sender runs his own mail server) because the recipient controls the delivery.

Of course, a sender typically has no knowledge of who runs a recipient's mail server, so they can't always have an expectation of privacy.

Right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting to note that through this decision , the effect of privacy in your emails is totally dependent on your email carrier ( unlike the post office , which is government-run ) .
For example , if I send a message to another employee of my company , and the email server for both me and the other employee are run by me ( or my company ) , the message is private and can not be obtained by a subpoena .
I have a reasonable expectation of privacy because the company operates the servers and the message never left " our " control.However , if I send a message to someone who uses Gmail -- where the recipient * knows * that their email 's content is used by Google to target advertising -- then I have given up all expectation of privacy , even if I run my own mail server for outgoing messages .
But what if the recipient actually owns and runs their mail server ?
Then the sender can be assured of privacy under this ruling ( providing that the sender runs his own mail server ) because the recipient controls the delivery .
Of course , a sender typically has no knowledge of who runs a recipient 's mail server , so they ca n't always have an expectation of privacy .
Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting to note that through this decision, the effect of privacy in your emails is totally dependent on your email carrier (unlike the post office, which is government-run).
For example, if I send a message to another employee of my company, and the email server for both me and the other employee are run by me (or my company), the message is private and cannot be obtained by a subpoena.
I have a reasonable expectation of privacy because the company operates the servers and the message never left "our" control.However, if I send a message to someone who uses Gmail -- where the recipient *knows* that their email's content is used by Google to target advertising -- then I have given up all expectation of privacy, even if I run my own mail server for outgoing messages.
But what if the recipient actually owns and runs their mail server?
Then the sender can be assured of privacy under this ruling (providing that the sender runs his own mail server) because the recipient controls the delivery.
Of course, a sender typically has no knowledge of who runs a recipient's mail server, so they can't always have an expectation of privacy.
Right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495504</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect from ancient judges?</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1268754000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The European Union has this:  <i>   "Article 8  -Protection of personal data.    1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.  2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to  data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.  3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority."</i></p><p><i>That's what we need to add to the US Constitution.<br>We should be secure in our persons, papers, and effects<br>even when those "papers" are held by a third-party ISP.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The European Union has this : " Article 8 -Protection of personal data .
1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her .
2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law .
Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her , and the right to have it rectified .
3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority .
" That 's what we need to add to the US Constitution.We should be secure in our persons , papers , and effectseven when those " papers " are held by a third-party ISP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The European Union has this:     "Article 8  -Protection of personal data.
1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.
2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law.
Everyone has the right of access to  data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.
3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority.
"That's what we need to add to the US Constitution.We should be secure in our persons, papers, and effectseven when those "papers" are held by a third-party ISP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496482</id>
	<title>That's funny...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268757720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A person also loses a reasonable expectation of privacy in emails, at least after the email is sent to and received by a third party. "</p><p>USPS regularly uses contractors and possibly even other 3rd parties for delivery, which is no different than email being passed between different servers.</p><p>Oh, welcome to the brave new world order!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A person also loses a reasonable expectation of privacy in emails , at least after the email is sent to and received by a third party .
" USPS regularly uses contractors and possibly even other 3rd parties for delivery , which is no different than email being passed between different servers.Oh , welcome to the brave new world order !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A person also loses a reasonable expectation of privacy in emails, at least after the email is sent to and received by a third party.
"USPS regularly uses contractors and possibly even other 3rd parties for delivery, which is no different than email being passed between different servers.Oh, welcome to the brave new world order!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495690</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before, and I'll say it again..</title>
	<author>Richy\_T</author>
	<datestamp>1268754660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It needs to be built into the software and reasonable transparent to the user. There also needs to be a standard for generating, sharing (between applications) and sending public keys. This means buy-in from at least Outlook, Thunderbird, Firefox, IE and probably a couple of others at least. Good luck getting Microsoft to implement that properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It needs to be built into the software and reasonable transparent to the user .
There also needs to be a standard for generating , sharing ( between applications ) and sending public keys .
This means buy-in from at least Outlook , Thunderbird , Firefox , IE and probably a couple of others at least .
Good luck getting Microsoft to implement that properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It needs to be built into the software and reasonable transparent to the user.
There also needs to be a standard for generating, sharing (between applications) and sending public keys.
This means buy-in from at least Outlook, Thunderbird, Firefox, IE and probably a couple of others at least.
Good luck getting Microsoft to implement that properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31501890</id>
	<title>Re:Keep your email under your bed!</title>
	<author>ciggieposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1268736420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>never let any ISP, Google or whomever to store copies of my mail any longer than it is needed for technical purposes of SMTP protocol.</p></div><p>How do you know they're not storing it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>never let any ISP , Google or whomever to store copies of my mail any longer than it is needed for technical purposes of SMTP protocol.How do you know they 're not storing it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>never let any ISP, Google or whomever to store copies of my mail any longer than it is needed for technical purposes of SMTP protocol.How do you know they're not storing it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498282</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect from ancient judges?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268764020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly... That has been Phil Zimmerman's point for many years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly... That has been Phil Zimmerman 's point for many years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly... That has been Phil Zimmerman's point for many years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494566</id>
	<title>Google?</title>
	<author>Fractal Dice</author>
	<datestamp>1268750700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will google now pull out of the US?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will google now pull out of the US ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will google now pull out of the US?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495956</id>
	<title>Well how about this...</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1268755560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any personal work is already backed by copyright.  The government, or anyone else, making copies of that e-mail but not being the intended recipients are violating my rights to this personal work.</p><p>HOW ABOUT SOMEONE IN GOVERNMENT STOPS AND THINKS IF THEY WANT THIS SHIT DONE TO THEM.</p><p>Hackers should expose government employees and leaders' personal e-mails and collect/track their data and present it online in a searchable manner.  I don't think these people are going to care about THE PEOPLE until THE PEOPLE show them that they are people too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any personal work is already backed by copyright .
The government , or anyone else , making copies of that e-mail but not being the intended recipients are violating my rights to this personal work.HOW ABOUT SOMEONE IN GOVERNMENT STOPS AND THINKS IF THEY WANT THIS SHIT DONE TO THEM.Hackers should expose government employees and leaders ' personal e-mails and collect/track their data and present it online in a searchable manner .
I do n't think these people are going to care about THE PEOPLE until THE PEOPLE show them that they are people too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any personal work is already backed by copyright.
The government, or anyone else, making copies of that e-mail but not being the intended recipients are violating my rights to this personal work.HOW ABOUT SOMEONE IN GOVERNMENT STOPS AND THINKS IF THEY WANT THIS SHIT DONE TO THEM.Hackers should expose government employees and leaders' personal e-mails and collect/track their data and present it online in a searchable manner.
I don't think these people are going to care about THE PEOPLE until THE PEOPLE show them that they are people too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496054</id>
	<title>This quote seems appropriate</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1268755980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin\_Lomasney" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin\_Lomasney</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never write if you can speak ; never speak if you can nod ; never nod if you can wink .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin \ _Lomasney [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin\_Lomasney [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497668</id>
	<title>It is time for revolution.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268761680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Government Convenience trumps the right to privacy, when progressives (progressing towards what?(communism Marxism?) rule the house and the Senate.<br>When security becomes more important than freedom. (Post Sept 11th 2001 near police state, scanners at airports that see through clothes, National ID's being pushed, fingerprinting at the DMV, etc etc etc)<br>When Government spending reaches a level that is unsustainable and risks triggering economic collapse (an another excuse for martial law or government control)<br>When the will of the people is ignored (Current Health Care bill)<br>When laws are passed that mitigate freedom and violate fundamental rights that all men and women are endowed with from birth.<br>When you have had enough of being told what to do by a Government that thinks it knows better than you do.<br>Then you must take up arms and throw off the bonds that shackle you.<br>You must remove the head of the beast that oppresses you and takes away your freedoms.<br>You must start a revolution!!!</p><p>Back in the late 1700's revolution meant something, today my guess is the sheeple will just beg their congressmen for more handouts and entitlements.  They will pay with their rights and their freedoms.  Meanwhile a small group of us are stockpiling guns and ammo and are waiting for the horror which our founding fathers knew one day must happen.  The replanting of the tree of liberty, and the watering of said tree with the blood of patriots.</p><p>Please contact your congressman or vote them out of office is they don't listen.  Buy a weapon and learn how to use it.  Read the constitution of the USA and fight for it, do not let such a brilliant piece of genius become a footnote in history.  We are all the government, we are all this country, and we must all fight for it.  Via language and discourse, via email, pamphlet and prose, or via the hot fire of lead as we destroy those who should dare to think they can vanquish freedom from hearts of true Americans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Government Convenience trumps the right to privacy , when progressives ( progressing towards what ?
( communism Marxism ?
) rule the house and the Senate.When security becomes more important than freedom .
( Post Sept 11th 2001 near police state , scanners at airports that see through clothes , National ID 's being pushed , fingerprinting at the DMV , etc etc etc ) When Government spending reaches a level that is unsustainable and risks triggering economic collapse ( an another excuse for martial law or government control ) When the will of the people is ignored ( Current Health Care bill ) When laws are passed that mitigate freedom and violate fundamental rights that all men and women are endowed with from birth.When you have had enough of being told what to do by a Government that thinks it knows better than you do.Then you must take up arms and throw off the bonds that shackle you.You must remove the head of the beast that oppresses you and takes away your freedoms.You must start a revolution ! !
! Back in the late 1700 's revolution meant something , today my guess is the sheeple will just beg their congressmen for more handouts and entitlements .
They will pay with their rights and their freedoms .
Meanwhile a small group of us are stockpiling guns and ammo and are waiting for the horror which our founding fathers knew one day must happen .
The replanting of the tree of liberty , and the watering of said tree with the blood of patriots.Please contact your congressman or vote them out of office is they do n't listen .
Buy a weapon and learn how to use it .
Read the constitution of the USA and fight for it , do not let such a brilliant piece of genius become a footnote in history .
We are all the government , we are all this country , and we must all fight for it .
Via language and discourse , via email , pamphlet and prose , or via the hot fire of lead as we destroy those who should dare to think they can vanquish freedom from hearts of true Americans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Government Convenience trumps the right to privacy, when progressives (progressing towards what?
(communism Marxism?
) rule the house and the Senate.When security becomes more important than freedom.
(Post Sept 11th 2001 near police state, scanners at airports that see through clothes, National ID's being pushed, fingerprinting at the DMV, etc etc etc)When Government spending reaches a level that is unsustainable and risks triggering economic collapse (an another excuse for martial law or government control)When the will of the people is ignored (Current Health Care bill)When laws are passed that mitigate freedom and violate fundamental rights that all men and women are endowed with from birth.When you have had enough of being told what to do by a Government that thinks it knows better than you do.Then you must take up arms and throw off the bonds that shackle you.You must remove the head of the beast that oppresses you and takes away your freedoms.You must start a revolution!!
!Back in the late 1700's revolution meant something, today my guess is the sheeple will just beg their congressmen for more handouts and entitlements.
They will pay with their rights and their freedoms.
Meanwhile a small group of us are stockpiling guns and ammo and are waiting for the horror which our founding fathers knew one day must happen.
The replanting of the tree of liberty, and the watering of said tree with the blood of patriots.Please contact your congressman or vote them out of office is they don't listen.
Buy a weapon and learn how to use it.
Read the constitution of the USA and fight for it, do not let such a brilliant piece of genius become a footnote in history.
We are all the government, we are all this country, and we must all fight for it.
Via language and discourse, via email, pamphlet and prose, or via the hot fire of lead as we destroy those who should dare to think they can vanquish freedom from hearts of true Americans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495588</id>
	<title>What's delivery?</title>
	<author>ciggieposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1268754300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
What constitutes "delivery"?

</p><ul>
<li>Opening the message on an IMAP server?</li><li>Having your computer automatically download the message from a POP server?</li><li>Having it arrive at your webmail server?</li><li>Does an email that bounces get delivered twice?</li><li>Were emails that were deleted by an automatic rule on the server count as delivered, even when no human read them?</li><li>What if the deletion rule was on the client?</li></ul><p>
This sounds to me like the court wanted the emails to be admissible and Made Up Shit to make it so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What constitutes " delivery " ?
Opening the message on an IMAP server ? Having your computer automatically download the message from a POP server ? Having it arrive at your webmail server ? Does an email that bounces get delivered twice ? Were emails that were deleted by an automatic rule on the server count as delivered , even when no human read them ? What if the deletion rule was on the client ?
This sounds to me like the court wanted the emails to be admissible and Made Up Shit to make it so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
What constitutes "delivery"?
Opening the message on an IMAP server?Having your computer automatically download the message from a POP server?Having it arrive at your webmail server?Does an email that bounces get delivered twice?Were emails that were deleted by an automatic rule on the server count as delivered, even when no human read them?What if the deletion rule was on the client?
This sounds to me like the court wanted the emails to be admissible and Made Up Shit to make it so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495784</id>
	<title>Encrypt encrypt encrypt</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1268755080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's hot in Suez. The dice are on the table. The long sobs of autumn violins, wounding my heart with a monotonous languor.</p><p>Funny, the Germans never suspected that the above meant: "Attack all telephone lines. Sabotage railway lines. D-day has begun, sabotage railway lines in the West, general mobilization: attack munitions dumps, transmissions, rail networks and German convoys".</p><p>This is how you hide things in plain sight. It's better than encryption because, well, there are no passwords to be thrown in jail over. Of course the guy on the other end has to know what he's doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hot in Suez .
The dice are on the table .
The long sobs of autumn violins , wounding my heart with a monotonous languor.Funny , the Germans never suspected that the above meant : " Attack all telephone lines .
Sabotage railway lines .
D-day has begun , sabotage railway lines in the West , general mobilization : attack munitions dumps , transmissions , rail networks and German convoys " .This is how you hide things in plain sight .
It 's better than encryption because , well , there are no passwords to be thrown in jail over .
Of course the guy on the other end has to know what he 's doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hot in Suez.
The dice are on the table.
The long sobs of autumn violins, wounding my heart with a monotonous languor.Funny, the Germans never suspected that the above meant: "Attack all telephone lines.
Sabotage railway lines.
D-day has begun, sabotage railway lines in the West, general mobilization: attack munitions dumps, transmissions, rail networks and German convoys".This is how you hide things in plain sight.
It's better than encryption because, well, there are no passwords to be thrown in jail over.
Of course the guy on the other end has to know what he's doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31500566</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect from ancient judges?</title>
	<author>RightwingNutjob</author>
	<datestamp>1268773140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If memory serves, there was a case a few years back when it was ruled that encryption keys (for hard disks?) were protected under the 5th amendment, ie you couldn't be compelled to reveal it in a criminal case. There's precedent on the side of privacy, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If memory serves , there was a case a few years back when it was ruled that encryption keys ( for hard disks ?
) were protected under the 5th amendment , ie you could n't be compelled to reveal it in a criminal case .
There 's precedent on the side of privacy , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If memory serves, there was a case a few years back when it was ruled that encryption keys (for hard disks?
) were protected under the 5th amendment, ie you couldn't be compelled to reveal it in a criminal case.
There's precedent on the side of privacy, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494664</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect from ancient judges?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268751120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember the old adage "Never put in an e-mail something you would not mind being overheard in the street"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember the old adage " Never put in an e-mail something you would not mind being overheard in the street " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember the old adage "Never put in an e-mail something you would not mind being overheard in the street"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494846</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on...</title>
	<author>hacker</author>
	<datestamp>1268751660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you send your email to somebody (the "third party") that somebody can choose to hand it over to anyone.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is <em>PRECISELY</em> why you encrypt emails to recipients... there is absolutely no doubt that there was an expectation of privacy, when the receiver has to decrypt the email using a private key, to read it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you send your email to somebody ( the " third party " ) that somebody can choose to hand it over to anyone.This is PRECISELY why you encrypt emails to recipients... there is absolutely no doubt that there was an expectation of privacy , when the receiver has to decrypt the email using a private key , to read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you send your email to somebody (the "third party") that somebody can choose to hand it over to anyone.This is PRECISELY why you encrypt emails to recipients... there is absolutely no doubt that there was an expectation of privacy, when the receiver has to decrypt the email using a private key, to read it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498360</id>
	<title>So which is it, liberals?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268764320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. "The founding fathers did not anticipate fully automatic machine guns, therefore the Second Amendment does not apply."

2. "The founding fathers did not anticipate email, therefore the Fourth Amendment does not apply."

If #1 applies, so does #2.  If #2 does not apply, neither does #1.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
" The founding fathers did not anticipate fully automatic machine guns , therefore the Second Amendment does not apply .
" 2 .
" The founding fathers did not anticipate email , therefore the Fourth Amendment does not apply .
" If # 1 applies , so does # 2 .
If # 2 does not apply , neither does # 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
"The founding fathers did not anticipate fully automatic machine guns, therefore the Second Amendment does not apply.
"

2.
"The founding fathers did not anticipate email, therefore the Fourth Amendment does not apply.
"

If #1 applies, so does #2.
If #2 does not apply, neither does #1.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31504916</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1268760600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>When I make a phone call, I don't expect privacy either.  But I do expect my 4th amendment rights to be in force.  So just because someone can tap in and listen, doesn't mean that the government can do so to gather evidence...  And that's the subtle difference here.  Just because "someone" can read what I sent, doesn't give the government the right to spy in on it.
I'll give you another example.  You're in your back-yard at your house talking with a friend.  Sure, neighbors can likely hear your conversation, so you don't have an unusual expectation of privacy.  But, if a FBI agent is sitting in a tree 100 yards away with a sound amplifier pointed at you (and hence recording/listening in to your conversation), that would be an invasion of your 4th amendment rights.  And privacy is relative (you even allude to it in your quote).  The fact that "objectively reasonable" is used to qualify privacy shows that it's relative.  In your back yard, you wouldn't expect someone to explicitly listen in to your conversation (unless you were yelling).  Conversely, if you were on a crowded train, you wouldn't expect any type of privacy from verbal communication (But you would expect a reasonable level of privacy if you were typing on your computer on said train).  That's the difference.  Not if there is any form of privacy, but if there is a reasonable expectation given the circumstances...
JMHO...</i></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I make a phone call , I do n't expect privacy either .
But I do expect my 4th amendment rights to be in force .
So just because someone can tap in and listen , does n't mean that the government can do so to gather evidence... And that 's the subtle difference here .
Just because " someone " can read what I sent , does n't give the government the right to spy in on it .
I 'll give you another example .
You 're in your back-yard at your house talking with a friend .
Sure , neighbors can likely hear your conversation , so you do n't have an unusual expectation of privacy .
But , if a FBI agent is sitting in a tree 100 yards away with a sound amplifier pointed at you ( and hence recording/listening in to your conversation ) , that would be an invasion of your 4th amendment rights .
And privacy is relative ( you even allude to it in your quote ) .
The fact that " objectively reasonable " is used to qualify privacy shows that it 's relative .
In your back yard , you would n't expect someone to explicitly listen in to your conversation ( unless you were yelling ) .
Conversely , if you were on a crowded train , you would n't expect any type of privacy from verbal communication ( But you would expect a reasonable level of privacy if you were typing on your computer on said train ) .
That 's the difference .
Not if there is any form of privacy , but if there is a reasonable expectation given the circumstances.. . JMHO.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I make a phone call, I don't expect privacy either.
But I do expect my 4th amendment rights to be in force.
So just because someone can tap in and listen, doesn't mean that the government can do so to gather evidence...  And that's the subtle difference here.
Just because "someone" can read what I sent, doesn't give the government the right to spy in on it.
I'll give you another example.
You're in your back-yard at your house talking with a friend.
Sure, neighbors can likely hear your conversation, so you don't have an unusual expectation of privacy.
But, if a FBI agent is sitting in a tree 100 yards away with a sound amplifier pointed at you (and hence recording/listening in to your conversation), that would be an invasion of your 4th amendment rights.
And privacy is relative (you even allude to it in your quote).
The fact that "objectively reasonable" is used to qualify privacy shows that it's relative.
In your back yard, you wouldn't expect someone to explicitly listen in to your conversation (unless you were yelling).
Conversely, if you were on a crowded train, you wouldn't expect any type of privacy from verbal communication (But you would expect a reasonable level of privacy if you were typing on your computer on said train).
That's the difference.
Not if there is any form of privacy, but if there is a reasonable expectation given the circumstances...
JMHO...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494812</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on...</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1268751540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's how the Fourth Amendment works. However in this case, they've taken it to mean that if the postman were to copy the letter in transit, because it's likely to get lost for example, then it'd be okay for the government to seize that copy, so long as Bob gets his copy first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's how the Fourth Amendment works .
However in this case , they 've taken it to mean that if the postman were to copy the letter in transit , because it 's likely to get lost for example , then it 'd be okay for the government to seize that copy , so long as Bob gets his copy first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's how the Fourth Amendment works.
However in this case, they've taken it to mean that if the postman were to copy the letter in transit, because it's likely to get lost for example, then it'd be okay for the government to seize that copy, so long as Bob gets his copy first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495812</id>
	<title>Re:Why the court is wron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268755140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200911897.pdf" title="uscourts.gov">http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200911897.pdf</a> [uscourts.gov]</p><p>"Rehberg does not allege Hodges and Paulk illegally searched his home computer for emails, but<br>alleges Hodges and Paulk subpoenaed the emails directly from the third-party<br>Internet service provider to which Rehberg transmitted the messages."</p><p>So there was a subpoena, and the court says when you send someone information, the receiver can share your letter with anyone.</p><p>I may have missed it, but I didn't red where the government broke into anyones home without a Subpoena.</p><p>"Conversely, the fact that the recipient of the mail does not have Fourth Amendment rights in the copy does not mean that the government can break into the recipient's house to read the original."<br>Yes it does, if the "government" has a subpoena. For clarifications, the 4th Amendment:<br>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, <b>but upon probable cause, supported by <i>Oath or affirmation</i> </b>, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200911897.pdf [ uscourts.gov ] " Rehberg does not allege Hodges and Paulk illegally searched his home computer for emails , butalleges Hodges and Paulk subpoenaed the emails directly from the third-partyInternet service provider to which Rehberg transmitted the messages .
" So there was a subpoena , and the court says when you send someone information , the receiver can share your letter with anyone.I may have missed it , but I did n't red where the government broke into anyones home without a Subpoena .
" Conversely , the fact that the recipient of the mail does not have Fourth Amendment rights in the copy does not mean that the government can break into the recipient 's house to read the original .
" Yes it does , if the " government " has a subpoena .
For clarifications , the 4th Amendment : " The right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses , papers , and effects , against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated , and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause , supported by Oath or affirmation , and particularly describing the place to be searched , and the persons or things to be seized .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200911897.pdf [uscourts.gov]"Rehberg does not allege Hodges and Paulk illegally searched his home computer for emails, butalleges Hodges and Paulk subpoenaed the emails directly from the third-partyInternet service provider to which Rehberg transmitted the messages.
"So there was a subpoena, and the court says when you send someone information, the receiver can share your letter with anyone.I may have missed it, but I didn't red where the government broke into anyones home without a Subpoena.
"Conversely, the fact that the recipient of the mail does not have Fourth Amendment rights in the copy does not mean that the government can break into the recipient's house to read the original.
"Yes it does, if the "government" has a subpoena.
For clarifications, the 4th Amendment:"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation , and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498094</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect from ancient judges?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268763300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, what a shitty country you live in. I'm regularly appaled for the continuous loss of rights you experience there in the USA. Specially from 9/11. With the your technological edge lost, your IP industry stuttering under the power of raising economies, the biggest debt in the world and China pulling you out of the hole... this will not end well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , what a shitty country you live in .
I 'm regularly appaled for the continuous loss of rights you experience there in the USA .
Specially from 9/11 .
With the your technological edge lost , your IP industry stuttering under the power of raising economies , the biggest debt in the world and China pulling you out of the hole... this will not end well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, what a shitty country you live in.
I'm regularly appaled for the continuous loss of rights you experience there in the USA.
Specially from 9/11.
With the your technological edge lost, your IP industry stuttering under the power of raising economies, the biggest debt in the world and China pulling you out of the hole... this will not end well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31501054</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on...</title>
	<author>CycleFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1268732280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the notion of broadband providers as "mere conduits"?</p><p>They don't attempt to filter content on the grounds that the nanosecond they do that, then they are liable for any/all content that flows through their service.</p><p>By the same logic, an entity that is a "mere conduit" is <b>NOT</b> a 3rd party to which ownership of any of the content - including email - is given. The case is crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the notion of broadband providers as " mere conduits " ? They do n't attempt to filter content on the grounds that the nanosecond they do that , then they are liable for any/all content that flows through their service.By the same logic , an entity that is a " mere conduit " is NOT a 3rd party to which ownership of any of the content - including email - is given .
The case is crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the notion of broadband providers as "mere conduits"?They don't attempt to filter content on the grounds that the nanosecond they do that, then they are liable for any/all content that flows through their service.By the same logic, an entity that is a "mere conduit" is NOT a 3rd party to which ownership of any of the content - including email - is given.
The case is crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496548</id>
	<title>That's it, folks.  Keep voting for bigger govt.</title>
	<author>osgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1268757840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul><li>Keep voting for politicians who know how to grab and keep power.</li><li>Keep voting for politicians who will buy votes with "free" health care, farm subsidies, and the eternal money pit of social welfare programs.</li><li>Keep voting for politicians who will wage endless expensive wars in other countries or against drugs or against poverty.</li><li>Keep voting for politicians so in bed with obviously toxic society-destroying entities like the teachers' unions, the American Bar Association, PACs, etc.</li><li>Keep voting for politicians who are okay with special privileges only for them and their political friends.</li><li>Keep voting for politicians who keep raising taxes and the debt ceiling because obviously they haven't received enough money and power yet.</li></ul><p>Go ahead, look at that list above and pick out the things that "the other party" does and nod your head in agreement.  Ignore the equally destructive sins of your own party since their shiny beads are worth selling your soul for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep voting for politicians who know how to grab and keep power.Keep voting for politicians who will buy votes with " free " health care , farm subsidies , and the eternal money pit of social welfare programs.Keep voting for politicians who will wage endless expensive wars in other countries or against drugs or against poverty.Keep voting for politicians so in bed with obviously toxic society-destroying entities like the teachers ' unions , the American Bar Association , PACs , etc.Keep voting for politicians who are okay with special privileges only for them and their political friends.Keep voting for politicians who keep raising taxes and the debt ceiling because obviously they have n't received enough money and power yet.Go ahead , look at that list above and pick out the things that " the other party " does and nod your head in agreement .
Ignore the equally destructive sins of your own party since their shiny beads are worth selling your soul for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep voting for politicians who know how to grab and keep power.Keep voting for politicians who will buy votes with "free" health care, farm subsidies, and the eternal money pit of social welfare programs.Keep voting for politicians who will wage endless expensive wars in other countries or against drugs or against poverty.Keep voting for politicians so in bed with obviously toxic society-destroying entities like the teachers' unions, the American Bar Association, PACs, etc.Keep voting for politicians who are okay with special privileges only for them and their political friends.Keep voting for politicians who keep raising taxes and the debt ceiling because obviously they haven't received enough money and power yet.Go ahead, look at that list above and pick out the things that "the other party" does and nod your head in agreement.
Ignore the equally destructive sins of your own party since their shiny beads are worth selling your soul for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495002</id>
	<title>ALOT more to this case that is disturbing...</title>
	<author>Felgerkarb</author>
	<datestamp>1268752200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For reference, here is <a href="http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100311081" title="leagle.com" rel="nofollow">the text of the appellate court judgment.</a> [leagle.com] <p>

IANAL but, wow! I had no idea how bad this could be! The story from the judgment is that some guy sent faxes to a hospital complaining and mocking the management. As a favor, some local prosecutors investigated and set up false prosecution INCLUDING FALSE TESTIMONY to a grand jury. They subpoenaed everything including emails and phone calls. </p><p>

The long and the short of it is that, because they are prosecutors, they are given absolute immunity from prosecution for their grand jury testimony, even if it is knowingly false! They are given immunity from the conspiracy to provide false testimony, since the only evidence of false testimony would be the grand jury testimony itself, which is protected!</p><p>

The 4th amendment issues seem also weird to me. They say that you cannot expect a phone number to be private, since by <i>dialing it</i> you have given the number to the phone company, which is a third party. Really?! What is the point of a phone number, what value does it have, except with regard to the third party, in this case the phone company? I can't shout someones phone number in the street expecting that they will respond, and in any case, that also makes it public and not protected by the 4th. Again, IANAL but under what conditions would an email ever be considered private? What about letters and packages that aren't sent through the postal system? Are they private? I just don't understand this.</p><p>

Again, I have no perspective and experience for this, but as a layperson, I really hope that other courts find this reasoning flawed. It seem very much so just by common sense to me, though I understand common sense doesn't necessarily mean anything here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For reference , here is the text of the appellate court judgment .
[ leagle.com ] IANAL but , wow !
I had no idea how bad this could be !
The story from the judgment is that some guy sent faxes to a hospital complaining and mocking the management .
As a favor , some local prosecutors investigated and set up false prosecution INCLUDING FALSE TESTIMONY to a grand jury .
They subpoenaed everything including emails and phone calls .
The long and the short of it is that , because they are prosecutors , they are given absolute immunity from prosecution for their grand jury testimony , even if it is knowingly false !
They are given immunity from the conspiracy to provide false testimony , since the only evidence of false testimony would be the grand jury testimony itself , which is protected !
The 4th amendment issues seem also weird to me .
They say that you can not expect a phone number to be private , since by dialing it you have given the number to the phone company , which is a third party .
Really ? ! What is the point of a phone number , what value does it have , except with regard to the third party , in this case the phone company ?
I ca n't shout someones phone number in the street expecting that they will respond , and in any case , that also makes it public and not protected by the 4th .
Again , IANAL but under what conditions would an email ever be considered private ?
What about letters and packages that are n't sent through the postal system ?
Are they private ?
I just do n't understand this .
Again , I have no perspective and experience for this , but as a layperson , I really hope that other courts find this reasoning flawed .
It seem very much so just by common sense to me , though I understand common sense does n't necessarily mean anything here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For reference, here is the text of the appellate court judgment.
[leagle.com] 

IANAL but, wow!
I had no idea how bad this could be!
The story from the judgment is that some guy sent faxes to a hospital complaining and mocking the management.
As a favor, some local prosecutors investigated and set up false prosecution INCLUDING FALSE TESTIMONY to a grand jury.
They subpoenaed everything including emails and phone calls.
The long and the short of it is that, because they are prosecutors, they are given absolute immunity from prosecution for their grand jury testimony, even if it is knowingly false!
They are given immunity from the conspiracy to provide false testimony, since the only evidence of false testimony would be the grand jury testimony itself, which is protected!
The 4th amendment issues seem also weird to me.
They say that you cannot expect a phone number to be private, since by dialing it you have given the number to the phone company, which is a third party.
Really?! What is the point of a phone number, what value does it have, except with regard to the third party, in this case the phone company?
I can't shout someones phone number in the street expecting that they will respond, and in any case, that also makes it public and not protected by the 4th.
Again, IANAL but under what conditions would an email ever be considered private?
What about letters and packages that aren't sent through the postal system?
Are they private?
I just don't understand this.
Again, I have no perspective and experience for this, but as a layperson, I really hope that other courts find this reasoning flawed.
It seem very much so just by common sense to me, though I understand common sense doesn't necessarily mean anything here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495366</id>
	<title>Re:Email is like Postcards....</title>
	<author>Null Nihils</author>
	<datestamp>1268753460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I <b>strongly</b> disagree. <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=350253&amp;cid=21239759" title="slashdot.org">I've said it before</a> [slashdot.org], I'll say it again: It's <i>not</i> like mailing a postcard, it's like sending an electrically encoded text message over a packet-switched data network where the only expected viewing point is at the intended recipient's terminal; this is how the e-mail protocol was designed to work. Sure, a malicious party can read it because it's not encrypted, but someone can easily slice open a postal mail envelope and read the contents of that, too. (You can encrypt the text of your postal-mail letters, but one already has an expectation of privacy, so few people bother. Same as e-mail.)
<br> <br>
The bottom line is, since a non-trivial effort has to be made to read the contents, and since the service has always been presented as a "sealed letter" (via GUI icons, ISP adverts, etc), the average user is <i>not</i> unreasonable in expecting privacy.
<br> <br>
It should be <i>obvious</i> that the 4th amendment applies to e-mail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I strongly disagree .
I 've said it before [ slashdot.org ] , I 'll say it again : It 's not like mailing a postcard , it 's like sending an electrically encoded text message over a packet-switched data network where the only expected viewing point is at the intended recipient 's terminal ; this is how the e-mail protocol was designed to work .
Sure , a malicious party can read it because it 's not encrypted , but someone can easily slice open a postal mail envelope and read the contents of that , too .
( You can encrypt the text of your postal-mail letters , but one already has an expectation of privacy , so few people bother .
Same as e-mail .
) The bottom line is , since a non-trivial effort has to be made to read the contents , and since the service has always been presented as a " sealed letter " ( via GUI icons , ISP adverts , etc ) , the average user is not unreasonable in expecting privacy .
It should be obvious that the 4th amendment applies to e-mail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I strongly disagree.
I've said it before [slashdot.org], I'll say it again: It's not like mailing a postcard, it's like sending an electrically encoded text message over a packet-switched data network where the only expected viewing point is at the intended recipient's terminal; this is how the e-mail protocol was designed to work.
Sure, a malicious party can read it because it's not encrypted, but someone can easily slice open a postal mail envelope and read the contents of that, too.
(You can encrypt the text of your postal-mail letters, but one already has an expectation of privacy, so few people bother.
Same as e-mail.
)
 
The bottom line is, since a non-trivial effort has to be made to read the contents, and since the service has always been presented as a "sealed letter" (via GUI icons, ISP adverts, etc), the average user is not unreasonable in expecting privacy.
It should be obvious that the 4th amendment applies to e-mail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496696</id>
	<title>Re:Email is like Postcards....</title>
	<author>urulokion</author>
	<datestamp>1268758320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parent has is exactly right. E-mail is an entirely different realm from a postcard. It doesn't take any extra effort or equipment to read a postcard. Its entirely open for the world to see.</p><p>E-mail on the other hand can't be casually read by another person. Can you glance at a mail server and see all of the stored e-mails? Can you sense e-mails with your senses as if transverse a wire, through the air, or as a light impulse over a fiber optic strand? Can you look at my GMail account mail? No? Is it maybe i requires my credentials in order to access my GMail inbox? It takes extra-order effort or access (account permissions) in order to view e-mail. And most (if not all) E-mail service providers have policies in place to prevent employees from read customer's e-mails.And they are laws which penalize people for unauthorized viewing of e-mails. A knowledgeable and reasonable person has an expectation of privacy of their e-mails. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent has is exactly right .
E-mail is an entirely different realm from a postcard .
It does n't take any extra effort or equipment to read a postcard .
Its entirely open for the world to see.E-mail on the other hand ca n't be casually read by another person .
Can you glance at a mail server and see all of the stored e-mails ?
Can you sense e-mails with your senses as if transverse a wire , through the air , or as a light impulse over a fiber optic strand ?
Can you look at my GMail account mail ?
No ? Is it maybe i requires my credentials in order to access my GMail inbox ?
It takes extra-order effort or access ( account permissions ) in order to view e-mail .
And most ( if not all ) E-mail service providers have policies in place to prevent employees from read customer 's e-mails.And they are laws which penalize people for unauthorized viewing of e-mails .
A knowledgeable and reasonable person has an expectation of privacy of their e-mails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent has is exactly right.
E-mail is an entirely different realm from a postcard.
It doesn't take any extra effort or equipment to read a postcard.
Its entirely open for the world to see.E-mail on the other hand can't be casually read by another person.
Can you glance at a mail server and see all of the stored e-mails?
Can you sense e-mails with your senses as if transverse a wire, through the air, or as a light impulse over a fiber optic strand?
Can you look at my GMail account mail?
No? Is it maybe i requires my credentials in order to access my GMail inbox?
It takes extra-order effort or access (account permissions) in order to view e-mail.
And most (if not all) E-mail service providers have policies in place to prevent employees from read customer's e-mails.And they are laws which penalize people for unauthorized viewing of e-mails.
A knowledgeable and reasonable person has an expectation of privacy of their e-mails. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494448</id>
	<title>What do you expect from ancient judges?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268750100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Half of the court probably had to have the concept of "email" explained to them. These were the annoying pricks that wore ties to class back in law school, most of whom were out of touch even back then. Now you expect a reasonable verdict that reflects modern innovations and changing behavior out of them?</p><p>"Email. Is that what my grandkids play their tic-tac-toe games on?"</p><p>"Uh, no Your Honor, that's probably a portable gaming console."</p><p>"Can I send a Tivo with one of those things?"</p><p>"No sir, a Tivo is a Digital Video Recorder."</p><p>"So an email is a Tivo?"</p><p>"Sir, I don't even know how to answer that."</p><p>"I'm ready to rule!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Half of the court probably had to have the concept of " email " explained to them .
These were the annoying pricks that wore ties to class back in law school , most of whom were out of touch even back then .
Now you expect a reasonable verdict that reflects modern innovations and changing behavior out of them ? " Email .
Is that what my grandkids play their tic-tac-toe games on ?
" " Uh , no Your Honor , that 's probably a portable gaming console .
" " Can I send a Tivo with one of those things ?
" " No sir , a Tivo is a Digital Video Recorder .
" " So an email is a Tivo ?
" " Sir , I do n't even know how to answer that .
" " I 'm ready to rule !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Half of the court probably had to have the concept of "email" explained to them.
These were the annoying pricks that wore ties to class back in law school, most of whom were out of touch even back then.
Now you expect a reasonable verdict that reflects modern innovations and changing behavior out of them?"Email.
Is that what my grandkids play their tic-tac-toe games on?
""Uh, no Your Honor, that's probably a portable gaming console.
""Can I send a Tivo with one of those things?
""No sir, a Tivo is a Digital Video Recorder.
""So an email is a Tivo?
""Sir, I don't even know how to answer that.
""I'm ready to rule!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495456</id>
	<title>Alice has expectation of privacy if Bob promised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268753820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't need to read the case (if you want to imply you are are qualified to comment on law then why not just say so).</p><p>Alice has expectation of privacy from Bob if Bob promised not to tell anyone.</p><p>Now in the twisted reality of legal world where words mean just what lawyers want them to mean until a bigger lawyer contradicts them, maybe Alice has no expectation of anything... but in the real world, she does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't need to read the case ( if you want to imply you are are qualified to comment on law then why not just say so ) .Alice has expectation of privacy from Bob if Bob promised not to tell anyone.Now in the twisted reality of legal world where words mean just what lawyers want them to mean until a bigger lawyer contradicts them , maybe Alice has no expectation of anything... but in the real world , she does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't need to read the case (if you want to imply you are are qualified to comment on law then why not just say so).Alice has expectation of privacy from Bob if Bob promised not to tell anyone.Now in the twisted reality of legal world where words mean just what lawyers want them to mean until a bigger lawyer contradicts them, maybe Alice has no expectation of anything... but in the real world, she does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497176</id>
	<title>Re:Email is like Postcards....</title>
	<author>whoever57</author>
	<datestamp>1268759880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Email is like sending a message on a postcard.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

No, not any longer. While not universally supported, many ISPs support SSL and TLS  (including SMTP-TLS). This means that emails may be encrypted during all transmissions. The email may be unencrypted on the destination mail server, but if that ISP had some simple privacy policies, it would be entirely reasonable to have an expectation of privacy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Email is like sending a message on a postcard .
No , not any longer .
While not universally supported , many ISPs support SSL and TLS ( including SMTP-TLS ) .
This means that emails may be encrypted during all transmissions .
The email may be unencrypted on the destination mail server , but if that ISP had some simple privacy policies , it would be entirely reasonable to have an expectation of privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email is like sending a message on a postcard.
No, not any longer.
While not universally supported, many ISPs support SSL and TLS  (including SMTP-TLS).
This means that emails may be encrypted during all transmissions.
The email may be unencrypted on the destination mail server, but if that ISP had some simple privacy policies, it would be entirely reasonable to have an expectation of privacy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496000</id>
	<title>Works Both Ways</title>
	<author>Plekto</author>
	<datestamp>1268755680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What this says about our privacy and all of that is troubling, to be sure, but this also applies as well to the government itself, doesn't it?  Ie - if their emails aren't going from a government system to a government system without anyone in between, then they also are fair game for law enforcement?</p><p>What I get out of this boils down to essentially: "If it hits any public source or ISP along the way, it's no longer considered protected."</p><p>So much for iPhones and Blackberrys and all of that in D.C...</p><p>When this flip side of the ruling is understood in a few days(they are a bit slow at times in Congress), I expect it to be changed back fairly quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What this says about our privacy and all of that is troubling , to be sure , but this also applies as well to the government itself , does n't it ?
Ie - if their emails are n't going from a government system to a government system without anyone in between , then they also are fair game for law enforcement ? What I get out of this boils down to essentially : " If it hits any public source or ISP along the way , it 's no longer considered protected .
" So much for iPhones and Blackberrys and all of that in D.C...When this flip side of the ruling is understood in a few days ( they are a bit slow at times in Congress ) , I expect it to be changed back fairly quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What this says about our privacy and all of that is troubling, to be sure, but this also applies as well to the government itself, doesn't it?
Ie - if their emails aren't going from a government system to a government system without anyone in between, then they also are fair game for law enforcement?What I get out of this boils down to essentially: "If it hits any public source or ISP along the way, it's no longer considered protected.
"So much for iPhones and Blackberrys and all of that in D.C...When this flip side of the ruling is understood in a few days(they are a bit slow at times in Congress), I expect it to be changed back fairly quickly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497368</id>
	<title>Re:Google?</title>
	<author>Syberz</author>
	<datestamp>1268760540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will google now pull out of the US?</p></div><p>Yes, they didn't want to get China pregnant, so I suspect that it'd be the same with the US.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will google now pull out of the US ? Yes , they did n't want to get China pregnant , so I suspect that it 'd be the same with the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will google now pull out of the US?Yes, they didn't want to get China pregnant, so I suspect that it'd be the same with the US.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31512598</id>
	<title>Grammar School English FAIL (again)?</title>
	<author>maryR</author>
	<datestamp>1268853900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh come now people... can we really expect 11th circuit court judges to be able to distinguish between the pronouns "by" and "to"?</p><p>Let's do a quick poll among intelligent slashdotters:<br>Question: Is there a legal distinction between "email sent to an ISP" versus "email sent by an ISP"?  Answer choice are:<br>a) Yes<br>b) No<br>c) It depends on what the definition of "is" is.<br>d) You didn't say "simon says".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh come now people... can we really expect 11th circuit court judges to be able to distinguish between the pronouns " by " and " to " ? Let 's do a quick poll among intelligent slashdotters : Question : Is there a legal distinction between " email sent to an ISP " versus " email sent by an ISP " ?
Answer choice are : a ) Yesb ) Noc ) It depends on what the definition of " is " is.d ) You did n't say " simon says " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh come now people... can we really expect 11th circuit court judges to be able to distinguish between the pronouns "by" and "to"?Let's do a quick poll among intelligent slashdotters:Question: Is there a legal distinction between "email sent to an ISP" versus "email sent by an ISP"?
Answer choice are:a) Yesb) Noc) It depends on what the definition of "is" is.d) You didn't say "simon says".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31499260</id>
	<title>Re:Email is like Postcards....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268767740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PGP creator Phil Zimmermann would disagree with you....</p><p>http://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/index.html</p><p>Here is a partial quote</p><p>Perhaps you think your email is legitimate enough that encryption is unwarranted. If you really are a law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide, then why don't you always send your paper mail on postcards? Why not submit to drug testing on demand? Why require a warrant for police searches of your house? Are you trying to hide something? If you hide your mail inside envelopes, does that mean you must be a subversive or a drug dealer, or maybe a paranoid nut? Do law-abiding citizens have any need to encrypt their email? - Philip Zimmermann</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>PGP creator Phil Zimmermann would disagree with you....http : //www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/index.htmlHere is a partial quotePerhaps you think your email is legitimate enough that encryption is unwarranted .
If you really are a law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide , then why do n't you always send your paper mail on postcards ?
Why not submit to drug testing on demand ?
Why require a warrant for police searches of your house ?
Are you trying to hide something ?
If you hide your mail inside envelopes , does that mean you must be a subversive or a drug dealer , or maybe a paranoid nut ?
Do law-abiding citizens have any need to encrypt their email ?
- Philip Zimmermann</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PGP creator Phil Zimmermann would disagree with you....http://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/index.htmlHere is a partial quotePerhaps you think your email is legitimate enough that encryption is unwarranted.
If you really are a law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide, then why don't you always send your paper mail on postcards?
Why not submit to drug testing on demand?
Why require a warrant for police searches of your house?
Are you trying to hide something?
If you hide your mail inside envelopes, does that mean you must be a subversive or a drug dealer, or maybe a paranoid nut?
Do law-abiding citizens have any need to encrypt their email?
- Philip Zimmermann
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592</id>
	<title>Hold on...</title>
	<author>CajunArson</author>
	<datestamp>1268750880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I need to actually read the case, but:<br>1. Alice sends Bob a message<br>2. Bob decides to post the message on Facebook or even, the police ask Bob for the message and Bob says: Sure here you go!<br>3. Alice has no expectation of privacy <b>from Bob</b> because she chose to send him the message.</p><p>The above situation is <b>already</b> well established as being perfectly fine from long before the time of the Internet.  The meaning of the term "Third Party" is at issue here, and third party does *not* necessarily mean your ISP.  Look at the stored communications act for the rules on how email is treated by law enforcement.  If you send your email to somebody (the "third party") that somebody can choose to hand it over to anyone.  However, this isn't any different than sending a letter over the Pony Express and having the person you sent the letter to read it in the town square for everyone to here.<br>Moral of the story: If you don't trust a third party, don't send them information!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I need to actually read the case , but : 1 .
Alice sends Bob a message2 .
Bob decides to post the message on Facebook or even , the police ask Bob for the message and Bob says : Sure here you go ! 3 .
Alice has no expectation of privacy from Bob because she chose to send him the message.The above situation is already well established as being perfectly fine from long before the time of the Internet .
The meaning of the term " Third Party " is at issue here , and third party does * not * necessarily mean your ISP .
Look at the stored communications act for the rules on how email is treated by law enforcement .
If you send your email to somebody ( the " third party " ) that somebody can choose to hand it over to anyone .
However , this is n't any different than sending a letter over the Pony Express and having the person you sent the letter to read it in the town square for everyone to here.Moral of the story : If you do n't trust a third party , do n't send them information !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I need to actually read the case, but:1.
Alice sends Bob a message2.
Bob decides to post the message on Facebook or even, the police ask Bob for the message and Bob says: Sure here you go!3.
Alice has no expectation of privacy from Bob because she chose to send him the message.The above situation is already well established as being perfectly fine from long before the time of the Internet.
The meaning of the term "Third Party" is at issue here, and third party does *not* necessarily mean your ISP.
Look at the stored communications act for the rules on how email is treated by law enforcement.
If you send your email to somebody (the "third party") that somebody can choose to hand it over to anyone.
However, this isn't any different than sending a letter over the Pony Express and having the person you sent the letter to read it in the town square for everyone to here.Moral of the story: If you don't trust a third party, don't send them information!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496744</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on...</title>
	<author>atheos</author>
	<datestamp>1268758440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was with you up until the whole "Alice granted him an implicit license to read the work", oh please. Did he have to agree to a EULA too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was with you up until the whole " Alice granted him an implicit license to read the work " , oh please .
Did he have to agree to a EULA too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was with you up until the whole "Alice granted him an implicit license to read the work", oh please.
Did he have to agree to a EULA too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497830</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on...</title>
	<author>JM78</author>
	<datestamp>1268762280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>But there is another flaw in your argument. Bob cannot go and post an email that Alice sent to him on Facebook (well, legally at least). Even though Alice doesn't have 4th amendment rights over Bob's copy, she still does hold copyright over the message. She granted him an implicit license to read the work when she sent it to him. She did not grant a license to show that email to anyone else...</i>
<br> <br>
I agree with you up until this point.
<br> <br>
Without a confidentiality agreement between the two private parties (Bob and Alice), information divulged by Alice to Bob is done so of her own accord and with no expectation of privacy. Bob has every right to reveal its content to anyone he chooses. There is a reason NDA's exist. The only way this argument flies is if there is an explicit legal binding between Bob and Alice to keep information pertaining to... whatever... private.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But there is another flaw in your argument .
Bob can not go and post an email that Alice sent to him on Facebook ( well , legally at least ) .
Even though Alice does n't have 4th amendment rights over Bob 's copy , she still does hold copyright over the message .
She granted him an implicit license to read the work when she sent it to him .
She did not grant a license to show that email to anyone else.. . I agree with you up until this point .
Without a confidentiality agreement between the two private parties ( Bob and Alice ) , information divulged by Alice to Bob is done so of her own accord and with no expectation of privacy .
Bob has every right to reveal its content to anyone he chooses .
There is a reason NDA 's exist .
The only way this argument flies is if there is an explicit legal binding between Bob and Alice to keep information pertaining to... whatever... private .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But there is another flaw in your argument.
Bob cannot go and post an email that Alice sent to him on Facebook (well, legally at least).
Even though Alice doesn't have 4th amendment rights over Bob's copy, she still does hold copyright over the message.
She granted him an implicit license to read the work when she sent it to him.
She did not grant a license to show that email to anyone else...
 
I agree with you up until this point.
Without a confidentiality agreement between the two private parties (Bob and Alice), information divulged by Alice to Bob is done so of her own accord and with no expectation of privacy.
Bob has every right to reveal its content to anyone he chooses.
There is a reason NDA's exist.
The only way this argument flies is if there is an explicit legal binding between Bob and Alice to keep information pertaining to... whatever... private.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495490</id>
	<title>Re:Other Amendments</title>
	<author>i.r.id10t</author>
	<datestamp>1268753940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depending on where you live...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depending on where you live.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depending on where you live...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496758</id>
	<title>Re:Why the law is so hard to understand...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268758500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, and I don't really get into this more than your average sheep..</p><p>But if Alice creates a piece of digital work to send to Bob<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. does she by default gain copyright to that work?</p><p>And if so, and the understanding that Alice has given usage rights to Bob via her sharing that work with him, would any further replication of that work be constituted as copyright violation?</p><p>I'm sure there are numerous flaws in my logic, but seems to be an interesting prospect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , and I do n't really get into this more than your average sheep..But if Alice creates a piece of digital work to send to Bob .. does she by default gain copyright to that work ? And if so , and the understanding that Alice has given usage rights to Bob via her sharing that work with him , would any further replication of that work be constituted as copyright violation ? I 'm sure there are numerous flaws in my logic , but seems to be an interesting prospect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, and I don't really get into this more than your average sheep..But if Alice creates a piece of digital work to send to Bob .. does she by default gain copyright to that work?And if so, and the understanding that Alice has given usage rights to Bob via her sharing that work with him, would any further replication of that work be constituted as copyright violation?I'm sure there are numerous flaws in my logic, but seems to be an interesting prospect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494966</id>
	<title>Why the court is wron</title>
	<author>ral</author>
	<datestamp>1268752080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In TFA Volokh, a distinguished law professor, explains why he thinks the court got it wrong:<p><div class="quote"><p>For a real-world example, imagine you write a letter and photocopy it before you put it in the mail. You file the copy in your closet and send the original. During the course of delivery, the original is protected by the Fourth Amendment; when it arrives, you lose Fourth Amendment protection. But the fact that you lose Fourth Amendment protection in the original does not mean that the Government can break into your house and read the copy you made. Conversely, the fact that the recipient of the mail does not have Fourth Amendment rights in the copy does not mean that the government can break into the recipient's house to read the original.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In TFA Volokh , a distinguished law professor , explains why he thinks the court got it wrong : For a real-world example , imagine you write a letter and photocopy it before you put it in the mail .
You file the copy in your closet and send the original .
During the course of delivery , the original is protected by the Fourth Amendment ; when it arrives , you lose Fourth Amendment protection .
But the fact that you lose Fourth Amendment protection in the original does not mean that the Government can break into your house and read the copy you made .
Conversely , the fact that the recipient of the mail does not have Fourth Amendment rights in the copy does not mean that the government can break into the recipient 's house to read the original .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In TFA Volokh, a distinguished law professor, explains why he thinks the court got it wrong:For a real-world example, imagine you write a letter and photocopy it before you put it in the mail.
You file the copy in your closet and send the original.
During the course of delivery, the original is protected by the Fourth Amendment; when it arrives, you lose Fourth Amendment protection.
But the fact that you lose Fourth Amendment protection in the original does not mean that the Government can break into your house and read the copy you made.
Conversely, the fact that the recipient of the mail does not have Fourth Amendment rights in the copy does not mean that the government can break into the recipient's house to read the original.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495090</id>
	<title>Re:Email is like Postcards....</title>
	<author>BetterSense</author>
	<datestamp>1268752500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not the only one that PGP encrypts my postcards, surely? The mail delay on vacations is pretty inconvenient, but hey.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not the only one that PGP encrypts my postcards , surely ?
The mail delay on vacations is pretty inconvenient , but hey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not the only one that PGP encrypts my postcards, surely?
The mail delay on vacations is pretty inconvenient, but hey.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31499610</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone have the right to copy your mail?</title>
	<author>Renevith</author>
	<datestamp>1268769180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can already get this for email. Encrypt. Put your public key on a popular keyserver (e.g. <a href="http://pgp.mit.edu/" title="mit.edu" rel="nofollow">http://pgp.mit.edu/</a> [mit.edu] and give some simple indication (e.g. in your email signature or business card) that you accept PGP encrypted email and your key is available, key ID 1A2B3C4D. If you have a little more room, include the PGP fingerprint (40 hex digits).</p><p>Then anyone who wants to send you email in an "envelope" can do so, and nobody else will be able to read it. Anyone who doesn't care will continue to send "postcard" style email that is essentially public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can already get this for email .
Encrypt. Put your public key on a popular keyserver ( e.g .
http : //pgp.mit.edu/ [ mit.edu ] and give some simple indication ( e.g .
in your email signature or business card ) that you accept PGP encrypted email and your key is available , key ID 1A2B3C4D .
If you have a little more room , include the PGP fingerprint ( 40 hex digits ) .Then anyone who wants to send you email in an " envelope " can do so , and nobody else will be able to read it .
Anyone who does n't care will continue to send " postcard " style email that is essentially public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can already get this for email.
Encrypt. Put your public key on a popular keyserver (e.g.
http://pgp.mit.edu/ [mit.edu] and give some simple indication (e.g.
in your email signature or business card) that you accept PGP encrypted email and your key is available, key ID 1A2B3C4D.
If you have a little more room, include the PGP fingerprint (40 hex digits).Then anyone who wants to send you email in an "envelope" can do so, and nobody else will be able to read it.
Anyone who doesn't care will continue to send "postcard" style email that is essentially public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495122</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before, and I'll say it again..</title>
	<author>Perl-Pusher</author>
	<datestamp>1268752620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would go further, write a haiku for your signature, register the copyright, put a copy right notice in the message and encrypt all of your mail. Decrypting a copyrighted work and making multiple copies, runs a foul of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other copyright laws.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would go further , write a haiku for your signature , register the copyright , put a copy right notice in the message and encrypt all of your mail .
Decrypting a copyrighted work and making multiple copies , runs a foul of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other copyright laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would go further, write a haiku for your signature, register the copyright, put a copy right notice in the message and encrypt all of your mail.
Decrypting a copyrighted work and making multiple copies, runs a foul of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other copyright laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497796</id>
	<title>Re:Works Both Ways</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1268762100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most real organizations with Blackberry phones run the server on their own equipment.  The communication between the server and the phone is heavily encrypted - AES at a minimum with some even more stringent options available.</p><p>Yes, you can have a Blackberry set up to connect to a provider-hosted server where it will fetch your email from Gmail and route it to your phone.  This isn't secure in any way, which is why nobody using this technology for real does it this way.</p><p>iPhone?  I am pretty sure that all communication between the phone and the server is unencrypted.  I do not believe the phone connects to the mail server but uses some intermediary.  Not sure how this works but it isn't very secure.</p><p>Blackberry - very, very secure.  Optionally secure enough for CIA folks.</p><p>iPhone - not secure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most real organizations with Blackberry phones run the server on their own equipment .
The communication between the server and the phone is heavily encrypted - AES at a minimum with some even more stringent options available.Yes , you can have a Blackberry set up to connect to a provider-hosted server where it will fetch your email from Gmail and route it to your phone .
This is n't secure in any way , which is why nobody using this technology for real does it this way.iPhone ?
I am pretty sure that all communication between the phone and the server is unencrypted .
I do not believe the phone connects to the mail server but uses some intermediary .
Not sure how this works but it is n't very secure.Blackberry - very , very secure .
Optionally secure enough for CIA folks.iPhone - not secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most real organizations with Blackberry phones run the server on their own equipment.
The communication between the server and the phone is heavily encrypted - AES at a minimum with some even more stringent options available.Yes, you can have a Blackberry set up to connect to a provider-hosted server where it will fetch your email from Gmail and route it to your phone.
This isn't secure in any way, which is why nobody using this technology for real does it this way.iPhone?
I am pretty sure that all communication between the phone and the server is unencrypted.
I do not believe the phone connects to the mail server but uses some intermediary.
Not sure how this works but it isn't very secure.Blackberry - very, very secure.
Optionally secure enough for CIA folks.iPhone - not secure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495660</id>
	<title>Read the case, not a big deal.</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268754600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200911897.pdf" title="uscourts.gov">http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200911897.pdf</a> [uscourts.gov]</p><p>For are foreign friends:</p><p>4th amendment of the US constitution:</p><p>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."</p><p>From the case:</p><p>&ldquo;a legitimate expectation of privacy in an e-mail that had already reached its recipient&rdquo;);</p><p>This is correct. If yo send me a letter, you do not have any rights of privacy that forbid me from sharing the letter with others.<br>\<br>All other email references in the case were gathered after a Subpena was issued.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200911897.pdf [ uscourts.gov ] For are foreign friends : 4th amendment of the US constitution : " The right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses , papers , and effects , against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated , and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause , supported by Oath or affirmation , and particularly describing the place to be searched , and the persons or things to be seized .
" From the case :    a legitimate expectation of privacy in an e-mail that had already reached its recipient    ) ; This is correct .
If yo send me a letter , you do not have any rights of privacy that forbid me from sharing the letter with others. \ All other email references in the case were gathered after a Subpena was issued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200911897.pdf [uscourts.gov]For are foreign friends:4th amendment of the US constitution:"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"From the case:“a legitimate expectation of privacy in an e-mail that had already reached its recipient”);This is correct.
If yo send me a letter, you do not have any rights of privacy that forbid me from sharing the letter with others.\All other email references in the case were gathered after a Subpena was issued.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495188</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on...</title>
	<author>Nuuk</author>
	<datestamp>1268752860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Alice sends Bob a message:</p><p>Alice is the first party.<br>Bob is the second party.<br>Anyone else can be seen as a third party.</p><p><a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/third\_party" title="wiktionary.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/third\_party</a> [wiktionary.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Alice sends Bob a message : Alice is the first party.Bob is the second party.Anyone else can be seen as a third party.http : //en.wiktionary.org/wiki/third \ _party [ wiktionary.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Alice sends Bob a message:Alice is the first party.Bob is the second party.Anyone else can be seen as a third party.http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/third\_party [wiktionary.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494824</id>
	<title>Lawyers - go figure.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268751540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Judges, lawyers - fools and buffoons to every last man and woman among them. They think they understand logic. They boast about their reasoning prowess.  Ever tried to translate any law into code a computer can parse? </p><p>They're all a bunch of script kiddies without a computer to puke their nonsense back at them. True logic lies in the machine.</p><p>If Congress had to write laws that were held to anything remotely approaching the standard of what computers require of programmers there would be about 3 pages left.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judges , lawyers - fools and buffoons to every last man and woman among them .
They think they understand logic .
They boast about their reasoning prowess .
Ever tried to translate any law into code a computer can parse ?
They 're all a bunch of script kiddies without a computer to puke their nonsense back at them .
True logic lies in the machine.If Congress had to write laws that were held to anything remotely approaching the standard of what computers require of programmers there would be about 3 pages left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judges, lawyers - fools and buffoons to every last man and woman among them.
They think they understand logic.
They boast about their reasoning prowess.
Ever tried to translate any law into code a computer can parse?
They're all a bunch of script kiddies without a computer to puke their nonsense back at them.
True logic lies in the machine.If Congress had to write laws that were held to anything remotely approaching the standard of what computers require of programmers there would be about 3 pages left.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497316</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on...</title>
	<author>Sancho</author>
	<datestamp>1268760360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... and yet we're fine with ripping and distributing the information to which we are granted an explicit license to listen / watch the work when that license was sold to us.</p></div><p>Well... I'm not <b>fine</b> with it, but the truth is that there are different standards applied to government, corporations, and individuals.  Well, the latter two are somewhat conflated in law these days, but you get the point.</p><p>The government, having immense power, is restricted from doing certain things in an attempt to prevent abuse of that power.  Corporations, honestly, should be treated similarly as they enjoy immense power, and have for over 100 years.</p><p>Then there's the morality issue.  Copyright is supposed to be limited (per the Constitution) but is effectively unlimited (per various laws and judicial rulings.)  So expecting individuals to respect a practically (if not technically) unconstitutional copyright is not reasonable.</p><p>But then, what do I know? I'm the one feeding a Score: -1 Troll post.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and yet we 're fine with ripping and distributing the information to which we are granted an explicit license to listen / watch the work when that license was sold to us.Well... I 'm not fine with it , but the truth is that there are different standards applied to government , corporations , and individuals .
Well , the latter two are somewhat conflated in law these days , but you get the point.The government , having immense power , is restricted from doing certain things in an attempt to prevent abuse of that power .
Corporations , honestly , should be treated similarly as they enjoy immense power , and have for over 100 years.Then there 's the morality issue .
Copyright is supposed to be limited ( per the Constitution ) but is effectively unlimited ( per various laws and judicial rulings .
) So expecting individuals to respect a practically ( if not technically ) unconstitutional copyright is not reasonable.But then , what do I know ?
I 'm the one feeding a Score : -1 Troll post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... and yet we're fine with ripping and distributing the information to which we are granted an explicit license to listen / watch the work when that license was sold to us.Well... I'm not fine with it, but the truth is that there are different standards applied to government, corporations, and individuals.
Well, the latter two are somewhat conflated in law these days, but you get the point.The government, having immense power, is restricted from doing certain things in an attempt to prevent abuse of that power.
Corporations, honestly, should be treated similarly as they enjoy immense power, and have for over 100 years.Then there's the morality issue.
Copyright is supposed to be limited (per the Constitution) but is effectively unlimited (per various laws and judicial rulings.
)  So expecting individuals to respect a practically (if not technically) unconstitutional copyright is not reasonable.But then, what do I know?
I'm the one feeding a Score: -1 Troll post.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498770</id>
	<title>Excuse me but...</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1268765940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In large measure it is the courts themselves that set up whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy or not.  There is nothing at all preventing the USPS from opening up all your mail and forwarding the contents to the FBI EXCEPT FOR THE FACT that the courts say that they may not.  My letter in an envelope is not an impregnable fortress that would require an ion cannon to breach.  It is freekin paper and I have no reasonable expectation of privacy aside from what the courts have granted.
<br> <br>
Email is, in my mind, exactly the same situation.  The only way to have a reasonable expectation of privacy is if the courts decide to grant it.  it is a circular logic that really just depends on how the old dudes looking at the case feel at the moment because THEY are CREATING the reasonable expectation or TAKING IT AWAY.
<br> <br>
In any case, this is a great example of why the Constitution is just a "goddamned piece of paper".  In the end freedom is determined by the society and what type of people they elect and who those elected people appoint as judges.  Americans keep voting for Frick or Frack and expect different results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In large measure it is the courts themselves that set up whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy or not .
There is nothing at all preventing the USPS from opening up all your mail and forwarding the contents to the FBI EXCEPT FOR THE FACT that the courts say that they may not .
My letter in an envelope is not an impregnable fortress that would require an ion cannon to breach .
It is freekin paper and I have no reasonable expectation of privacy aside from what the courts have granted .
Email is , in my mind , exactly the same situation .
The only way to have a reasonable expectation of privacy is if the courts decide to grant it .
it is a circular logic that really just depends on how the old dudes looking at the case feel at the moment because THEY are CREATING the reasonable expectation or TAKING IT AWAY .
In any case , this is a great example of why the Constitution is just a " goddamned piece of paper " .
In the end freedom is determined by the society and what type of people they elect and who those elected people appoint as judges .
Americans keep voting for Frick or Frack and expect different results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In large measure it is the courts themselves that set up whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy or not.
There is nothing at all preventing the USPS from opening up all your mail and forwarding the contents to the FBI EXCEPT FOR THE FACT that the courts say that they may not.
My letter in an envelope is not an impregnable fortress that would require an ion cannon to breach.
It is freekin paper and I have no reasonable expectation of privacy aside from what the courts have granted.
Email is, in my mind, exactly the same situation.
The only way to have a reasonable expectation of privacy is if the courts decide to grant it.
it is a circular logic that really just depends on how the old dudes looking at the case feel at the moment because THEY are CREATING the reasonable expectation or TAKING IT AWAY.
In any case, this is a great example of why the Constitution is just a "goddamned piece of paper".
In the end freedom is determined by the society and what type of people they elect and who those elected people appoint as judges.
Americans keep voting for Frick or Frack and expect different results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31499984</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone have the right to copy your mail?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268770680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well... if you're after the copies, wouldn't that mean copyright enforcement? I mean, we hate on it all the time here at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. but this seems like one of the few situations where it could be twisted to serve our own purposes... not only did the ISP make an infringing copy, but clearly so did the government officials.</p><p>Ugh... feel... so dirty....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well... if you 're after the copies , would n't that mean copyright enforcement ?
I mean , we hate on it all the time here at / .
but this seems like one of the few situations where it could be twisted to serve our own purposes... not only did the ISP make an infringing copy , but clearly so did the government officials.Ugh... feel... so dirty... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well... if you're after the copies, wouldn't that mean copyright enforcement?
I mean, we hate on it all the time here at /.
but this seems like one of the few situations where it could be twisted to serve our own purposes... not only did the ISP make an infringing copy, but clearly so did the government officials.Ugh... feel... so dirty....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495622</id>
	<title>What about Corporate emails.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268754420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many Corporate emails have a disclaimer at the bottom, and most must go out to the internet to come back in company.  That being said, if anyone sends a trade secret via email, it's fair game since email is being equated to a PostCard.</p><p>I call someone on the phone, my phone conversation is one on one, and it cannot (in some states) be recorded without my permission.  Since many more people have VOIP, are not our conversations just data streams?</p><p>I should be able to expect a reasonable right to privacy. This means no matter how I communicate, whether text, twitter, phone, email, in person, and even postcard.  Unless I'm yelling something at the top of my lungs for everyone to hear, I'm not openly announcing and relinquishing my right to reasonable privacy.</p><p>But apparently the law doesn't quite work that way.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sigh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many Corporate emails have a disclaimer at the bottom , and most must go out to the internet to come back in company .
That being said , if anyone sends a trade secret via email , it 's fair game since email is being equated to a PostCard.I call someone on the phone , my phone conversation is one on one , and it can not ( in some states ) be recorded without my permission .
Since many more people have VOIP , are not our conversations just data streams ? I should be able to expect a reasonable right to privacy .
This means no matter how I communicate , whether text , twitter , phone , email , in person , and even postcard .
Unless I 'm yelling something at the top of my lungs for everyone to hear , I 'm not openly announcing and relinquishing my right to reasonable privacy.But apparently the law does n't quite work that way .
/sigh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many Corporate emails have a disclaimer at the bottom, and most must go out to the internet to come back in company.
That being said, if anyone sends a trade secret via email, it's fair game since email is being equated to a PostCard.I call someone on the phone, my phone conversation is one on one, and it cannot (in some states) be recorded without my permission.
Since many more people have VOIP, are not our conversations just data streams?I should be able to expect a reasonable right to privacy.
This means no matter how I communicate, whether text, twitter, phone, email, in person, and even postcard.
Unless I'm yelling something at the top of my lungs for everyone to hear, I'm not openly announcing and relinquishing my right to reasonable privacy.But apparently the law doesn't quite work that way.
/sigh</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495534</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268754060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But there is another flaw in your argument. Bob cannot go and post an email that Alice sent to him on Facebook (well, legally at least). Even though Alice doesn't have 4th amendment rights over Bob's copy, she still does hold copyright over the message. She granted him an implicit license to read the work when she sent it to him. She did not grant a license to show that email to anyone else...</p></div><p>... and yet we're fine with ripping and distributing the information to which we are granted an explicit license to listen / watch the work when that license was sold to us.<br> <br>Boy I love the hypocrisy of this!<br> <br>Offering 3:1 odds on me being modded down Flamebait / Off-topic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But there is another flaw in your argument .
Bob can not go and post an email that Alice sent to him on Facebook ( well , legally at least ) .
Even though Alice does n't have 4th amendment rights over Bob 's copy , she still does hold copyright over the message .
She granted him an implicit license to read the work when she sent it to him .
She did not grant a license to show that email to anyone else...... and yet we 're fine with ripping and distributing the information to which we are granted an explicit license to listen / watch the work when that license was sold to us .
Boy I love the hypocrisy of this !
Offering 3 : 1 odds on me being modded down Flamebait / Off-topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But there is another flaw in your argument.
Bob cannot go and post an email that Alice sent to him on Facebook (well, legally at least).
Even though Alice doesn't have 4th amendment rights over Bob's copy, she still does hold copyright over the message.
She granted him an implicit license to read the work when she sent it to him.
She did not grant a license to show that email to anyone else...... and yet we're fine with ripping and distributing the information to which we are granted an explicit license to listen / watch the work when that license was sold to us.
Boy I love the hypocrisy of this!
Offering 3:1 odds on me being modded down Flamebait / Off-topic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494726</id>
	<title>Email is like Postcards....</title>
	<author>EXTomar</author>
	<datestamp>1268751300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Email is like sending a message on a postcard.  How much expectation of privacy did you have doing that?  The onus is up to the sender to protect the message instead of whining about any number of people who can and will inspect the email or the back of the postcard as it goes through the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Email is like sending a message on a postcard .
How much expectation of privacy did you have doing that ?
The onus is up to the sender to protect the message instead of whining about any number of people who can and will inspect the email or the back of the postcard as it goes through the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email is like sending a message on a postcard.
How much expectation of privacy did you have doing that?
The onus is up to the sender to protect the message instead of whining about any number of people who can and will inspect the email or the back of the postcard as it goes through the system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495790</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before, and I'll say it again..</title>
	<author>AndrewNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1268755080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not just web-based clients, but mobile clients. While it could certainly be patched to do so, even my Android phone doesn't support encrypted mail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just web-based clients , but mobile clients .
While it could certainly be patched to do so , even my Android phone does n't support encrypted mail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just web-based clients, but mobile clients.
While it could certainly be patched to do so, even my Android phone doesn't support encrypted mail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495062</id>
	<title>Re:Email is like Postcards....</title>
	<author>vikingpower</author>
	<datestamp>1268752380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although you are right, this is not where the real crux of the case lies. The sad part of it all is that, where "a government should fear its citizens, and not citizens their government" ( forgot who said that ), here Americans very obviously must not even fear their government anymore. This creates an atmosphere of mutual distrust and lack of respect that goes beyond fear.

Which is a very sad thing to happen in a so-called democracy. Even sadder is the fact that the government uses the constitution to be allowed to spy upon its citizens.

In my country of origin, the Netherlands, things are not better, by the way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although you are right , this is not where the real crux of the case lies .
The sad part of it all is that , where " a government should fear its citizens , and not citizens their government " ( forgot who said that ) , here Americans very obviously must not even fear their government anymore .
This creates an atmosphere of mutual distrust and lack of respect that goes beyond fear .
Which is a very sad thing to happen in a so-called democracy .
Even sadder is the fact that the government uses the constitution to be allowed to spy upon its citizens .
In my country of origin , the Netherlands , things are not better , by the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although you are right, this is not where the real crux of the case lies.
The sad part of it all is that, where "a government should fear its citizens, and not citizens their government" ( forgot who said that ), here Americans very obviously must not even fear their government anymore.
This creates an atmosphere of mutual distrust and lack of respect that goes beyond fear.
Which is a very sad thing to happen in a so-called democracy.
Even sadder is the fact that the government uses the constitution to be allowed to spy upon its citizens.
In my country of origin, the Netherlands, things are not better, by the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497342</id>
	<title>DID THE ORIGINAL POSTER READ THE' COURT DOCS?</title>
	<author>qazwart</author>
	<datestamp>1268760480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article in Volokh.com is simply wrong.</p><p>The ISP received a search warrant for the emails and replied to those search warrants. This is well in line with fourth amendment procedures. The defendants in this case were the D.A. and his assistant. The complainant was the one who had the search warrants executed by the D.A. on his emails.</p><p>The warrants had lots of issues and might not be valid. The validity of the warrant and the ability to use any information gleaned from the warrant in court against the defendant was never an issue in this particular case. The court had (several times in fact) ordered all charges be dropped against the complainant and for the D.A. (the defendant in this case) to stop harassing the defendant.</p><p>In this particular case, the complainant filed charges that he was harassed by the D.A. for no reason.  The whole case is that the complainant charged the D.A. and the assistant with multiple infractions. The ruling of the court is whether the D.A. had full and partial sovereign immunity in dealing with the grand jury which heard the case against the complainant.</p><p>In this particular decision, the court ruled that the D.A. did have immunity when he acted in front of the grand jury, but that he could still be charged with harassment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article in Volokh.com is simply wrong.The ISP received a search warrant for the emails and replied to those search warrants .
This is well in line with fourth amendment procedures .
The defendants in this case were the D.A .
and his assistant .
The complainant was the one who had the search warrants executed by the D.A .
on his emails.The warrants had lots of issues and might not be valid .
The validity of the warrant and the ability to use any information gleaned from the warrant in court against the defendant was never an issue in this particular case .
The court had ( several times in fact ) ordered all charges be dropped against the complainant and for the D.A .
( the defendant in this case ) to stop harassing the defendant.In this particular case , the complainant filed charges that he was harassed by the D.A .
for no reason .
The whole case is that the complainant charged the D.A .
and the assistant with multiple infractions .
The ruling of the court is whether the D.A .
had full and partial sovereign immunity in dealing with the grand jury which heard the case against the complainant.In this particular decision , the court ruled that the D.A .
did have immunity when he acted in front of the grand jury , but that he could still be charged with harassment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article in Volokh.com is simply wrong.The ISP received a search warrant for the emails and replied to those search warrants.
This is well in line with fourth amendment procedures.
The defendants in this case were the D.A.
and his assistant.
The complainant was the one who had the search warrants executed by the D.A.
on his emails.The warrants had lots of issues and might not be valid.
The validity of the warrant and the ability to use any information gleaned from the warrant in court against the defendant was never an issue in this particular case.
The court had (several times in fact) ordered all charges be dropped against the complainant and for the D.A.
(the defendant in this case) to stop harassing the defendant.In this particular case, the complainant filed charges that he was harassed by the D.A.
for no reason.
The whole case is that the complainant charged the D.A.
and the assistant with multiple infractions.
The ruling of the court is whether the D.A.
had full and partial sovereign immunity in dealing with the grand jury which heard the case against the complainant.In this particular decision, the court ruled that the D.A.
did have immunity when he acted in front of the grand jury, but that he could still be charged with harassment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494590</id>
	<title>This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268750820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>is very bad news. Poor America, what have you come down to ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>is very bad news .
Poor America , what have you come down to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is very bad news.
Poor America, what have you come down to ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494902</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268751840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>But that's not what happened in this case.  What actually happened was:<ol>
<li>Alice sends Bob a message</li><li>Bob receives the message from his ISP</li><li>Government goes to Bob's ISP and demands a copy of the email</li></ol><p>
So in this particular case, Bob's 4th amendment right was violated, and the data was used against Alice.  So the fact that Alice's rights weren't compromised in the fetching of the data is meaningless because <b>someone's</b> rights --namely Bob's-- were...  And that's where this ruling becomes retarded.  Not because Bob chose to disclose the contents, but because the government willfully violated Bob's rights to incriminate Alice...<br> <br>
But there is another flaw in your argument.  Bob cannot go and post an email that Alice sent to him on Facebook (well, legally at least).  Even though Alice doesn't have 4th amendment rights over Bob's copy, she still does hold copyright over the message.  She granted him an implicit license to read the work when she sent it to him.  She did not grant a license to show that email to anyone else...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that 's not what happened in this case .
What actually happened was : Alice sends Bob a messageBob receives the message from his ISPGovernment goes to Bob 's ISP and demands a copy of the email So in this particular case , Bob 's 4th amendment right was violated , and the data was used against Alice .
So the fact that Alice 's rights were n't compromised in the fetching of the data is meaningless because someone 's rights --namely Bob 's-- were... And that 's where this ruling becomes retarded .
Not because Bob chose to disclose the contents , but because the government willfully violated Bob 's rights to incriminate Alice.. . But there is another flaw in your argument .
Bob can not go and post an email that Alice sent to him on Facebook ( well , legally at least ) .
Even though Alice does n't have 4th amendment rights over Bob 's copy , she still does hold copyright over the message .
She granted him an implicit license to read the work when she sent it to him .
She did not grant a license to show that email to anyone else.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that's not what happened in this case.
What actually happened was:
Alice sends Bob a messageBob receives the message from his ISPGovernment goes to Bob's ISP and demands a copy of the email
So in this particular case, Bob's 4th amendment right was violated, and the data was used against Alice.
So the fact that Alice's rights weren't compromised in the fetching of the data is meaningless because someone's rights --namely Bob's-- were...  And that's where this ruling becomes retarded.
Not because Bob chose to disclose the contents, but because the government willfully violated Bob's rights to incriminate Alice... 
But there is another flaw in your argument.
Bob cannot go and post an email that Alice sent to him on Facebook (well, legally at least).
Even though Alice doesn't have 4th amendment rights over Bob's copy, she still does hold copyright over the message.
She granted him an implicit license to read the work when she sent it to him.
She did not grant a license to show that email to anyone else...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497164</id>
	<title>Re:Why the court is wron</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1268759820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But the fact that you lose Fourth Amendment protection in the original does not mean that the Government can break into your house and read the copy you made.</i> </p><p>They police aren't all that interested in your print-out.</p><p>The e-mailed post may be all they need to establish "probable cause" for a much broader search of your house and grounds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the fact that you lose Fourth Amendment protection in the original does not mean that the Government can break into your house and read the copy you made .
They police are n't all that interested in your print-out.The e-mailed post may be all they need to establish " probable cause " for a much broader search of your house and grounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the fact that you lose Fourth Amendment protection in the original does not mean that the Government can break into your house and read the copy you made.
They police aren't all that interested in your print-out.The e-mailed post may be all they need to establish "probable cause" for a much broader search of your house and grounds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495962</id>
	<title>Re:I've said it before, and I'll say it again..</title>
	<author>JSlope</author>
	<datestamp>1268755620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Switch to an alternative system, don't use e-mail - it's outdated<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Switch to an alternative system , do n't use e-mail - it 's outdated : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Switch to an alternative system, don't use e-mail - it's outdated :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494552</id>
	<title>Does anyone have the right to copy your mail?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268750640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, snail mail isn't allowed to be opened and copied under federal law (exceptions such as military, etc, exist).</p><p>Sec. 1702. Obstruction of correspondence</p><p>Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter
or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it
has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.</p><p>If only we could get the same for email.  That way no copies can be made and handed off to another party.</p><p>Sadly, I doubt this will ever happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , snail mail is n't allowed to be opened and copied under federal law ( exceptions such as military , etc , exist ) .Sec .
1702. Obstruction of correspondenceWhoever takes any letter , postal card , or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter , or from any letter or mail carrier , or which has been in any post office or authorized depository , or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier , before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed , with design to obstruct the correspondence , or to pry into the business or secrets of another , or opens , secretes , embezzles , or destroys the same , shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years , or both.If only we could get the same for email .
That way no copies can be made and handed off to another party.Sadly , I doubt this will ever happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, snail mail isn't allowed to be opened and copied under federal law (exceptions such as military, etc, exist).Sec.
1702. Obstruction of correspondenceWhoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter
or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it
has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.If only we could get the same for email.
That way no copies can be made and handed off to another party.Sadly, I doubt this will ever happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495042</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on...</title>
	<author>strech</author>
	<datestamp>1268752320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I need to actually read the case, but:<br>1. Alice sends Bob a message<br>2. Bob decides to post the message on Facebook or even, the police ask Bob for the message and Bob says: Sure here you go!<br>3. Alice has no expectation of privacy from Bob because she chose to send him the message.</p><p>The above situation is already well established as being perfectly fine from long before the time of the Internet. The meaning of the term "Third Party" is at issue here, and third party does *not* necessarily mean your ISP. Look at the stored communications act for the rules on how email is treated by law enforcement. If you send your email to somebody (the "third party") that somebody can choose to hand it over to anyone. However, this isn't any different than sending a letter over the Pony Express and having the person you sent the letter to read it in the town square for everyone to here.<br>Moral of the story: If you don't trust a third party, don't send them information!</p></div></blockquote><p>Wrong, as you would learn <i>if you RTFA</i>:</p><p>1. Alice sends Bob a message.  There are now copies of the message with both Alice (her ISP) and Bob (his ISP).<br>2. Alice has no expectation of privacy from the copy of the message with Bob because she chose to send him the message.<br>3. Court decides because Alice has no expectation of privacy from Bob's copy of the message, Alice has no expectation of privacy from Alice's copy of the message either, and so the police can grab the email from her ISP without a warrant or probable cause.</p><p>Two quotes from Kerr, now that the site is back up:</p><blockquote><div><p>The conceptual error in Rehberg is in treating Fourth Amendment rights in the copy stored at the ISP as if it were the same as the Fourth Amendment rights in the copy that was delivered.</p></div></blockquote><p>Moreover, the court applied to the emails seized that Rehberg <i>received</i> as well as sent (again quoting Kerr):</p><blockquote><div><p>The complaint suggests that the government obtained both incoming and outgoing e-mails stored with Rehberg&rsquo;s ISP; according to the complaint, investigators &ldquo;obtained Mr. Rehberg&rsquo;s personal e-mails that were sent and received from his personal computer.&rdquo;</p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I need to actually read the case , but : 1 .
Alice sends Bob a message2 .
Bob decides to post the message on Facebook or even , the police ask Bob for the message and Bob says : Sure here you go ! 3 .
Alice has no expectation of privacy from Bob because she chose to send him the message.The above situation is already well established as being perfectly fine from long before the time of the Internet .
The meaning of the term " Third Party " is at issue here , and third party does * not * necessarily mean your ISP .
Look at the stored communications act for the rules on how email is treated by law enforcement .
If you send your email to somebody ( the " third party " ) that somebody can choose to hand it over to anyone .
However , this is n't any different than sending a letter over the Pony Express and having the person you sent the letter to read it in the town square for everyone to here.Moral of the story : If you do n't trust a third party , do n't send them information ! Wrong , as you would learn if you RTFA : 1 .
Alice sends Bob a message .
There are now copies of the message with both Alice ( her ISP ) and Bob ( his ISP ) .2 .
Alice has no expectation of privacy from the copy of the message with Bob because she chose to send him the message.3 .
Court decides because Alice has no expectation of privacy from Bob 's copy of the message , Alice has no expectation of privacy from Alice 's copy of the message either , and so the police can grab the email from her ISP without a warrant or probable cause.Two quotes from Kerr , now that the site is back up : The conceptual error in Rehberg is in treating Fourth Amendment rights in the copy stored at the ISP as if it were the same as the Fourth Amendment rights in the copy that was delivered.Moreover , the court applied to the emails seized that Rehberg received as well as sent ( again quoting Kerr ) : The complaint suggests that the government obtained both incoming and outgoing e-mails stored with Rehberg    s ISP ; according to the complaint , investigators    obtained Mr. Rehberg    s personal e-mails that were sent and received from his personal computer.   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I need to actually read the case, but:1.
Alice sends Bob a message2.
Bob decides to post the message on Facebook or even, the police ask Bob for the message and Bob says: Sure here you go!3.
Alice has no expectation of privacy from Bob because she chose to send him the message.The above situation is already well established as being perfectly fine from long before the time of the Internet.
The meaning of the term "Third Party" is at issue here, and third party does *not* necessarily mean your ISP.
Look at the stored communications act for the rules on how email is treated by law enforcement.
If you send your email to somebody (the "third party") that somebody can choose to hand it over to anyone.
However, this isn't any different than sending a letter over the Pony Express and having the person you sent the letter to read it in the town square for everyone to here.Moral of the story: If you don't trust a third party, don't send them information!Wrong, as you would learn if you RTFA:1.
Alice sends Bob a message.
There are now copies of the message with both Alice (her ISP) and Bob (his ISP).2.
Alice has no expectation of privacy from the copy of the message with Bob because she chose to send him the message.3.
Court decides because Alice has no expectation of privacy from Bob's copy of the message, Alice has no expectation of privacy from Alice's copy of the message either, and so the police can grab the email from her ISP without a warrant or probable cause.Two quotes from Kerr, now that the site is back up:The conceptual error in Rehberg is in treating Fourth Amendment rights in the copy stored at the ISP as if it were the same as the Fourth Amendment rights in the copy that was delivered.Moreover, the court applied to the emails seized that Rehberg received as well as sent (again quoting Kerr):The complaint suggests that the government obtained both incoming and outgoing e-mails stored with Rehberg’s ISP; according to the complaint, investigators “obtained Mr. Rehberg’s personal e-mails that were sent and received from his personal computer.” 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496450</id>
	<title>email is like a telegraph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268757600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>email is like a telegraph, or a switchboard operated phone network. Did the government have the right to take a copy of the telepgraher copy?</p><p>I don't think so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>email is like a telegraph , or a switchboard operated phone network .
Did the government have the right to take a copy of the telepgraher copy ? I do n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>email is like a telegraph, or a switchboard operated phone network.
Did the government have the right to take a copy of the telepgraher copy?I don't think so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498162</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect from ancient judges?</title>
	<author>celle</author>
	<datestamp>1268763600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually when I'm paying for the connection I do expect privacy. Just like I expect it when I rent anything as at the moment its mine.(house, car)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually when I 'm paying for the connection I do expect privacy .
Just like I expect it when I rent anything as at the moment its mine .
( house , car )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually when I'm paying for the connection I do expect privacy.
Just like I expect it when I rent anything as at the moment its mine.
(house, car)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497420</id>
	<title>Re:Why the court is wron</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1268760660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically, the distinction is that they're going to ISPs, which are not the recipient - they're a transit.</p><p>If they were to go to one of the sending computers, that'd be one thing. But they don't: they go to the Post Office and read it there, in essence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , the distinction is that they 're going to ISPs , which are not the recipient - they 're a transit.If they were to go to one of the sending computers , that 'd be one thing .
But they do n't : they go to the Post Office and read it there , in essence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, the distinction is that they're going to ISPs, which are not the recipient - they're a transit.If they were to go to one of the sending computers, that'd be one thing.
But they don't: they go to the Post Office and read it there, in essence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31500552</id>
	<title>Re:Email is like Postcards....</title>
	<author>rastos1</author>
	<datestamp>1268773080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>No, it's very trivial. Your definition of trivial is flawed.</p></div></blockquote><p>
If you are standing next to the system through which the SMTP traffic flows you don't see any e-mailed text. When you find a postcard laying on the sidewalk there is 50\% chance that you can read the message. And there is non-zero probablity that you can wait a bit until the wind flips it over. You don't even have to touch it. Just because you know how to use a packet sniffer does not mean that the message is there in plain view. You skipped steps such as logging into the system and opening the packet sniffer or finding where the MTA stores the messages until the next hop. </p><p>
With x-ray glasses you could see the message in a snail mail envelope too. How is tearing apart a paper envelope not trivial using your definition of trivial?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's very trivial .
Your definition of trivial is flawed .
If you are standing next to the system through which the SMTP traffic flows you do n't see any e-mailed text .
When you find a postcard laying on the sidewalk there is 50 \ % chance that you can read the message .
And there is non-zero probablity that you can wait a bit until the wind flips it over .
You do n't even have to touch it .
Just because you know how to use a packet sniffer does not mean that the message is there in plain view .
You skipped steps such as logging into the system and opening the packet sniffer or finding where the MTA stores the messages until the next hop .
With x-ray glasses you could see the message in a snail mail envelope too .
How is tearing apart a paper envelope not trivial using your definition of trivial ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's very trivial.
Your definition of trivial is flawed.
If you are standing next to the system through which the SMTP traffic flows you don't see any e-mailed text.
When you find a postcard laying on the sidewalk there is 50\% chance that you can read the message.
And there is non-zero probablity that you can wait a bit until the wind flips it over.
You don't even have to touch it.
Just because you know how to use a packet sniffer does not mean that the message is there in plain view.
You skipped steps such as logging into the system and opening the packet sniffer or finding where the MTA stores the messages until the next hop.
With x-ray glasses you could see the message in a snail mail envelope too.
How is tearing apart a paper envelope not trivial using your definition of trivial?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495304</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect from ancient judges?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268753280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>deliberate misinterpretation disguised as misunderstanding</p></div><p>Clarified.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>deliberate misinterpretation disguised as misunderstandingClarified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>deliberate misinterpretation disguised as misunderstandingClarified.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495644</id>
	<title>Results-based reasoning</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1268754540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The court had a conclusion it wanted to reach (that the prosecutors were immune from suit), and it engaged in some sophistry to get there.</p><p>Normally, if Alice send a piece of mail to Bob, once it gets to Bob, Alice no longer has a Fourth Amendment interest in it; Bob however, does.  A number of (bad) cases indicate that if the government just takes the mail from Bob and violates the hell out of his rights, they can still prosecute Alice (but not Bob) for the contents.  Extend that to email, and you can say that if you subpoena the email from the ISP once Bob has it, you can prosecute Alice (even if the subpoena itself should not have been granted due to Bob's interest in the email).  It looks like sophistry designed to vitiate the Fourth Amendment, primarily because it is, but it's sophistry with precedent.</p><p>The court went a lot further out on a limb with the other precedents it cited, however -- comparing intercepting email with the use of a pen register (which captures phone numbers -- addressing information, not content, a distinction which long precedes electronic communication and which judges have no excuse not to understand).  It makes a similar "error" when it compares email content to "subscriber information" (information about the users of the system).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The court had a conclusion it wanted to reach ( that the prosecutors were immune from suit ) , and it engaged in some sophistry to get there.Normally , if Alice send a piece of mail to Bob , once it gets to Bob , Alice no longer has a Fourth Amendment interest in it ; Bob however , does .
A number of ( bad ) cases indicate that if the government just takes the mail from Bob and violates the hell out of his rights , they can still prosecute Alice ( but not Bob ) for the contents .
Extend that to email , and you can say that if you subpoena the email from the ISP once Bob has it , you can prosecute Alice ( even if the subpoena itself should not have been granted due to Bob 's interest in the email ) .
It looks like sophistry designed to vitiate the Fourth Amendment , primarily because it is , but it 's sophistry with precedent.The court went a lot further out on a limb with the other precedents it cited , however -- comparing intercepting email with the use of a pen register ( which captures phone numbers -- addressing information , not content , a distinction which long precedes electronic communication and which judges have no excuse not to understand ) .
It makes a similar " error " when it compares email content to " subscriber information " ( information about the users of the system ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The court had a conclusion it wanted to reach (that the prosecutors were immune from suit), and it engaged in some sophistry to get there.Normally, if Alice send a piece of mail to Bob, once it gets to Bob, Alice no longer has a Fourth Amendment interest in it; Bob however, does.
A number of (bad) cases indicate that if the government just takes the mail from Bob and violates the hell out of his rights, they can still prosecute Alice (but not Bob) for the contents.
Extend that to email, and you can say that if you subpoena the email from the ISP once Bob has it, you can prosecute Alice (even if the subpoena itself should not have been granted due to Bob's interest in the email).
It looks like sophistry designed to vitiate the Fourth Amendment, primarily because it is, but it's sophistry with precedent.The court went a lot further out on a limb with the other precedents it cited, however -- comparing intercepting email with the use of a pen register (which captures phone numbers -- addressing information, not content, a distinction which long precedes electronic communication and which judges have no excuse not to understand).
It makes a similar "error" when it compares email content to "subscriber information" (information about the users of the system).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497196</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect from ancient judges?</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1268759940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that email should be protected by the 4th, but just for argument sake, how does the 4th apply to postcards?  If I send an unencrypted email, my message can be read by anyone, just as if it were on a postcard.  Since the 4th does not (AFAIK) protect against anything that is in plain sight, my guess is that in the same way, a postcard (as well as unencrypted emails perhaps?) would be fair game.
</p><p>Any law-educated folks care to weigh in?
</p><p>
OTOH, if I encrypt my email, I am effectively wrapping it in an envelope to keep others from viewing it.  Ideally, that should invoke 4th amendment protections, because by my logic, if I encrypt a transmission, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  Practically speaking,  sufficient encryption would render the point largely moot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that email should be protected by the 4th , but just for argument sake , how does the 4th apply to postcards ?
If I send an unencrypted email , my message can be read by anyone , just as if it were on a postcard .
Since the 4th does not ( AFAIK ) protect against anything that is in plain sight , my guess is that in the same way , a postcard ( as well as unencrypted emails perhaps ?
) would be fair game .
Any law-educated folks care to weigh in ?
OTOH , if I encrypt my email , I am effectively wrapping it in an envelope to keep others from viewing it .
Ideally , that should invoke 4th amendment protections , because by my logic , if I encrypt a transmission , I have a reasonable expectation of privacy .
Practically speaking , sufficient encryption would render the point largely moot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that email should be protected by the 4th, but just for argument sake, how does the 4th apply to postcards?
If I send an unencrypted email, my message can be read by anyone, just as if it were on a postcard.
Since the 4th does not (AFAIK) protect against anything that is in plain sight, my guess is that in the same way, a postcard (as well as unencrypted emails perhaps?
) would be fair game.
Any law-educated folks care to weigh in?
OTOH, if I encrypt my email, I am effectively wrapping it in an envelope to keep others from viewing it.
Ideally, that should invoke 4th amendment protections, because by my logic, if I encrypt a transmission, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Practically speaking,  sufficient encryption would render the point largely moot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495498</id>
	<title>The only mail that matters....</title>
	<author>wowbagger</author>
	<datestamp>1268754000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only mail that matters is the LETTER, written to YOUR CONGRESSCRITTERs, stating YOUR views in YOUR words, informing them that if they do not correct this hole in the law RIGHT NOW, in a clear and unequivocal fashion, that you WILL work tirelessly to remove them from office and place somebody there who WILL correct this, and that likewise, should they work toward correcting this, you will work tirelessly to keep them in office (so long as they continue to constrain the power of government within the intent of the Constitution).</p><p>(and even that mail won't matter a load of fetid dingo's kidneys if they don't see real consequences this November. If you continue to vote for one side or the other of this wooden nickel that is the Democrats/Republicans, you have contributed to the status quo - don't bitch about it.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only mail that matters is the LETTER , written to YOUR CONGRESSCRITTERs , stating YOUR views in YOUR words , informing them that if they do not correct this hole in the law RIGHT NOW , in a clear and unequivocal fashion , that you WILL work tirelessly to remove them from office and place somebody there who WILL correct this , and that likewise , should they work toward correcting this , you will work tirelessly to keep them in office ( so long as they continue to constrain the power of government within the intent of the Constitution ) .
( and even that mail wo n't matter a load of fetid dingo 's kidneys if they do n't see real consequences this November .
If you continue to vote for one side or the other of this wooden nickel that is the Democrats/Republicans , you have contributed to the status quo - do n't bitch about it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only mail that matters is the LETTER, written to YOUR CONGRESSCRITTERs, stating YOUR views in YOUR words, informing them that if they do not correct this hole in the law RIGHT NOW, in a clear and unequivocal fashion, that you WILL work tirelessly to remove them from office and place somebody there who WILL correct this, and that likewise, should they work toward correcting this, you will work tirelessly to keep them in office (so long as they continue to constrain the power of government within the intent of the Constitution).
(and even that mail won't matter a load of fetid dingo's kidneys if they don't see real consequences this November.
If you continue to vote for one side or the other of this wooden nickel that is the Democrats/Republicans, you have contributed to the status quo - don't bitch about it.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495556</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect from ancient judges?</title>
	<author>AndersOSU</author>
	<datestamp>1268754180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually think the telegraph is a fantastic analogy for email.  A message is drafted by one party, transmitted from one intermediary to another electronically, and delivered to the recipient.  The intermediaries probably even keep logs of some information.</p><p>I'm too lazy to look up the legal understanding of privacy for a telegraph, but if I were involved with this case, I think it would make a good start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually think the telegraph is a fantastic analogy for email .
A message is drafted by one party , transmitted from one intermediary to another electronically , and delivered to the recipient .
The intermediaries probably even keep logs of some information.I 'm too lazy to look up the legal understanding of privacy for a telegraph , but if I were involved with this case , I think it would make a good start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually think the telegraph is a fantastic analogy for email.
A message is drafted by one party, transmitted from one intermediary to another electronically, and delivered to the recipient.
The intermediaries probably even keep logs of some information.I'm too lazy to look up the legal understanding of privacy for a telegraph, but if I were involved with this case, I think it would make a good start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495970</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268755620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But in this case, it doesn't matter whether the recipient of the mail is trustworthy or not. They can just take it "out of the postoffice" (i.e. the ISP running the mail server). This is like taking it out of the mail bag while the pony express rider is changing horses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But in this case , it does n't matter whether the recipient of the mail is trustworthy or not .
They can just take it " out of the postoffice " ( i.e .
the ISP running the mail server ) .
This is like taking it out of the mail bag while the pony express rider is changing horses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But in this case, it doesn't matter whether the recipient of the mail is trustworthy or not.
They can just take it "out of the postoffice" (i.e.
the ISP running the mail server).
This is like taking it out of the mail bag while the pony express rider is changing horses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497118</id>
	<title>Its only logical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268759700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahh, I love the smell of people logically arguing why an illogical system isn't following logic, in the morning. Its right up there with making a joke and having the oblivious butt of it explain to you why it doesn't literally make sense.</p><p>You are all wise and correct beyond your years. Hopefully one of you can explain to us all why a wookie would live on Endor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , I love the smell of people logically arguing why an illogical system is n't following logic , in the morning .
Its right up there with making a joke and having the oblivious butt of it explain to you why it does n't literally make sense.You are all wise and correct beyond your years .
Hopefully one of you can explain to us all why a wookie would live on Endor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, I love the smell of people logically arguing why an illogical system isn't following logic, in the morning.
Its right up there with making a joke and having the oblivious butt of it explain to you why it doesn't literally make sense.You are all wise and correct beyond your years.
Hopefully one of you can explain to us all why a wookie would live on Endor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498104</id>
	<title>Regarding the UNCHECKED thing</title>
	<author>Chemisor</author>
	<datestamp>1268763300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I finally got around to telling them about it today and they fixed it, so feel free to become a NearlyFreeSpeech customer. I may have griped about this one little problem (which they apparently didn't know about), but they really are the best host around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I finally got around to telling them about it today and they fixed it , so feel free to become a NearlyFreeSpeech customer .
I may have griped about this one little problem ( which they apparently did n't know about ) , but they really are the best host around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I finally got around to telling them about it today and they fixed it, so feel free to become a NearlyFreeSpeech customer.
I may have griped about this one little problem (which they apparently didn't know about), but they really are the best host around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498684</id>
	<title>Re:What do you expect from ancient judges?</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1268765640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>/signed, cryptographically with PGP that is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>/signed , cryptographically with PGP that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/signed, cryptographically with PGP that is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497030</id>
	<title>no expectation of privacy</title>
	<author>Sosetta</author>
	<datestamp>1268759400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was given a piece of advice when I started using email:  "Don't put anything in email that you wouldn't want shouted by the town crier in the town square at high noon on announcement day."</p><p>There is no expectation of privacy in email.</p><p>However, ANY encryption method can be used to protect yourself legally.  You can use rot13 if you like, or if you're paranoid, triple rot13.  IANAL, but my understanding is that the DMCA prevents anyone from decrypting your email legally (if not practically).  Decryption of digital transmissions is illegal.</p><p>If you want real privacy on email you send, use pgp.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was given a piece of advice when I started using email : " Do n't put anything in email that you would n't want shouted by the town crier in the town square at high noon on announcement day .
" There is no expectation of privacy in email.However , ANY encryption method can be used to protect yourself legally .
You can use rot13 if you like , or if you 're paranoid , triple rot13 .
IANAL , but my understanding is that the DMCA prevents anyone from decrypting your email legally ( if not practically ) .
Decryption of digital transmissions is illegal.If you want real privacy on email you send , use pgp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was given a piece of advice when I started using email:  "Don't put anything in email that you wouldn't want shouted by the town crier in the town square at high noon on announcement day.
"There is no expectation of privacy in email.However, ANY encryption method can be used to protect yourself legally.
You can use rot13 if you like, or if you're paranoid, triple rot13.
IANAL, but my understanding is that the DMCA prevents anyone from decrypting your email legally (if not practically).
Decryption of digital transmissions is illegal.If you want real privacy on email you send, use pgp.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494682</id>
	<title>Why the law is so hard to understand...</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1268751180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>To the outrage of a number of people I've met, I've suggested that the legal profession is actually not inherently an extremely intellectually rigorous profession on the grounds that most of its "complexities" are what programmers and engineers call "hacks" and in more layman terms, "making shit up as you go along." Exhibit A:<blockquote><div><p>To see where the 11th Circuit is getting this argument, you need to know a little bit about how the Fourth Amendment protects postal mail and packages.  The Fourth Amendment ordinarily protects postal mail and packages during delivery.  The same rule applies to both government postal mail and private delivery companies like UPS:  As soon as the sender drops off the mail in the mailbox, both the sender and recipient enjoy Fourth Amendment protection in the contents of the mail during delivery.  When the mail is delivered to the recipient, the sender loses his Fourth Amendment protection: The Fourth Amendment rights are transfered solely to the recipient.  In practice, this works pretty simply:  Each party has Fourth Amendment protection in the mail when they&rsquo;re in possession of it, and both the sender and receiver have Fourth Amendment rights in the contents of the mail when the postal service or private mail carrier is holding the mail on their mutual behalf.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Exhibit B:</p><blockquote><div><p>The Supreme Court &ldquo;consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.&rdquo;</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Now, a person of **reasonable** intelligence has to ask why the Post Office is holding it in care of the parties and an ISP is not. Even if you expand this out, each party in the routing from point A to point B of the packets of the email message is holding that data temporarily in care of party A until it reaches the email provider of party B who, in turn holds it in care of party B. The very essence of this is that each third party is acting, in a daisy chained relationship, like the Post Office with respect to the transportation of that communication.
<br> <br>
Mr. "I have a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional\_doctorate#Professional\_doctorates" title="wikipedia.org">doctorate in law</a> [wikipedia.org] judge Joe Shmoe" apparently doesn't have the basic sense once attributed to the peasantry to apply the existing rulings to a new scenario. It's not rocket science. There is no reason why email should be subjected to a different standard than snail mail, unless that standard is even more restrictive of the government since some email systems even go so far as to use systems like SSL to explicitly add a level of privacy expectation to the communication not readily had by the average person with snail mail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To the outrage of a number of people I 've met , I 've suggested that the legal profession is actually not inherently an extremely intellectually rigorous profession on the grounds that most of its " complexities " are what programmers and engineers call " hacks " and in more layman terms , " making shit up as you go along .
" Exhibit A : To see where the 11th Circuit is getting this argument , you need to know a little bit about how the Fourth Amendment protects postal mail and packages .
The Fourth Amendment ordinarily protects postal mail and packages during delivery .
The same rule applies to both government postal mail and private delivery companies like UPS : As soon as the sender drops off the mail in the mailbox , both the sender and recipient enjoy Fourth Amendment protection in the contents of the mail during delivery .
When the mail is delivered to the recipient , the sender loses his Fourth Amendment protection : The Fourth Amendment rights are transfered solely to the recipient .
In practice , this works pretty simply : Each party has Fourth Amendment protection in the mail when they    re in possession of it , and both the sender and receiver have Fourth Amendment rights in the contents of the mail when the postal service or private mail carrier is holding the mail on their mutual behalf .
Exhibit B : The Supreme Court    consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.    Now , a person of * * reasonable * * intelligence has to ask why the Post Office is holding it in care of the parties and an ISP is not .
Even if you expand this out , each party in the routing from point A to point B of the packets of the email message is holding that data temporarily in care of party A until it reaches the email provider of party B who , in turn holds it in care of party B. The very essence of this is that each third party is acting , in a daisy chained relationship , like the Post Office with respect to the transportation of that communication .
Mr. " I have a doctorate in law [ wikipedia.org ] judge Joe Shmoe " apparently does n't have the basic sense once attributed to the peasantry to apply the existing rulings to a new scenario .
It 's not rocket science .
There is no reason why email should be subjected to a different standard than snail mail , unless that standard is even more restrictive of the government since some email systems even go so far as to use systems like SSL to explicitly add a level of privacy expectation to the communication not readily had by the average person with snail mail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To the outrage of a number of people I've met, I've suggested that the legal profession is actually not inherently an extremely intellectually rigorous profession on the grounds that most of its "complexities" are what programmers and engineers call "hacks" and in more layman terms, "making shit up as you go along.
" Exhibit A:To see where the 11th Circuit is getting this argument, you need to know a little bit about how the Fourth Amendment protects postal mail and packages.
The Fourth Amendment ordinarily protects postal mail and packages during delivery.
The same rule applies to both government postal mail and private delivery companies like UPS:  As soon as the sender drops off the mail in the mailbox, both the sender and recipient enjoy Fourth Amendment protection in the contents of the mail during delivery.
When the mail is delivered to the recipient, the sender loses his Fourth Amendment protection: The Fourth Amendment rights are transfered solely to the recipient.
In practice, this works pretty simply:  Each party has Fourth Amendment protection in the mail when they’re in possession of it, and both the sender and receiver have Fourth Amendment rights in the contents of the mail when the postal service or private mail carrier is holding the mail on their mutual behalf.
Exhibit B:The Supreme Court “consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.”


Now, a person of **reasonable** intelligence has to ask why the Post Office is holding it in care of the parties and an ISP is not.
Even if you expand this out, each party in the routing from point A to point B of the packets of the email message is holding that data temporarily in care of party A until it reaches the email provider of party B who, in turn holds it in care of party B. The very essence of this is that each third party is acting, in a daisy chained relationship, like the Post Office with respect to the transportation of that communication.
Mr. "I have a doctorate in law [wikipedia.org] judge Joe Shmoe" apparently doesn't have the basic sense once attributed to the peasantry to apply the existing rulings to a new scenario.
It's not rocket science.
There is no reason why email should be subjected to a different standard than snail mail, unless that standard is even more restrictive of the government since some email systems even go so far as to use systems like SSL to explicitly add a level of privacy expectation to the communication not readily had by the average person with snail mail.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31500552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31500566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31514448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31499260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31507364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31500874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31500080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31500344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31501242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31503898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31502326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31507154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31499984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31499610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31501890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31501054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31503590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1235227_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1235227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1235227.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1235227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31500080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1235227.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31500874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495980
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31500552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31499260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1235227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31507154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495690
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1235227.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495048
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498162
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31502326
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498684
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498094
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31500344
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498076
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31498282
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497104
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31500566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495590
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1235227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1235227.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31503590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1235227.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31499610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31499984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31501242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1235227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1235227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1235227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31503898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1235227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1235227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1235227.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31514448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496378
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31494812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31501054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31497390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31507364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1235227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1235227.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1235227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31495814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1235227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31496236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1235227.31501890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
